Why is it that the United States no longer wins wars?

[n2doc]

MARK STEYN
MARCH 26, 2011 4:00 A.M.
The Art of Inconclusive War
Why is it that the United States no longer wins wars?


...Instead, in a non-partisan spirit, let us consider why it is that the United States no longer wins wars. Okay, it doesn’t exactly lose (most of) them, but nor does it have much to show for a now 60-year-old pattern of inconclusive outcomes. American forces have been fighting and dying in Afghanistan for a decade: Doesn’t that seem like a long time for a non-colonial power to be spending hacking its way through the worthless terrain of a Third World dump? If the object is to kill terrorists, might there not be some slicker way of doing it? And, if the object is something else entirely, mightn’t it be nice to know what it is?

last part:

The blood-soaked butcher next door in Sudan is the first head of state to be charged by the International Criminal Court with genocide, but nobody’s planning on toppling him. Iran’s going nuclear with impunity, but Obama sends fraternal greetings to the “Supreme Leader” of the “Islamic Republic.” North Korea is more or less openly trading as the one-stop bargain-basement for all your nuke needs, and we’re standing idly by. But the one cooperative dictator’s getting million-dollar-a-pop cruise missiles lobbed in his tent all night long. If you were the average Third World loon, which role model makes most sense? Colonel Cooperative in Tripoli? Or Ayatollah Death-to-the-Great-Satan in Tehran? America is teaching the lesson that the best way to avoid the attentions of whimsical “liberal interventionists” is to get yourself an easily affordable nuclear program from Pyongyang or anywhere else as soon as possible.

The United States is responsible for 43 percent of the planet’s military spending. So how come it doesn’t feel like that? It’s not merely that “our military is being volunteered by others,” but that Washington has been happy to volunteer it as the de facto expeditionary force for the “international community.” Sometimes U.S. troops sail under U.N. colors, sometimes NATO’s, and now in Libya even the Arab League’s. Either way, it makes little difference: America provides most of the money, men, and materiel. All that changes is the transnational figleaf.

But lost along the way is hard-headed, strategic calculation of the national interest. “They won’t come back till it’s over/Over there!” sang George M. Cohan as the doughboys marched off in 1917. It was all over 20 minutes later and then they came back. Now it’s never over over there — not in Korea, not in Kuwait, not in Kosovo, not in Kandahar. Next stop Kufra? America has swapped The Art of War for the Hotel California: We psychologically check out, but we never leave.

whole article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263110/art-inconclusive-war-mark-steyn?page=1

[notadmblnd]

1. Defense conractors don't want them to end?

[liberal N proud]

2. The profit is in long lasting wars

The military industrial complex is making billions while young men and women sacrifice "for their country."

Greed is always the driver.

The United States is responsible for 43 percent of the planet’s military spending. So how come it doesn’t feel like that? It’s not merely that “our military is being volunteered by others,” but that Washington has been happy to volunteer it as the de facto expeditionary force for the “international community.” Sometimes U.S. troops sail under U.N. colors, sometimes NATO’s, and now in Libya even the Arab League’s. Either way, it makes little difference: America provides most of the money, men, and materiel. All that changes is the transnational figleaf.

[USA_1]

36. War: Socialize the Costs - Privatize the Profit$

[Scuba]

3. Silly. If we won the war there'd be no more reason to spend money on it. n/t

[Marr]

4. We don't really fight "wars" anymore. Since WW2, it's mostly been about "assymetrical warfare", ie:

occupations of mostly defenseless countries. A sort of latter-day colonialism. Those kinds of engagements don't have ends and never have.

[bluestate10]

13. Agreed. In WWII, Allied bombers leveled entire cities and killed

hundreds of thousands of civilians. Bombing raids of that savagery would not be tolerated today if done to any target but combatants.

[joshcryer]

26. Yep. WWII was atrocious beyond comprehension.

[MikeW]

37. war is vicious, dont like it dont start em

[catenary]

5. Because there has not BEEN a war (by the legal definition) since 1945.

No way to win a 'war' that never existed.
:shrug:

[Zywiec]

6. The Geneva Conventions? n/t

[bluestate10]

16. One good reason. Civilians must be protected. Not to say none get

killed by accident. There is no indiscriminate targeting of cities as was done in WWI and WWII.

[NorthCarolina]

7. Because that would prematurely end the gravy-train. Wars are not fought to be won,

they are fought to transfer a nations wealth upwards.

[sabrina 1]

8. I assume the questions being asked are just rhetorical.

War is a business, it is the U.S. biggest business. If we won wars, it would not be a very profitable business. Torture is apparently pretty profitable also. Ghost planes, torture instruments made in Germany and who knows where else, huge contracts for building 'detention centers' and all those chains and dogs and other paraphernalia, including 'contractors' all of which require money.

