Analysis of why the US Military keeps losing wars
| Fragrant Circlehead | 05/27/15 | | henna foreskin station | 05/27/15 | | Territorial bateful athletic conference parlor | 05/27/15 | | Multi-colored sweet tailpipe mental disorder | 05/27/15 | | Dead Space Dopamine | 05/28/15 | | vibrant mood | 05/27/15 | | Fragrant Circlehead | 05/27/15 | | vibrant mood | 05/27/15 | | soggy electric fanboi corner | 05/27/15 | | vibrant mood | 05/27/15 | | frum whorehouse half-breed | 05/27/15 | | adventurous mildly autistic cuckold | 05/27/15 | | frum whorehouse half-breed | 05/27/15 | | Alcoholic 180 generalized bond | 05/27/15 | | vigorous spot | 05/27/15 | | Twisted Shrine | 05/28/15 | | Chest-beating Candlestick Maker Ticket Booth | 05/27/15 | | Seedy Disrespectful Boiling Water Resort | 05/27/15 | | soggy electric fanboi corner | 05/27/15 | | Seedy Disrespectful Boiling Water Resort | 05/27/15 | | soggy electric fanboi corner | 05/27/15 | | Seedy Disrespectful Boiling Water Resort | 05/27/15 | | soggy electric fanboi corner | 05/27/15 | | Twisted Shrine | 05/28/15 | | Fragrant Circlehead | 05/27/15 | | Seedy Disrespectful Boiling Water Resort | 05/27/15 | | Demanding National Turdskin | 05/27/15 | | Cerebral Black Woman | 05/27/15 | | Demanding National Turdskin | 05/27/15 | | vibrant mood | 05/27/15 | | Demanding National Turdskin | 05/27/15 | | trip theater stage | 05/27/15 | | Appetizing windowlicker | 05/27/15 | | Demanding National Turdskin | 05/27/15 | | Appetizing windowlicker | 05/27/15 | | vibrant mood | 05/27/15 | | Demanding National Turdskin | 05/27/15 | | vibrant mood | 05/27/15 | | Demanding National Turdskin | 05/27/15 | | Fragrant Circlehead | 05/27/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/27/15 | | Twisted Shrine | 05/28/15 | | Fragrant Circlehead | 05/28/15 | | violet background story | 05/27/15 | | Well-lubricated soul-stirring sneaky criminal quadroon | 05/27/15 | | Territorial bateful athletic conference parlor | 05/27/15 | | soggy electric fanboi corner | 05/27/15 | | Territorial bateful athletic conference parlor | 05/27/15 | | soggy electric fanboi corner | 05/27/15 | | Territorial bateful athletic conference parlor | 05/27/15 | | soggy electric fanboi corner | 05/27/15 | | Territorial bateful athletic conference parlor | 05/27/15 | | soggy electric fanboi corner | 05/27/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/27/15 | | motley umber electric furnace | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | motley umber electric furnace | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | erotic menage | 05/27/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/27/15 | | erotic menage | 05/27/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | motley umber electric furnace | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | motley umber electric furnace | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | motley umber electric furnace | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | motley umber electric furnace | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | motley umber electric furnace | 05/28/15 | | Territorial bateful athletic conference parlor | 05/27/15 | | erotic menage | 05/27/15 | | Twisted Shrine | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/27/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/27/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | Twisted Shrine | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | erotic menage | 05/27/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | Tripping Indian Lodge | 05/27/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | Tripping Indian Lodge | 05/27/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | Tripping Indian Lodge | 05/27/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | deranged aqua casino depressive | 05/28/15 | | Pontificating Temple Legal Warrant | 05/27/15 | | Dashing alcoholic site | 05/27/15 | | Dead Space Dopamine | 05/27/15 | | Very tactful twinkling dingle berry plaza | 05/27/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | Very tactful twinkling dingle berry plaza | 05/27/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | Tripping Indian Lodge | 05/27/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | Very tactful twinkling dingle berry plaza | 05/28/15 | | jet-lagged milky shitlib orchestra pit | 05/27/15 | | Concupiscible blue ape | 05/27/15 | | nubile trust fund headpube | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | nubile trust fund headpube | 05/28/15 | | Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button | 05/28/15 | | motley umber electric furnace | 05/28/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 27th, 2015 12:19 PM Author: Fragrant Circlehead
Before Korea, America never lost a war. Ever since, other than the first Gulf War, it hasn’t won any. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan America spent trillions of dollars, exploded countless tons of munitions, killed hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants along with innocent civilians and accomplished hardly any of the goals its leaders proclaimed when they sent their soldiers into battle.
