America’s Very Long War

[Ponca Dan]

This should be required reading for those who have succumbed to the propaganda of American exceptionalism and the desire to spread it far and wide.

A Very Long War

In the long and storied history of the United States Army, many young officers have served in many war zones. Few, I suspect, were as sublimely ignorant as I was in the summer of 1970

tomdispatch.com

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

In the 240+ years of Americas existence there has been probably less than 2 decades total time that the USoA has not been involved in some sort of armed conflict.

Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of wars involving the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ponca Dan]

In the 240+ years of Americas existence there has been probably less than 2 decades total time that the USoA has not been involved in some sort of armed conflict.

Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of wars involving the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And your point is?

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

And your point is?

That you seem to think that America today is some immoral agent and the current modern wars are some sort of new thing in the American experience.

 

[Ponca Dan]

That you seem to think that America today is some immoral agent and the current modern wars are some sort of new thing in the American experience.

Before I say anything else I’d like to ask if you read the link.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Before I say anything else I’d like to ask of you read the link.

I read the opening section and I skimmed through the rest before my first reply.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I read the opening section and I skimmed through the rest before my first reply.

So you read the introduction by the moderator and skimmed the actual article? Okay, I do stuff like that, too, when I’m convinced going in that I won’t like what I hear.

I actually believe it is a very thought provoking thesis, one I’d never heard before. I think he makes a good point that there is a delineated connection between the same mindset that dragged us into VietNam and Afghanistan, and that mindset produced the same humiliating results both times, both to our military's reputation and the actual results on the ground in the aftermath. I also appreciated that he recognized the primary difference between the two wars: VietNam was fought with American slaves via the draft, which led to violent discontent by the people, while Afghanistan was fought by volunteers, which allowed the public to ignore the carnage being unleashed in its name. As he put it the mindset that got us in WW1 led to the mindset that brought us to WW2. So, after the debacle of Vietnam our political elites never examined or questioned what led to our humiliation, which led us straight into Afghanistan. His hope is that now our elites will know better. (Considering they’re on the brink of doing it yet again in Ukraine, I would say they have learned nothing.)

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

So you read the introduction by the moderator and skimmed the actual article? Okay, I do stuff like that, too, when I’m convinced going in that I won’t like what I hear.

I actually believe it is a very thought provoking thesis, one I’d never heard before. I think he makes a good point that there is a delineated connection between the same mindset that dragged us into VietNam and Afghanistan, and that mindset produced the same humiliating results both times, both to our military's reputation and the actual results on the ground in the aftermath. I also appreciated that he recognized the primary difference between the two wars: VietNam was fought with American slaves via the draft, which led to violent discontent by the people, while Afghanistan was fought by volunteers, which allowed the public to ignore the carnage being unleashed in its name. As he put it the mindset that got us in WW1 led to the mindset that brought us to WW2. So, after the debacle of Vietnam our political elites never examined or questioned what led to our humiliation, which led us straight into Afghanistan. His hope is that now our elites will know better. (Considering they’re on the brink of doing it yet again in Ukraine, I would say they have learned nothing.)

Went back and read it carefully.

So rejecting the premise on Afghanistan (not Vietnam), how would one win that war? Did he explore how the USoA could have won either? No he did not.

If we can not go to war when we have been attacked then we can never go to war. You might make a case for Iraq but not Afghanistan.

I am neither a pacifist or warmonger.

US troops have kept the peace in Korea for 70 years with a small force. How? NK knows that the small force is a guarantee of overwhelming force behind it should it be attacked.

If NATO put sufficient troops in Ukraine to stop Russia from a swift victory then Putin would know that should he attack he will have to deal with a much larger force that he can not defeat long term.

People make 2 wrong assumptions. Either Putin is a reckless fool or that Russia is on par with the UsoA.

1 assumes Putin would attack a NATO tripwire force knowing that it ends badly for him and possibly the world but no way Russia survives a real war with NATO. Nukes ensure no winners. Putin is not a jihadi.

2 Assumes Russia could win such a war if NATO is truly committed to winning or even America alone if it came to it.

Someone threw up raw numbers and then said Russia had 5th gen fighters implying some sort of parity. They field 14! Poland alone has double that at 32. @ 2 to 1 kill rate with Poland in favor to Russia, they are still out of jets and their industrial capacity is diddly. The f35 however would probably have a 10 to 1 kill rate leaving Poland ~29 and Russia 0.