We never leave any of the countries we invade. We are an Empire that in no way any longer even resembles a Democracy.

As for the point he makes about North Korea and other countries watching how unarmed countries are the ones the U.S. invades? That point was made way back when the U.S. invaded Iraq. I believe by N.Korea. The message was 'if you are armed with nukes, we'll stay out of your country'.

[bluestate10]

9. Modern wars protect civilians.

Look at the pictures of cities from WWI and WWII. Civilians were killed by the millions during battle and were left to their own devices. For western nations, the inclusion of reporters has placed restraints on warriors, WWI and WWII reporters told the "official" story, that changed in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Coincidentally, the advent of weapons that are precise enough to kill over a small area is changing the dynamics of war back to favor advanced armies. Weapons will become even more capable to selectively kill, to the extent that a single soldier of battlefield target can be eliminated without damage to anyone but the target. Only codes of battle and laws that soldiers operate under will prevent use of precise weapons from getting out of hand.

[fascisthunter]

10. Why is it that Private Health Insurance Denies so many Claims?

because it can and it is more profitable to do so. I'm thinking the same is true of losing wars or just pro-longing them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Because: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Isaac Asimov

And, we've mastered the incompetency of violence after decades of needless effort and expense.

[Initech]

12. Because we're fighting an invisible enemy?

[bluestate10]

17. Modern and future drones will remove that restriction.

Future drones will be capable of killing a single person and not damaging any periphery. The challenge of leaders will be to not use advanced drones for political assassinations of foreign leaders.

[joshcryer]

29. I await the drones that will simply disable people painlessly.

[Initech]

42. I'm referring to the war on terror and the war on drugs.

But yeah that is pretty scary. We just manufacture death. That's our job - we kill people.

[xchrom]

14. A very bitter read. Nt

[MikeW]

15. because

We don't have what it takes anymore.

Even in GW 1 there was criticism of the so-called "Highway of Death"

Americans don't realize, war aint pretty, the battlefield has no rules, and the objective is to pound your enemy into submission

by killing more of them than they do of you.

[bluestate10]

19. True. But that is a reality of war that did not exist in WWI and WWII.

Modern reporters employ more free range in reporting war than reporters from earlier this century. The limitations that are placed on the military is likely the reason why wars since Vietnam have been drawn out wars, cities can't be bombed to the ground as done in WWII and retreating armies can't be wiped out until surviving soldiers drop their armaments and surrender outright. If damage from a misplaced missile or bomb is to a civilian area, it is captured on camera for the world to see today. Asymmetric enemies can't be dealt with by conventional means, hence the increasing use of precise kills via drones.

[anarch]

18. b/c they stopped using nukes

We won WWII with 'em, right? Last war we can say we won. I think there's a clear connection.

[Mr Generic Other]

21. we now use weapons tipped with depleted uranium

while the effect is not as widespread as the atomic bombs in japan the radioactive poisons are just as real.

[anarch]

27. sure, but where is the drama?

nearly instantly killing like 50,000 people, now that makes a statement! We should nuke somebody, just to make a point.

[ProSense]

20. "Steyn occasionally fills in for Rush Limbaugh, a conservative talk show radio host"

"The blood-soaked butcher next door in Sudan is the first head of state to be charged by the International Criminal Court with genocide, but nobody’s planning on toppling him. Iran’s going nuclear with impunity, but Obama sends fraternal greetings to the “Supreme Leader” of the “Islamic Republic.” North Korea is more or less openly trading as the one-stop bargain-basement for all your nuke needs, and we’re standing idly by. But the one cooperative dictator’s getting million-dollar-a-pop cruise missiles lobbed in his tent all night long."

Nothing like the wisdom of Rush Limbaugh's buddy.

<...>

In his book America Alone, Steyn posits that Muslim population growth has already contributed to a modern European genocide:<24>

Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since the second World War? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can't buck demography — except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

<...>

Steyn was an early proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2007 he reiterated his support while attacking Democrat John Murtha, stating that his plan for military action in Iraq was designed "to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. ... doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years".<32>

more

[ProSense]

38. "But the one cooperative dictator’s "

With all the oil companies already in Libya, Gaddafi was the perfect neocon ally.

ExxonMobil signs PSA with Libya National Oil

Why do you think that BushCo propped up Gaddafi?

Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy

<...>

At the time, it may have sounded like the typical ramblings of the Libyan leader. But now, a year later, Gaddafi and Bush do apparently see eye to eye. On Monday, Gaddafi accomplished one of history's great diplomatic turnarounds when Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow. Rice attributed the ending of the U.S.'s long break in diplomatic relations to Gaddafi's historic decision in 2003 to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism as well as Libya's "excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001."

