Why do wars take so long now?

[asdjrocky]

The civil war didn't last this long. Neither did WW1 or WW2. If we are the most powerful country on the planet with with the most awesome military imaginable, then why does it take so long to fight a war now? I thought we got better at killing people. It seems we're back to the middle ages and the only war we know how to fight is the hundred year war.

I can't help that notice that from the time Dwight D Eisenhower warned us of the coming military industrial complex wars have gotten longer and longer.

Think maybe it's a profit thing?

[Hannah Bell]

1. one of the few remaining profit centers in a down economy.

[asdjrocky]

11. An answer I can understand.

[question everything]

30. Do you want a real answer or a partisan sound bite?

When you have wars between regular armies, like the German and the Allies, eventually the governments make a decision to surrender, or to agree to conditions, etc.

When you are fighting groups with their own agenda and their own leaders where there is no central command, or even a government that decides how much it can throw resources; when citizens have no say in the war, when often poor people get dragged into a war, their wives get raped, their children get "drafted" or killed, their farms get taken over or simply destroyed - who is there to decide?

[asdjrocky]

37. So exactly who are we fighting?

It seems the only wars fought in the twentieth century are against these hard to identify "others."

[question everything]

41. Now, that's a different question

I, for one, was glad that we intervened in WWII and did not follow many here who were isolationists. And I was glad when we intervened in Kosovo in the 90s.

Yes, I know. We cannot solve the problems of the whole world. And clearly we find some area more "worthy" od intervention than others. And for a long time it appeared that when we intervened, we did so on the side of dictators and ruthless corrupt rulers.

I am glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer the dictator of Iraq. I wish that we left six months after the invasion, let other nations, especially from neighboring Arab countries to help restore some order. And, perhaps, had we left Iraq and re focused our attention on Afghanistan, there would have not been so many dead and wounded and miserable people in that part of the world. And I am not even talking about our own troops.

I don't know what the answer is here. Everyone agrees that the surge in Iraq worked. And everyone agrees that setting a time line to leave Iraq kinda worked. They still kill each other. I was appalled to read this morning that "only 88 people" were killed in Iraq in November, the lowest number.

As with my previous post, Iraq, at least, always had and now has some semblance of a central government. Afghanistan is a bunch of tribes pushing opium. But if Obama and his generals have a specific plan, similar to the surge in Iraq, I am willing to wait and see. Of course, I don't have any family or friends who are or will be deployed there..

But, there are plenty of posts here talking specifically about Obama's new plan, and there will be a lot of commentaries so just read them and then form your own opinion

:hi:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Wars don't take long. Occupations and nation-building do

In Afghanistan our objective was to remove the taliban from power. Took about a week.

In Iraq or objective was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Took about two weeks.

The rest is occupation with strategic objectives and that can take forever.

If we were really at WAR--like fighting for our very existence--with these countries we could nuke them in non-existence or irrelevance in a few hours.

These are foreign policy excursions more than real wars.

WWII was total war with a set objective. (Unconditional surrender of the governments of the nations involved.)

Same with the civil war, at least after a point. Total war with straight-forward goals.

[icnorth]

19. Five stars out of five. n/t

[Ghost Dog]

38. Yes. It is because you are the invaders.

[cemaphonic]

39. Yep, Germany and Japan were occupied in force for quite a long time after WWII

and we still maintain a few bases there from that era, though they are more for NATO purposes now.

after the ACW, the Confederate States were under military occupation during Reconstruction.

The actual "war" part of the Iraq War was very brief by any standards.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. In WWI and WWII, we were at war against nations

We are not fighting a military in the middle east. Why it is a quagmire.

[Mari333]

4. lots of money to be made

why would they want them to end?
corporations and neocons are veryyy happy.

[leftstreet]

5. The$e thing$ take time n/t

[no limit]

6. You cant really compare this to the civil war, ww1 or ww2

In those war we were fighting an actual enemy. Here we are fighting an ideology, and thats a fight you will never be able to win.

[slackmaster]

7. They have to allow time for commercial breaks, just like professional football games do

A football game seems to take a lot longer when you are watching it in person, compared to watching it on TV.

[arcadian]

8. It's not a war, it's an occupation.

[onenote]

12. right and the russian occupation of afghanistan lasted a decade

[Hannah Bell]

17. you mean the proxy war with the US.

[Cant trust em]

9. These aren't wars against countries.

They're more like skirmishes against bands of outlaws.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. They're not real wars anymore

They're usually an army against a guerrilla force, and the guerrillas, being part of the local population, can hide out more easily and are more flexible than regular troops.

One guerrilla with a grenade can inflict a lot of damage and then scurry off into the woods or rocks or whatever. For the army to find said guerrilla is a different matter.

[Echo In Light]

16. Exactly! Larger - in $cope - versions of Black Ops

[polichick]

13. Lots of money to be made and spoils to be claimed. Think pipeline. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. A little history: What about the Thirty-Years' war (1618-1648)

and the Hundred-Years' War (1337-1453)? The Peloponnesian war lasted about 25 years. The longest war ever, between the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly, lasted 335 years. The English civil war lasted 10 years; the Vietnam war was longer than that if you count the French beginnings. Technically, the Korean War isn't over, and it's been nearly 60 years since that started.