America has over 100 f22s with 200 made and over 360 f35s that could enter the theater and Russia would have no 5th gens.

But I see 2 courses to avoiding this war. NATO/EU hands over the Ukraine without a fight or It puts troops in Ukraine to prevent Putin from invading. The former invites future demands and aggression the latter will determine if Putin is a reckless fool and the new Hitler takes us all down with him or whether he admits there will not be a greater Russia at this time , packs up and goes home to enjoy his billions in retirement.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Went back and read it carefully.

So rejecting the premise on Afghanistan (not Vietnam), how would one win that war? Did he explore how the USoA could have won either? No he did not.

If we can not go to war when we have been attacked then we can never go to war. You might make a case for Iraq but not Afghanistan.

I am neither a pacifist or warmonger.

US troops have kept the peace in Korea for 70 years with a small force. How? NK knows that the small force is a guarantee of overwhelming force behind it should it be attacked.

If NATO put sufficient troops in Ukraine to stop Russia from a swift victory then Putin would know that should he attack he will have to deal with a much larger force that he can not defeat long term.

People make 2 wrong assumptions. Either Putin is a reckless fool or that Russia is on par with the UsoA.

1 assumes Putin would attack a NATO tripwire force knowing that it ends badly for him and possibly the world but no way Russia survives a real war with NATO. Nukes ensure no winners. Putin is not a jihadi.

2 Assumes Russia could win such a war if NATO is truly committed to winning or even America alone if it came to it.

Someone threw up raw numbers and then said Russia had 5th gen fighters implying some sort of parity. They field 14! Poland alone has double that at 32. @ 2 to 1 kill rate with Poland in favor to Russia, they are still out of jets and their industrial capacity is diddly. The f35 however would probably have a 10 to 1 kill rate leaving Poland ~29 and Russia 0.

America has over 100 f22s with 200 made and over 360 f35s that could enter the theater and Russia would have no 5th gens.

But I see 2 courses to avoiding this war. NATO/EU hands over the Ukraine without a fight or It puts troops in Ukraine to prevent Putin from invading. The former invites future demands and aggression the latter will determine if Putin is a reckless fool and the new Hitler takes us all down with him or whether he admits there will not be a greater Russia at this time , packs up and goes home to enjoy his billions in retirement.

I’m on my way to bed, I’ll respond more thoroughly tomorrow. But for now let me leave with this. You argue that it is appropriate for America to go to war if it has been attacked. How is America being attached if Russia invades Ukraine?

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

I’m on my way to bed, I’ll respond more thoroughly tomorrow. But for now let me leave with this. You argue that it is appropriate for America to go to war if it has been attacked. How is America being attached if Russia invades Ukraine?

Did I say that was the only justification?

I believe we have a treaty with them from the time they gave up their nukes. Russia signed also.

Maybe they should fire up the reactors and build some new ones. Bet Pooty would respect that if Moscow was a target.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Went back and read it carefully.

So rejecting the premise on Afghanistan (not Vietnam), how would one win that war? Did he explore how the USoA could have won either? No he did not.

If we can not go to war when we have been attacked then we can never go to war. You might make a case for Iraq but not Afghanistan.

I am neither a pacifist or warmonger.

US troops have kept the peace in Korea for 70 years with a small force. How? NK knows that the small force is a guarantee of overwhelming force behind it should it be attacked.

If NATO put sufficient troops in Ukraine to stop Russia from a swift victory then Putin would know that should he attack he will have to deal with a much larger force that he can not defeat long term.

People make 2 wrong assumptions. Either Putin is a reckless fool or that Russia is on par with the UsoA.

1 assumes Putin would attack a NATO tripwire force knowing that it ends badly for him and possibly the world but no way Russia survives a real war with NATO. Nukes ensure no winners. Putin is not a jihadi.

2 Assumes Russia could win such a war if NATO is truly committed to winning or even America alone if it came to it.

Someone threw up raw numbers and then said Russia had 5th gen fighters implying some sort of parity. They field 14! Poland alone has double that at 32. @ 2 to 1 kill rate with Poland in favor to Russia, they are still out of jets and their industrial capacity is diddly. The f35 however would probably have a 10 to 1 kill rate leaving Poland ~29 and Russia 0.

America has over 100 f22s with 200 made and over 360 f35s that could enter the theater and Russia would have no 5th gens.