America’s inability to translate its immense firepower into meaningful political effect suggests the $500 billion it spends annually on defence is wasted. In a recent article in the Atlantic Magazine, James Fallows asked the previously unmentionable question: how can America spend more on its military than all the other great powers combined and still be unable to impose its will on even moderately sized enemies?
I think the media generally ignores this question because the answers skewers shibboleths revered by both left and right. I spent much of the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, as a news cameraman embedded with the American military. I like American soldiers, enjoy their company, respect their bravery, their loyalty, their ethos: but hanging out on their Forward Operating Bases, I could see why the world’s most expensive military doesn’t win wars. Here are four factors worth considering, in descending order of importance.
Too much logistics, not enough combat.
They call it the tooth to tail ratio: the number of combat soldiers compared to the number in support roles. More than three-quarters of Americans in Iraq didn’t fight. A ridiculously large number of American soldiers spent their entire tour in Iraq “inside the wire”, barely leaving their huge prefabricated bases that felt more like Arizona than Anbar.
My Baghdad based colleagues and I used to look forward to embeds so we could eat all American cuisine at the mess halls. Pecan pie, sweet ice tea, lobster and steak on Fridays, all shipped halfway around the globe. The logistical tail was wagging the combat dog. In Afghanistan, the Americans had to pay off the Taliban so the supplies could get through.
I never thought I would say this out loud, but Donald Rumsfeld was right about one thing: the American military is too big and bulky. Special Forces are lean and mean and - not coincidentally - more successful. The one triumph of the misbegotten War on Terror was the rapid defeat of the Taliban in the fall of 2001. With almost no regular army involvement, a handful of Special Forces commandos slipped into Afghanistan, liaisoned with Northern Alliance units, and coordinated air strikes against Taliban positions. At the time, the Taliban held all but a few slivers of Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance was outnumbered, outgunned and heading towards ignominious defeat, but the combination of local boots on the ground, elite American scouts and massive American airpower proved unbeatable. Within a month, the Taliban recognized they had lost and faded away, at least for a few years.
The military would be more successful if it was smaller and more concentrated. America should shrink its regular army and focus on elite units who can get in, accomplish a targeted mission, and get out quickly. A smaller footprint solves a multitude of problems, both logistical and political.
Learn the Language
One desert night on a Marine base outside Basra, I chatted with an Egyptian interpreter hired by the US military. Knowing that Cairene Arabic is vastly different from that of Southern Iraq, I asked him if he had any trouble understanding the local dialect. He shook his head. “I have no idea what they are saying. I have a much easier time understanding you.” His English was excellent, which is presumably why he got the job, but his comprehension of Basrawi Arabic was almost nonexistent. But Marine officers, who inevitably spoke no Arabic, depended on him to explain what the locals were trying to tell them. Since the interpreter just made up what he thought his bosses wanted to hear, the Marines were operating with negative intelligence.
The moral: don’t invade a country if you are too lazy to learn the language. If you can’t understand what people are saying, you are operating blind. I’ve been told by American officials that up to 95% of the Iraqis imprisoned in American brigs were probably guilty of nothing. They were ratted out, perhaps by someone who owed them money, and the gullible Americans just locked them up. Imprisoning the innocent created unnecessary enemies for the occupation. In 2003, most Iraqis were pleased at Saddam Hussein’s ouster. They could have been predisposed to support American aims, if the Americans hadn’t alienated so many of them for little reason. It is impossible to successfully conduct a war if you can’t distinguish friend from foe because they all look the same to you. If more American soldiers understood Arabic, their insight and awareness of Iraqi culture could have made a huge difference.
Fear of Casualties
One of the most moving moments of my time in Iraq was a memorial service for a young soldier, nicknamed “Doc”, a 19 year-old medic killed by an improvised explosive device in Diyala Province. Almost all of Camp War Horse showed up for the ceremony. We stared at his boots and dog tags while his comrades remembered his bravery and kindness. As the service came to a close, his Sergeant called roll. He barked out the dead man’s name; the silence was blistering, and unforgettable. Four Generals flew in from Baghdad to pay their respects. As well they should. The death of a young man is always a tragedy. But had generals in the First World War gone to as many funerals, they would never have been able to plot the next battle.
