Has Bush* shown the world that the US Army is a paper tiger?

[Bonobo]

I have not heard this discussed and I would love to hear thoughtful opinions on this.
I have heard that the US would be extremely hard pressed to increase troop levels beyond what we have now. If a little war in Iraq can paralyze the US armed forces, are we not showing to the world that we are far weaker than we once appeared?

Hasn't Bush* in fact put us into great danger by letting the secret out of the bag?
Couldn't China or North Korea, for example, pretty much do what they wanted to with the full knowledge that we can't do shit!?

Isn't this just another example of how we are now less, rather than more, secure thanks to the Smirking Rictus?

[cheezus]

1. pretty much kills the "they're scared of invasion" policy argument

Think Iran or Pakistan is SCARED now?

[displacedtexan]

2. Yep.

The world now knows that the only real power we have left is the nuclear kind...

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. yes indeed

We were suposed to fight a two front war with current force levels

For chrissakes we cannot even fight well in one theater... yes technically Afghanistan and Iraq are in one theater of operations, CENTOM.

[samsingh]

4. i've wondered the same thing

shrub has hurt the reputation of the armed services. not being able to succeed in Iraq sure makes a mockery of our posturing to China about Taiwan.

the west is also vulnerable right now with most of the fighting forces in iraq.

[IrateCitizen]

5. Great at force-on-force combat, horrible at occupation...

THAT is how I would describe the US Army.

The United States Armed Forces are, far and away, the most technologically-advanced, best-trained forces in history. However, all of that technology and training in force-on-force combat does you know good when operating against a native population that only wants you to leave, and when you can't tell who is shooting at you and who isn't.

[Mountainman]

6. They were never expected to fight house to house remember?

It was going to be shock and aw and few casualties. They said the country would not stand for a house to house war with lots of casualties.

Also were are fighting with weekend warriors.

Our army is tough provided you supply them and train them for the war you expect them to fight.

[DinahMoeHum]

10. House-to-house combat. One year late, but now here it is.

I saw this coming a million miles away. I was late by a year, but it doesn't matter now. It's here.


:nuke:

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. Don't forget the nuclear option

If Bush can't invade, he could always play the genocide card.



http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Zero Gravitas]

8. No

Iraq was the paper tiger and we toppled Saddam's government easily. Imposing our government on Iraq is different matter and requires more than military power. Falluja was a lose/lose situation for the US. They just chose one way of losing. They could have gone in and won a military "victory" but the consequences of that would have been even worse than letting the resistance keep the city.

We're screwed thanks to Bush's ignorance and arrogance.

[Zero Gravitas]

9. Dupe

[dr.strangelove]

11. No

I preface my comments with a disclaimer. War is BAD. People die. War should always be a last resort. This question does not ask whether the war in Iraq is just or necessary, and the it is not in either case. This question asks if the Iraq war has shown the US military to be weak.

It has not. The US Military remains the strongest fighting force in the world. The kill ratio in Iraq is 540 US combat deaths to ~6000 Iraqi military and para-military deaths. (Esitmates form DOD and Central Command).

I prefaced my comments because there are 7000+ dead people that should not be dead. However, to call a force that produces a kill ratio of 10:! a paper tiger is very wrong.

Misguided they may be (led by a bumbling idiot for a commander in chief), they do what they do very well.

[Ironpost]

12. more secure, sure

We have an enormous amount of work to do once we get him out. some how we have to pay for our little folly. We hardly have any Friends as a country anymore. we squandered a golden goose "surplus", we've bombed two country's, killed no telling how many. the other day i was reading that we are going further in debt by almost one million dollars a minute. is this absurd or what... More secure, safer, Don't think so.

[stopbush]

13. I started a very similar thread late last PM.

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=116&topic_id=5405

[Bonobo]

14. Thanks for the comments everyone.

I suppose on reflection that the question was too simplistic. It's true: we can "kick ass" more than anyone else our size. But that leaves out of the equation what do you do after you kick ass. Still, I would hold fast to my opinion that we have weakened national security as a result of our bluff about being able to fight two simultaneous wars being called.

[RafterMan]

15. No

No foreign government wants to be in the position the Iraqi government is in now.