But I see 2 courses to avoiding this war. NATO/EU hands over the Ukraine without a fight or It puts troops in Ukraine to prevent Putin from invading. The former invites future demands and aggression the latter will determine if Putin is a reckless fool and the new Hitler takes us all down with him or whether he admits there will not be a greater Russia at this time , packs up and goes home to enjoy his billions in retirement.

1) His thesis was not about finding ways to win those wars. He was suggesting American hubris got us into wars we should not have entered in the first place, and perhaps it would be a good idea to examine the hubris that brought shame onto us.

2) Peace in Korea has very little to do with American troops stationed as a trip-wire in the south, and much more to do with the fact that Truman bombed the north into the Cave Age. Literally the Cave Age. North Koreans took to caves to escape the bombing. Generals finally had to come to Truman and tell him there was nothing left to bomb. North Korea is a repulsive repressive regime, no one says they aren't. But they have posed no threat to our country in the entire 70 years you bring up. The main purpose for our continued presence in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan is to pose a military threat to China.

3) The rest of your comment is about the situation in Ukraine, a subject not broached in the link, but mentioned as an aside by me at the end of my comment. You seemed to want to argue with a poster from another thread about logistical and technical abilities, and how the US has far more fire power than our potential enemy. I have no idea who is correct in that debate, nor does this thread show any interest. I will point out, however, that the US had enormous logistical and technological advantages over the North Vietnamese and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we got our asses thrown out of both places in the most humiliating fashion possible. There seems to be far more involved in winning a war than having technical advantages, which is a lesson the American war-mongering elitists that control our destiny have failed to learn. That's the point of the whole article.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

1) His thesis was not about finding ways to win those wars. He was suggesting American hubris got us into wars we should not have entered in the first place, and perhaps it would be a good idea to examine the hubris that brought shame onto us.

2) Peace in Korea has very little to do with American troops stationed as a trip-wire in the south, and much more to do with the fact that Truman bombed the north into the Cave Age. Literally the Cave Age. North Koreans took to caves to escape the bombing. Generals finally had to come to Truman and tell him there was nothing left to bomb. North Korea is a repulsive repressive regime, no one says they aren't. But they have posed no threat to our country in the entire 70 years you bring up. The main purpose for our continued presence in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan is to pose a military threat to China.

3) The rest of your comment is about the situation in Ukraine, a subject not broached in the link, but mentioned as an aside by me at the end of my comment. You seemed to want to argue with a poster from another thread about logistical and technical abilities, and how the US has far more fire power than our potential enemy. I have no idea who is correct in that debate, nor does this thread show any interest. I will point out, however, that the US had enormous logistical and technological advantages over the North Vietnamese and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we got our asses thrown out of both places in the most humiliating fashion possible. There seems to be far more involved in winning a war than having technical advantages, which is a lesson the American war-mongering elitists that control our destiny have failed to learn. That's the point of the whole article.

"Then, add into the mix a near total absence of competent political oversight; deficient generalship, with senior officers struggling to comprehend the nature of the wars they were charged with waging; unwarranted confidence in the utility of advanced military technology;"

Here he discusses factors that helped lead to defeat. The implication is that victory could have been achieved. Vietnam was a war of choice. Afghanistan was not in as much as we had been attacked.

We could still be there today if we chose to do so. But if one goes about nation building one should not half -@ss it like W did.

I would have preferred wack-o-mole approach instead of nation building.

 

[Ponca Dan]

"Then, add into the mix a near total absence of competent political oversight; deficient generalship, with senior officers struggling to comprehend the nature of the wars they were charged with waging; unwarranted confidence in the utility of advanced military technology;"

Here he discusses factors that helped lead to defeat. The implication is that victory could have been achieved. Vietnam was a war of choice. Afghanistan was not in as much as we had been attacked.

We could still be there today if we chose to do so. But if one goes about nation building one should not half -@ss it like W did.

I would have preferred wack-o-mole approach instead of nation building.

I think you are trying too hard to make his thesis fit your narrative. What you quoted was his example of how our hubris led to defeat. He’s talking about our mindset going into the whole affair. We had won WW2, we were the only superpower, it was proof in the elites’ minds that we were exceptional, that we could barrel our way into any situation and our opponents would roll over. It’s the same attitude that was repeated and brought us the Afghanistan debacle. He’s not offering a War College analysis of what went technically wrong, what we should have done to win either war. He’s saying we shouldn't have kept the smug superior “we’re exceptional” attitude that humiliated us in Vietnam. And he’s hoping there won’t be a third time.