[asdjrocky]

36. Thanks for the history lesson there Professor.

If you take a look back at the very brief, almost in jest, OP you'll see I mentioned the hundred year war. Didn't really think it was necessary to go all the way back to Hamilcar and Hannibal. I think maybe the reason the Punic war, both of 'em, and all those other wars lasted so long was because it took a bit longer for a sail boat to cross the Mediterranean Sea than a jet fighter. But then, I never finished high school, so what do I know?

[TexasObserver]

15. They're immensely profitable for warmongering profiteers who own congress.

[onehandle]

18. Because we're not using our nukes.

Nuke the whales. Drop the big one on their tails.

[Ian David]

20. They're not wars. They're occupations. You don't win an occupation, you END an occupation. n/t

[Joanne98]

21. Read The Shock Doctrine. They're not wars they are economic models

forced on the world at the point of a gun.

[Echo In Light]

25. +1

[Arctic Dave]

40. The best answer yet.

[harun]

22. As others have pointed out, these are occupations, not wars.

[FarCenter]

23. The First and Second Indochina Wars lasted from 1946 through 1975 - almost 30 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War
War between the French colonial forces and the Indochinese, ending with the partitioning of Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
The Second Indochina War between the United States and North Vietnam.

The intervening 5 years from 1954 to 1959 were not completely peaceful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War
The Laotian Civil War started in 1953 and continued until 1975.

[asdjrocky]

27. How did that work out?

[WilliamPitt]

24. They're more profitable that way.

[HughBeaumont]

26. "The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous."

"Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact. " - Orwell

[Ignis]

34. +1

This was the very quote that came to my mind upon reading Rocky's OP.

:thumbsup:

[proteus_lives]

28. Because giant uniformed armies aren't fighting set-piece battles anymore.

It's down to irregular conflicts because of a lot of factors. I personally think nukes prevent large-scale conflict.

But guerrilla conflicts have always been drawn-out. Hell, the Germans fought the Roman Empire for over 20 years.

[Warpy]

29. Wars of occupation have two outcomes

and few have been positive, the Norman war to occupy England that was carried out via the harrying of the north. Look that one up for a lesson in what it takes to win a war of occupation, it's not pretty. Even then, it took hundreds of years to overcome resistance from pockets of nobles and their peasants. Another example is the European invasion of the Americas, successful mostly because disease had killed off most of the native population before anybody got around to fighting.

The rest of them follow the pattern of Rome: constant warfare, shifting of missions, maintenance of permanent military presence within "safe" territory to keep it that way, brutalization of the indigenous population, and corruption at home to keep the whole game going in favor of the wealthy class.

We're following the Roman pattern with bases all over the globe and so much of our domestic product going to support the military there isn't much left over for anything else. We can be proud, though, we've got more rich people than anybody else does, aint we great!

It's not going to end well, either.

And that, kids, is why modern wars last so long. It's what empires do.

[Chisox08]

31. This is more of a giant and bloody game of whack-a-mole

Soon as they we go over here the show up over there. If we keep doing what we are doing the only thing we are going to get out of this is more death and more debt.

[Greyhound]

32. K&R. We should all re-read 1984.

"War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent."

[Chulanowa]

33. Bad examples

The Civil war was fought on a single front. The north had superior war production, and the south had to divert forces to prevent slave revolt. The surprising thing about that war is that it lasted as long as it did. Both World Wars saw massive troop movements. I can only imagine what some of the people here would be saying about FDR's millions of soldiers... and a draft, no less!

It takes so long for us now because our military is still fighting imaginary Russians on the one hand, and because on the other, Dubya used war as a political tool, and the Republicans still are, so they want to stretch it out as long as htey can.

[Blue-Jay]

35. $

[14thColony]

42. Also because there are lots of flavors of war

And in Iraq and Afghanistan we've chosen "Long-Term Ass Flavor." The first phase of the Iraq War of 2003 was conventional force-on-force, and THAT flavor we're really good at. THAT version of the Iraq War was over in about 10 minutes, because we're very good at sending our armored brigades in to outmaneuver and destroy their armored brigades, whoever 'they' might be. Our whole military since pre-WWI has been configured for that sort of warfare.

But just as in Afghanistan, that war ended and immediately gave rise to counter-insurgency warfare, and THAT is a mighty long-term sort of war historically. The Saxons were still trying to root out British rebels for centuries, and never did finally conquer Wales. Likewise the Normans against Saxon insurgents for a decade, Mongols against Viet guerrillas in the 13thC, the colonial powers in North America against the native population for centuries (even the 'final phase' took from 1865 to almost 1900), the English against the Irish, which lasted from the 12thC until almost the present, and still threatens to re-ignite. Hell, by historical timescales Vietnam was a very quick insurgency/counter-insurgency, lasting a mere 30 years.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Because we do not have the stomach to fight the way we used to

In the old days we weren't that concerned about civilians. If the enemy was using a town as a base, we would level the town. Look at what Sherman did to Atlanta during the Civil War.

[JVS]

44. Technology makes wars last longer.

Don't be tricked by names like the 100 years war or 30 years war, although the 30 years war starts to approach the modern style. At the time war was waged in a series of campaigns. Mass mobilization was not within the limited economic means of the states waging the wars.

[Tesha]

45. Wars only end when the *LOSER* says so. And fanatics never admit they lost.

This may be especially true for Religious fanatics.

Tesha

[Orsino]

46. So they can make us believe anything they want about why we fight.

Today's wars are not meant to be won. They're meant to be fought.

[urbanasaurus]

47. It's the stupid rules of engagement

We're not allowed to actually FIGHT.