The American military is deeply committed to force protection, to not losing soldiers. Captains tell you proudly their primary goal is to get through the tour without any fatalities. This is an admirable sign of human decency, but it is not particularly bellicose. It is impossible to imagine William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, or Patton focusing above all else on not losing soldiers. Historically, officers are happy to use their men as cannon fodder if it will help them achieve their objectives.
In 1982, Reagan sent Marines into Beirut to try and stop the Civil War. When a car bomb killed 241 of them, he soon withdrew the entire force. In 1993 Clinton sent US soldiers into Somalia for a similar humanitarian purpose. When a few of them were killed and their bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, the domestic political fallout was such that they too were quickly extracted. Our fear of death sends a message to our enemies. Despite apparent American strength, its enemies know if they have a little patience and inflict a little pain, the Americans will probably leave.
Only go to war if it is worth sacrificing your children. When Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin’s son went to the front, was captured and eventually died in a POW camp. Would Bush have been so happy to invade Iraq had he expected Jenna and Barbara to end up on point in Fallujah? Of course not. And that brings us to the last and most important reason America keeps losing wars.
War as Symbol
From a military perspective, the Tet offensive was a great victory for American arms. For several years the Americans had been desperate for the Viet Cong to stand up and fight, to stop hiding in the shadows. In February 1968, they did. Initially, they were successful. For a few hours they captured the US embassy in Saigon. For a few weeks they conquered the ancient imperial capital of Hue. But soon, the immense firepower of the US army took its toll. The Viet Cong were slaughtered, more than decimated, destroyed as a fighting force for the rest of the war. Tet was a great battlefield success for the US army. It is also the moment the United States lost the Vietnam War.
Vietnam was televised. Civilians watching at home did not see victory, they saw carnage. They recognised that their President had been lying to them when he suggested that victory would be easy, and they wanted out.
Fifty thousand Americans died in Vietnam. So did more than 2 million Vietnamese. If war were a numbers game, America would have been victorious. But war is ultimately a matter of will. The North Vietnamese were willing to suffer more than the Americans were, because victory was more important to them.
Lyndon Johnson only went to war because he feared being accused of “losing” Vietnam by congressional Republicans. Indochina was insignificant to America, important only as a symbol of US resolve, as a message to China and Russia that the US would stand by its allies, no matter the cost.
In 1975, Saigon finally fell. Other than psychologically, the effect on America was negligible. Likewise, in a few years, most Americans won’t know or care who controls Mosul or Helmand or South Waziristan. America lost in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan primarily because it had no real reason to go to war in the first place, no compelling national interest. Were Canada to invade North Dakota or Mexico to invade California, I suspect the US military and people would find the will to win. But the American people, wiser than their bellicose elites, ultimately are unwilling to make sacrifices for mere symbols.
War, What is it good For? Absolutely Nothing
In 1910, Norman Angell wrote The Grand Illusion, a long pamphlet suggesting that a general war between the great powers was impossible. Of course, 1914 proved him wrong, and history professors since then have mocked Angell for his mistimed prophecy. But on a deeper level Angell was just a bit ahead of the curve. He argued that in an intertwined capitalist economy, war was self-destructive. Even the victor would lose.
Angell observed that no German personally profited from the annexation of Alsace in 1870. All land remained in its legitimate owners’ hands. When William conquered Britain, when Cortez conquered Mexico, their soldiers made fortunes. War traditionally was mostly an excuse for plunder. In the modern world, Angell argued, armies slaughtered not prospective slaves but potential customers. Today, in the developed world, war is pointless. China needs America to buy its manufactured goods. America needs China to buy its government debt. No geopolitical dispute can trump their symbiotic ties.
For the developed nations today, going to war is more a signifier than anything else. If their primary interest was oil, American diplomats would have told Saddam to grant exclusive contracts to select oil companies and he would have gladly complied in order to avoid invasion. But Bush, Cheney et al weren’t really interested in Iraq’s oil but rather in an opportunity to demonstrate America’s awesome military power, in order to cow the rest of the Middle East and the world beyond. It didn’t work out as they had hoped.