<...>

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

22. Its all about selling those arms and they need the government

to keep using them so there is a real need for them to keep making them, so they can keep selling them, so that the government can keep using them and they can keep selling them because they might be needed to keep us down when we figure this out. Simple!

[Dan]

23. We are using military tools

to fight conflicts of ideas!

[Thunderstruck]

24. It's simple really...

...because war is an industry.

[barbtries]

25. if the war ends

the war machine has to wind down. i think that's the reason why.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. You realize that this was written by a guy who was a huge cheerleader for the Iraq War, right?

Mark Steyn's only problem with our intervention in Libya is that it's being conducted under Obama's watch.

[madrchsod]

30. we have a habit of fighting a war with the wrong strategies

[MadHound]

31. Because our objective in modern warfare is to no longer win,

But rather to run up the body count in a particular area, and also to generate as much profit for the MIC as possible.

The power elite in this country realize that if a country waged full out war, with a definitive objective in mind, namely to win, we would soon see an exchange of nuclear weapons. In that case, all of us, including the power elite, lose.

Therefore war is now limited in nature and scope, and simply used to run up the body count and extract profit.

[madville]

32. We could be fire bombing and nuking them off the earth

That's what wins wars, anything else is just business.

[treestar]

33. It is 2011, not 1945

there are no winnable wars.

[TimesSqCowboy]

34. I agree with the others - there's no more total warfare

Winning used to mean disabling your enemy from even producing the means to wage war, including factories, food, etc. Sherman
s March to the Sea was the first modern use of this tactic.

[USA_1]

35. Longer Wars = More War Profit$

The military industrial complex demands longer wars for more profits. Naturally, it's a war they don't pay for but they profit from it.

As always, for the wealthy elites it's a matter of you pay, we profit.

[and-justice-for-all]

39. I am not interested with the US's continued policeing...

of the world and the warmongering needs to end now.

The last war the US won was WWII, and it was not a US victory alone.

[Avant Guardian]

40. There are no 'clean' wars left

WWII being an example of a 'clean' war.

In WWII war was all the rage. A soldier could get a drink in any bar. Everybody came back hero's.

Aint that way anymore.

[hayu_lol]

41. We lose due to all the above reasons...

plus...Rules Of Engagement.

If there are rules, then it is a game. The Great Khan's Mongols knew the score:

1. Kill all opposing males of any age.

2. Kill all non-productive females(too young or preggers).

3. Burn village, town, city to the ground.

Hmmmm...they always won and won quickly.

[jmowreader]

43. Because of the nature of modern wars

The last war we arguably won was the Korean Conflict.

Let's go through the "good wars" the United States has fought and find the common thread. (I am not going to list the Indian wars as they were not good.)

American Revolution: British troops came to the US to make us fall in line behind the King. When the war was over, the British troops buried their dead and went back to England.

War of 1812: Basically American Revolution II, fought for the same reason and with the same result.

Mexican-American War: fought to prevent the US from annexing Texas, which considering what they've done to public education in this country may not have been a completely great idea. When the war was over, Texas was free to annex itself into the US.

American Civil War: Southern states seceded from the Union and formed a new government. When the war was over, the Southern states were once again part of the US and the secessionist government had been disbanded.

The World War: fought to shut down a lot of imperial governments. At war's end, the imperial governments were no more.

The Second World War: fought because a cashiered German Army corporal who never heard of a Starving Artists Sale decided to recreate the German Empire. At the war's end, the government he created was no more.

The Korean War: fought because the North Korean Army invaded South Korea. At the end of hostilities, the North Korean Army was back in North Korea where it belongs. (This one we only kinda won: because the NKPA refuses to admit defeat, Korea is still considered to be in a state of war.)

Operation Desert Storm: fought because George H.W. Bush gave Saddam Hussein written permission to invade Kuwait. At the end of the war, what was left of the Iraqi Army was back in Iraq.

All these were wars we won, and the common thread is that in every case, the opposing force had been driven from the terrain we fought over by the end of the war.

Now forward to the wars we lost: in Vietnam we were fighting against people who lived in the country we were fighting over; Afghanistan and Iraq were in the same situation. When we pack up our shit and leave Iraq, the same bunch of corrupt people--minus the ones we hanged, of course--are still going to be running the country. Same deal with Afghanistan; when we finally leave, the Taliban will just move right back into the presidential palace and go right back to the same shit they were doing pre-Bush.

IF THE PEOPLE YOU ARE FIGHTING ARE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE ALREADY AND YOU DO NOT PLAN TO ANNEX THEIR LAND, YOU CANNOT WIN THE WAR NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO.