Why we keep losing wars...

[Meistro]

To The Op :

Because you set standards for winning that are impossible; by any normal metric of war (nation a defeats nation b) America WON the Iraq war. The problem is we're not using a normal metric. What metric are we using anyway?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Agreed we didn't achieve our objectives, but that doesn't mean we lost. There's a difference between packing it in and going home and being defeated.

It's all a matter of technicalities, semantics and how you want to word things. We didn't officially lose any military battles, but the guerilla warfare was successful in that it thwarted our ultimate objectives.

Can one say the U.S. prevailed in Vietnam? No. Not if you're intellectually honest.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What metric are we using anyway?

A functioning Iraqi democracy with a minimal terrorist population that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

That's when we know when we have won.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

It's all a matter of technicalities, semantics and how you want to word things. We didn't officially lose any military battles, but the guerilla warfare was successful in that it thwarted our ultimate objectives.

You're right. But there's a fundamental disctinction. We never waved the white flag, instead we simply walked out.

Can one say the U.S. prevailed in Vietnam? No. Not if you're intellectually honest.

Of course not. But it wasn't like the NVA defeated the US military one on one. If we were in a war for which country would survive, then the U.S. would've obliterated North Vietnam. They were however, as you put it, "successful in that [they] thwarted our ultimate objectives."

 

[Truth-Bringer]

A functioning Iraqi democracy with a minimal terrorist population that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

That's when we know when we have won.

We lost that before the fighting even began then:

The (Islamic) Republic of Iraq

A Strange Sort of Freedom

by Jeffrey Tucker

You know that you are living in strange times when a single news item on the Iraqi Constitution contains supporting comments from Bush ("completing the next step in their transition from dictatorship to democracy... this constitution is good for all Iraqis and that it adequately reflects compromises suitable to all groups") and an open admission that the constituion erects an Islamic state that robs women of rights they had taken for granted under the regime that the US overthrew:

"Under the new constitution, Islam would become the official religion of the Iraqi state, and be regarded as "a main source of legislation." Clerics would more than likely sit on the Supreme Court, and judges would have broad latitude to strike down legislation that conflicted with the religion. Clerics would be given a broad, new role in adjudicating family disputes like marriage, divorce and inheritance. Under most interpretations of Islamic law, women enjoy substantially fewer rights than men."

Here is the text of the Iraqi Constitution, which claims that it was written with help from "heavenly messages." Heaven, it seems, has led the drafters of the document to qualify every freedom and right with the proviso: "This shall be regulated by law."

As for economics: oil, education, and health are decisively nationalized.

Posted by Jeffrey Tucker at August 29, 2005 08:42 AM

http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/004012.asp

 

[Dave]

I look at Vietnam as a battle in the overall war against Communism, just as Iraq is a battle in the overall war against militant Islam. While we did not meet our objectives in Vietnam, it did send a message to the Soviets that America will fight tooth and nail for even the smallest ally and won't give an inch to Communism's expansion without one hell of a fight. Many historians are now looking at the idea of Vietnam as a means of slowing, if not completely halting, the expansion Communism. It was definately a vital part of the U.S. winning the Cold War. Either way, it is impossible to declare a clear cut winner and loser with Vietnam.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Many historians are now looking at the idea of Vietnam as a means of slowing, if not completely halting, the expansion Communism.

Many historians are wrong. The only things Communism creates are poverty and totalitarianism. Communism will always collapse if you give it long enough. A communist country could not sustain a worldwide occupation. Just look at what it's costing us to occupy tiny Iraq.

You need to look at the facts. It was our own grain shipments that kept the Soviet Union afloat:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap19.html
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap20.html

 

[Dave]

Many historians are wrong. The only things Communism creates are poverty and totalitarianism. Communism will always collapse if you give it long enough. A communist country could not sustain a worldwide occupation. Just look at what it's costing us to occupy tiny Iraq.

You need to look at the facts. It was our own grain shipments that kept the Soviet Union afloat:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap19.html
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap20.html

Where were these ideas in the 70s? Oh yeah, they hadnt been thought of because the Soviet Union was falsifying its records and everyone thought the government was doing well even if the people were starving. Of course the U.S. was supplying humanitarian aid, as it does with many nations that have starving people. It was a way to get the people to look at America as a friend instead of the enemy the Soviet government potrayed it as, not a way to prop up the Soviets. My point is that during the Vietnam era, people didn't think that the Sovet Union would collapse and they thought the only means of containing it was by fighting the spread of Communism. The Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own, but Vietnam probably helped speed the process along and limit its spread.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Where were these ideas in the 70s? Oh yeah, they hadnt been thought of because the Soviet Union was falsifying its records and everyone thought the government was doing well even if the people were starving.

Actually, there were a few people in the early 80's who were predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union - James Dale Davidson and Lord Rees-Moggs were two of them - but guess what? They were ignored.

Of course the U.S. was supplying humanitarian aid, as it does with many nations that have starving people.

You should never feed an enemy capable of fighting you. That's just bad policy.

It was a way to get the people to look at America as a friend instead of the enemy the Soviet government potrayed it as, not a way to prop up the Soviets.

Excuses, excuses. But what was the de facto result? The result is that the Soviets were indeed propped up. And the image thing was worthless because the Soviets were still being brainwashed and indoctrinated against America in their government schools. Wake up, man.

My point is that during the Vietnam era, people didn't think that the Sovet Union would collapse and they thought the only means of containing it was by fighting the spread of Communism. The Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own, but Vietnam probably helped speed the process along and limit its spread.

Again, we could have speeded up the process by never starting the grain shipments. The root cause of a problem should always be addressed - not the symptoms.

 

[Dave]

Actually, there were a few people in the early 80's who were predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union - James Dale Davidson and Lord Rees-Moggs were two of them - but guess what? They were ignored.



You should never feed an enemy capable of fighting you. That's just bad policy.



Excuses, excuses. But what was the de facto result? The result is that the Soviets were indeed propped up. And the image thing was worthless because the Soviets were still being brainwashed and indoctrinated against America in their government schools. Wake up, man.



Again, we could have speeded up the process by never starting the grain shipments. The root cause of a problem should always be addressed - not the symptoms.

These guys started predicting the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 80s .... well after the end of the Vietnam conflict. What do they have to do with what we are discussing?

We weren't feeding the enemy, we were feeding civilians in an attempt to undo the brainwashing they had against America. Look at the aid effort in Somalia in the early 90's. Would you say we were "feeding out enemies there too?" How about Hugo Chavez giving cheap oil to several American cities this past winter, was he "feeding his enemies?" Or are these all examples of helping the poor in the effort of changing their views of your country. It's definately propaganda, but so is pretty much everything else these days.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that it was a mistake to give aid to the poor in the Soviet Union, or are you saying that the United States was intentionally trying to prop up the Communist regime?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

We weren't feeding the enemy, we were feeding civilians in an attempt to undo the brainwashing they had against America.

If the Soviets were falsifying records and lying, why do you trust them to tell you they're giving the grain to their people??? The Soviet school system certainly didn't acknowledge this aid - they were still teaching their students that America and Capitalism were the great enemies.

Or are these all examples of helping the poor in the effort of changing their views of your country.

Good luck with that, but it doesn't work. Here's an example of what usually happens with our foreign aid:

Gaza Stripped: Whatever Happened to Arafat's Billions?

http://radaronline.com/features/2006/11/arafat.php

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that it was a mistake to give aid to the poor in the Soviet Union, or are you saying that the United States was intentionally trying to prop up the Communist regime?

I'm saying the food shipments kept the Soviet Union alive far longer than it would have survived otherwise. You can feed the poor of a totalitarian state, but all you do is placate them. Let them rise up and revolt if their government is so oppressive it denies them the right to work to feed them. Why do you want to keep such tyrants in power longer? So they can starve millions more like Stalin did in Ukraine? Wake up.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Dave, your problem seems to be that you sincerely trust governments to do the right thing. You need to learn to be a little more skeptical. The following is a good example of why:

"Norman Cousins - best known for his book Anatomy of an Illness - also wrote The Pathology of Power:

"The attachment to total power in our time not only has not served the purposes of national security but threatens to bring about a basic change in the kind of balanced relationship between government and people that is the central feature in the political architecture of the American Constitution-makers. No aspect of this threat is more apparent than the way genuine national security requirements have been allowed to serve as the occasion for an assault on the wealth of the American people. The chapters that follow summarize the reports of public and private investigators - reports documenting the loss amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, through waste, bribery, kickbacks, circumvention of competitive bidding, flawed weapons systems, and sheer incompetence in the military program."

Cousins tells the story of "the M-16: a rifle that couldn't." He describes how the Vietcong, after winning a firefight, would strip the dead American bodies of "everything useful - boots, canteens, knives, grenades, rations, and so on. Even relatively outmoded rifles of World War II were eagerly snatched up. Yet the Vietcong disdained the M-16s, leaving them behind on the ground." Cousins then quotes from an article on the M-16 by James Fallows in the June 1981 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. The article includes quotes from various letters from American infantry soldiers in Vietnam:

"Our M-16s aren't worth much... Out of 40 rounds I've fired, my rifle jammed about 10 times... These rifles are getting a lot of guys killed because they jam so easily... " "The weapon has failed us at crucial moments... as many as 50 percent of the rifles fail to work." "During this fight... I lost some of my best buddies. I personally checked their weapons. Close to 70 percent had a round stuck in the chamber, and take my word it was not their fault."

Cousins then describes the development of the M-16, which started with the M-14 rifle. The M-14 had a major drawback in that its recoil during automatic fire was so violent that it bucked and jolted, and was difficult to aim. Weapons designer Eugene Stoner invented the AR-15 rifle as a solution. It was manufactured by the Armelite Corporation. It fired high-impact .22-caliber bullets, and was much lighter than the M-14 which used .30-caliber bullets. As a result a soldier with an AR-15 could carry three times as much ammunition as one with an M-14. The AR-15 was virtually jam-proof. It was a dream weapon. The Green Berets and the paratroopers requested and got them.