Had Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen been able to post YouTube videos of the horrific and pointless slaughter on the western front in World War 1, the British public would have sued for peace. In a democracy, with a free media, the horrors of war are a hard sell, especially when war serves little purpose other than to make the country or its leaders look tough. The most fundamental reason America’s huge military can’t win wars is that it doesn’t need to.
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why_the_worlds_biggest_military_keeps_losing_wars
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27973904)
|
|
Date: May 27th, 2015 12:38 PM Author: vibrant mood
We tried to do nation-building on the cheap.
Aside from the fact we probably should not have gone in there, what pols don't want to admit, and what voters don't want to here, is the true cost of actually building a functioning, secular democracy in the middle east. The only way Iraq turns out "good" long-term is if we basically go back in and leave a garrison force that an guarantee security for the next 20+ years.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27974032)
|
Date: May 27th, 2015 1:45 PM Author: Well-lubricated soul-stirring sneaky criminal quadroon
You can almost NEVER win a guerrilla type war against a sustained insurgency. It is not possible esp when you are fighting thousands of miles away from home. Just the cost of maintaining the troops will fuck your nation over. People do not like being occupied. It's a fact of human existence.
America has never learned any of this.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27974416) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2015 2:19 PM Author: Territorial bateful athletic conference parlor
Vietnam - whatever those goals were, considering Kennedy/ LBJ just basically said that we were protecting SV from communism and that's about it, were not met. No doubt. We attempted to defend SV, then lost interest in doing so and left, despite achieving military victories in every major battle. We lost no land, lost no battles, we just left. That's different than losing the war though, it wasn't like NV regulars overwhelmed the 1st marines and took Saigon. Cornwallis was defeated by Washington, Napoleon by the allies at Waterloo, Hitler by the Allies, etc.
Iraq: depose Saddam Hussien and institute regime change. Pretty much seems like that was accomplished. Changing Iraq to look like Peoria, IL was not the goal, although things were in good shape before Obama decided to pull troops out.
There's plenty of wars were won that didn't achieve stated goals, plenty of wars that were lost that that did. Shitlib, you be comparing apples & oranges but by all means continue on your antiwar lisp campaign.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27974602) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2015 5:56 PM Author: soggy electric fanboi corner
I would be happy with Rand (although I like Ron much more), Walker, Rubio, or even Carson. I like Rand on policy, I like Walkers performance battling Wisconsin shitlibs, I thought Rubio was shockingly charasmatic in his announcement speech and I like that Rubio and Carson would pull a lot of middle of the road voters just because of their race.
Who I will vote for cow primary time prob depends on which of them are polling strongest towards the nomination.
I think Santorum and Huckabee are morons and Ted Cruz is Romney 3.0: Smart but unlikable/unelectable.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27976175) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2015 11:15 AM Author: motley umber electric furnace
I'm not being glib
its obviously nice being a citizen here as opposed to Pakistan or Venezuela or some other 3rd world place,
its not overwhelmingly apparently what my citizenship here does for me that citzenship in most other first world countries wouldn't do
more to the point, its not obviously what being a citizen of a first world country that insists on spending its tax dollars on wars half way around the world as opposed to spending its tax dollars in some other manner does for me
I can imagine a few answers that you might have for this, but it'd actually be nice for you to show you work here
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27981244) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2015 12:06 PM Author: motley umber electric furnace
perhaps
it'd be interesting to see a breakdown of
1) how our military involvement effects the price of oil in the regions relative to the price of oil in region we don't have a military presence (say Nigeria or Venezuela)
2) the degrees to which all those gains aren't privatized by owners of energy interests
my sense for it is that oil is a commodity that goes to whoever is willing to pay the most for it regardless of the political situation on the ground
additional if some american oil company managed to get a good deal on ME oil due to the US military presence there, well that's good for that paticular company, but relatively neutral for me
but tbf, I could be wrong about that
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27981575) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2015 1:14 PM Author: Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button
It was more that Iraq was a closed market sitting on very valuable resources that were inaccessible. As you know, oil is globally traded so it would have to be a pretty complex breakdown, and I'd guess impossible.
US companies were indeed given preferential treatment, and I think some of the contracts were revoked due to this, but overall inconsequential. We'd rather just have the market open, them sell us oil and in return we give them dollars that they use to purchase goods and services from us. All of this wealth does eventually make it back into our system.
All gains are privatized. Not to sound like some conspiracy nut, but tribute in general is privatized now. Brits invented the corporation to divorce extraction from direct state involvement. We're just a continuation of that. It certainly supports our economy though. The elites receive the primary benefit, but shit does trickle down, and many of us are employed in some fashion through these efforts. Its not neutral for you.
The macro goal is making sure oil is traded in dollars, which buttresses the dollar as the global reserve currency.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27982057) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2015 1:28 PM Author: motley umber electric furnace
wait, what are you talking about Iraq being a closed market
was that for any other reason than we (along w/ the rest of the world) had put trade restrictions on them?
if we had simply lifted all trade restrictions on them, and did the same for Iran, wouldn't that have accomplished that objective?
-------------------------------------------------------
so long as there is a liquid currency market, what difference does it make what currency oil trade in? Why doesn't arbitrage between currencies quickly make any difference irrelevent?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27982138) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2015 2:05 PM Author: motley umber electric furnace
how would lifting restrictions condone their behavior any more than say, not killing the eldest male in every family?
all theses things are a matter of degree
objective - open Iraq oil market
option #1 - lift restrictions
option #2 - spend whatever trillion dollars we spent there (not to even factor in turning Iraq in whatever hellhole it got turned into)
are you proposing that the openning of the Iraq oil market has given us collectively a benefit > pricetag of US military action there?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27982428)
|
Date: May 27th, 2015 1:56 PM Author: Territorial bateful athletic conference parlor
I'm missing something here - losing wars? In what war were we overcome militarily? NONE. We won every major battle in Vietnam, just lost the political will (i.e. anti-war left came into power in 60's) to fight and voluntarily gave up - so you can make a reasonable argument that we lost that war.
Lost Iraq? lol we crushed the Iraq army, both times. Accomplished all military objectives.
I've been thinking of this - the left has two issues that people will listen to them on, discrimination and anti-war. For Lefties, we lost or were dishonorable in every war.
Shitlibs - you have a dick stuck in your brain if you think that we've been losing wars.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27974477) |
Date: May 27th, 2015 7:25 PM Author: Pearl Floppy School Cafeteria Factory Reset Button
flawed premise. Its often better for the US if the conflict never really ends. Its easier to justify keeping a garrison on foreign soil like korea. Mission accomplished? Okay, go home. Ww2 is remarkable given the populace was on board with total war and everything that follows, such as the permanent military presence in japan and Germany as payment for our lost sons.
The real reason is that the public doesn't have the stomach for it. After nam there was hope it only applied to US casualties but Iraq cost hardly any American blood and people still got queasy. Now if this were Rome and some insurgents were starting shit we'd role in and level the town, women and children. End of story.
In any event compare casualties and see who thinks who is the winner.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27976729) |
|
Date: May 27th, 2015 7:42 PM Author: Concupiscible blue ape
If you really compare casualties its not so good for Yankeestan army. Your grunts dont die in battle -- they just come home crippled and perpetually on the dole. Nearly half the people who cycled through Iraq are fucked in the head permanently. Advances in battlefield medicine are just masking true counts of lives ruined.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27976871)
|
|
Date: May 28th, 2015 9:34 AM Author: Twisted Shrine
Yes, the Russian male seems remarkably well-adjusted.
"Overall, a quarter of Russian men die before reaching 55, compared with 7% of men in the UK and about 10% in the United States. The life expectancy for men in Russia is 64 years, placing it among the lowest 50 countries in the world in that category."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27980672) |
Date: May 27th, 2015 10:01 PM Author: Dead Space Dopamine
HINT: The answer is because our army is filled with cowards.
You think a nation that produced this article would have lost the Iraq War?
http://www.nytimes.com/1863/03/13/news/the-crime-of-cowardice-to-the-editor-of-the-new-york-times.html
The Crime of Cowardice.; To the Editor of the New-York Times:
The fifty-second Article of War ordains that: "Any officer or soldier who shall misbehave himself before the enemy run away, or shamefully abandon any fort, post, or guard which he or they, may be commanded to defend, or speak words inducing others to do the like, or shall cast away his arms and ammunition, or who shall quit his post or colors to plunder and pillage, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a general Court-martial."
This is the military estimate of the crime of cowardice as defined by law.