But in the early 1960s the Army Material Command falsified tests to "prove" that the M-14 was superior to the AR-15. They blocked the general issuance of the AR-15. The top brass considered Armelite an "outside" company. The Army ordinance "experts" decided to redesign the AR-15. Among other "bells and whistles," they introduced a new pattern of spiral grooving in the barrel. They changed the gunpowder in the ammunition. The end-result was a disaster, called the M-16 rifle. It overheated and jammed, both in tests and on the battlefield. In 1967 the House Armed Services Committee investigated the M-16. Their verdict included that "The failure... of officials with authority in the Army to... correct the deficiencies... borders on criminal negligence."

Cousins also writes:
"In 1966, [Rear Admiral Gene] La Rocque was asked by the secretary of the Navy, Paul Nitze, to head a task force of ten senior officers to study the Vietnam War and make recommendations for action. The question put to them: "What should the U.S. do?"

The team went to Vietnam. "We looked at all the options for completing the war, "La Rocque recalled. "It became obvious that we were wasting kids without really knowing why. There were no real goals. And that was what I told General [William] Westmoreland, 'You're spending $90,000 a day... and you don't really know why.'" After nine months of research, the group concluded that there was no way they could win the war in Vietnam, and advised Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara accordingly."

These are just two samples from three pages of Cousins's book.

From: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/rape9.shtml

 

[Grounded]

It's true.

We can't always trust the government to do the right thing.

 

[Dave]

What the hell do M-16's jamming have to do with misdirected aid to the Soviet Union? You still never answered my question.

When the U.S. government ignores starving people, Darfur happens. When the U.S. government does try to aid starving people Mogadishu-1993 happens. Either way the United States government gets blamed for anything wrong that happens. The problem with you Truth-Bringer, is that you fail to see that governments are comprised of people like you and me. You see governments as a single entity, and fail to see that what you call the actions of a government, are the actions of regular people. In your world, do people that are employed by the government suddenly turn evil with that first paycheck, or is it a more gradual process? Either way, you need to be less cynical.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

What the hell do M-16's jamming have to do with misdirected aid to the Soviet Union?

Dave, I think you're experiencing something called Cognitive Dissonance. You seem to be reorganizing your thoughts in a way to avoid the truth. The issue with the M-16's is that the government and the military LIED. As a result, soldiers were fraudulently given a defective weapon, which in many cases cost them their lives. The military considered lying to preserve its private agenda more important than the lives of the soldiers. That's immoral and unethical, and it could be argued, downright evil. Face the facts, Dave.

You still never answered my question.

Dave, did you miss the post before that one? I asked you some questions there too.

When the U.S. government ignores starving people, Darfur happens.

No, when the citizens of Sudan refuse to fight back against tyranny and stand up for their rights and establish a government based on respect for personal, civil and economic rights for all the people in the region, then Darfur happens. It's their problem to deal with, not ours. It's not the job of the American taxpayer to pay to fix the problems of the Sudan. It's not the job of the American soldier to go die for Sudan.

When the U.S. government does try to aid starving people Mogadishu-1993 happens. Either way the United States government gets blamed for anything wrong that happens.

And then there's a lot that the U.S. government deserves blame for, such as:

Why Do They Hate Us?
http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html

The problem with you Truth-Bringer, is that you fail to see that governments are comprised of people like you and me.

They're not made up of people like me, because I don't steal from other people and run up trillions of dollars worth of debt on other people's tabs. I also don't send armed men around the world to kill other people. Speak for yourself, pal.

You see governments as a single entity, and fail to see that what you call the actions of a government, are the actions of regular people. In your world, do people that are employed by the government suddenly turn evil with that first paycheck, or is it a more gradual process?

No, I don't see government as a singular entity. Can you disprove the following?:

IS GOVERNMENT A SOLUTION TO ANYTHING?

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua9.shtml

I don't agree with their final solution, but I think most of their points are otherwise valid.

Either way, you need to be less cynical.

The American people need to be more skeptical about their government and the politicians that comprise it. They're wasting a lot of the money they still from them:


"According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." - Donald Rumsfeld, 2002

Trillions of dollars are missing from the US government. What's going on? Where is the money? How could this happen? Where are the checks and balances? How much more has gone missing? What would happen if a corporation failed to pass an audit like this? Or a taxpayer? Who is responsible for this? Would your banks continue to handle your bank account if you behaved like this? Would your investors continue to buy your securities if you behaved like this? Learn more in the articles below.

http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm

http://www.wanttoknow.info/corruptiongovernmentmilitary

For numerous listings of government waste on a state by state basis, check out:

http://www.apatheticvoter.com/FederalStateWaste.htm