The world has always specially honored courage and stigmatized cowardice. To be brave is as essential for a man as to be chaste is for a woman, and a coward among men is in as poor repute as a prostitute among women. These fundamental points of honor are rigidly exacted in proportion to the elevation of society -- as essential to all respect and even tolerance. Prove a man a coward, and you leave him utterly deprived of character, so that none can honor him or suffer his society. This Article of War correctly embodies the settled sense of the civilized world concerning military cowardice. The resort to the death penalty, though rarely made, is strictly just and quite as humane as the worse-than-death penalty of living a branded coward.
It is as much the duty of our citizens to be brave by their firesides as of our soldiers to show pluck "before the enemy." It is as base for the American freeman at his home to give way to cowardice and to clamor for "peace at any price," as it is for the volunteer to run away from the enemy on the battlefield. Indeed it is more so, for the soldier has his senses comfounded by battle sounds and scenes, while the citizen enjoys a quiet which gives to his cowardice the quality of deliberation. Morally speaking, those men who are Unionists -- but &c., are, in the main, simply cowards. To run away from the cause of Constitution and Government when they are in their crisis, just because war is hard work and costly, is more disgraceful and craven than to run away from Stonewall JACKSON for fear of bodily harm.
There is a citizen courage and a citizen cowardice, analogous to these traits in military life, and alike deserving of the highest praise or blame. Gloss it over as we may, to talk of peace until there is a chance of a peace under which an American can hold up his head, is simply to "show the white feather," and deserves just as severe treatment as battle skedaddling. Perhaps, Mr. Smith and Mr. Gunnybags may not have thought of the thing in this light, as they have croaked, and coddled, and clamored, and played the civic coward generally. Those leaders of opinion who "shamefully abandon" their trusts, and "cast away" their principles, as scared soldiers throw away or surrender their arms, are precisely the political cowards they seem, and as such will be remembered. There is a style of Copperhead exactly analogous to the military sneak who "induces others to do the like," and who actually works to make others as bad as himself. There are, too, plundering contractors and pilfering officials, who "quit their posts" as good citizens to rob the Government. Now, to compel all these cowards and sneaks "to suffer death" would overwork the undertakers, which, of course, humanity forbids. They are, however, precisely the same curse to our civil and political contest that arrant cowards are to an army on the battle-field.
It is the sailor's duty never to give up the ship; the soldier's, never to give up the fight; the American's, never to give up the Republic. E.B.H.
---
Sorry neocons. America's army is a joke. Just a bunch screeching women and far too many fancy toys for their own good. If Patton were alive today, he'd shoot up a school in a fit of uncontrollable rage and defect to the Russians.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27977883)
|
Date: May 27th, 2015 10:18 PM Author: Very tactful twinkling dingle berry plaza
We now have the ability to destroy entire societies and cultures with minimal loss of American lives.
We just don't have the political will. We should have slaughtered everyone, destroyed every mosque, every trace of the native culture, and put up McDonald's and churches and called Iraq East Dakota and colonized it and taken all the oil.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27978001)
|
Date: May 27th, 2015 11:19 PM Author: jet-lagged milky shitlib orchestra pit
This article goes about as deep as an upper level college paper. Nothing every book written by a former grunt hasn't touched on.
The biggest problem is that the author utterly missed the problems posed by such incredibly, ridiculously restrained rules of engagement. This should have been the gravamen of the article.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27978475) |
|
Date: May 28th, 2015 9:49 AM Author: nubile trust fund headpube
We killed a ton of north vietnamese. That pace was not sustainable for them. It was left-wing libs who forced us out of vietnam.
We had arguably "proven our point" to Russia, and didn't really care that much about the SV anyway. Nixon wanted to make friends with China, and protecting SV was viewed as less important to that relationship, so he ended it. Whether that was worth all the trouble I guess is a point of debate, but is a clear no to me and clearly Lyndon Johnson miscalculated when he escalated the war.
But saying we "won" or "lost" that conflict is impossible because it depends on what goals you are looking at, and how those goals change over time. Making friends with China was not lyndon johnson's goal, but rather nixon's, which partly explains why nixon had no interest in fighting in vietnam other than he didn't America to look weak.
The best you can say about it was that it was a huge clusterfuck and s poorly contrived waste of resources, which you can also say about Iraq II.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27980739) |
Date: May 28th, 2015 9:27 AM Author: motley umber electric furnace
where's the part where this analysis "skewers shibboleths revered by both left and right"?
this seems pretty much straight up the left's alley
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2890508&forum_id=2#27980639) |
|
|