5 ms·

"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?"

"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?" Aside from the the reasons he cited, you can put up there fighting with both hands ties behind our backs. The politicians want the military to win the hearts and minds, have surgical strikes to reduce civilian casualties, and spend more time keeping up diplomatic relations then killing our adversaries. The media have never been pro-war, never been able to stomach seeing and reporting the brutality of what war really entails. Patton once said, "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." We haven't done this since Vietnam. You want to win the wars in the middle east? You throw away the Geneva Conventions, you take off the handcuffs and employ the full force of the military. Like Patton said, you attack rapidly, ruthlessly and viciously. If the US even used a fraction of its full firepower, and instead hunted down and killed the terrorists and then made examples of them, their enemies would shrivel up and put down their weapons. You wanna know why the Mexican drug cartels are feared? You wanna know why people are scared of ISIS and terrorism here in the states and what they've done in Europe already? Because they don't have rules, they instill fear with violence, something the US Military has been unable to do - because of politicians and the media. Take off the handcuffs and let the full force of the military come down on these people and you'll see them broken, tired and without refuge.

pluma 12y ago
For the record, the US didn't win in Vietnam either. Despite not pulling any punches. But yes, if the US gave a 100%, it may have a chance of actually winning those wars. Considering the collateral damage from decades of "surgical" strikes and drone attacks, I'm not even sure an all-out war would be any worse for the civilians on the receiving end. It would absolutely ruin any pretence of moral superiority and "clean" warfare, however. And that would make it even more difficult to explain to allies why the US is better than Russia, China or Saudi Arabia.
- rstupek 12y ago
  I'm not sure you can classify Vietnam as a place where the military didn't pull its punches. We didn't invade North Korea, for example.
  - pluma 12y ago
    I didn't, the parent did: > We haven't done this since Vietnam.
  - dajohnson89 12y ago
    We didn't invade North Korea, but we left behind a force to protect the South from a North re-invasion.
  - BerislavLopac 12y ago
    You did, in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#UN_forces_cross_partition_line_.28September_.E2.80.93_October_1950.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#UN_forces_cross_part...
    - rstupek 12y ago
      That's the Korean war, not the Vietnam one.
      - BerislavLopac 12y ago
        The parent mentioned Korea.
    - dba7dba 12y ago
      Answer is less clear. US was hesitant to go above the 38th parallel line once N Korean army was routed. They were happy to stop there and go back to having 38th parallel line before the Korean War started. However the S Korean troops just marched across 38th parallel in order to reunite the peninsula under 1 government. And the US troops in away just kept going with them. Because the Korean war was so unexpected, no thoughts had been given on what to do. The Korean peninsula had been 1 kingdom for over 500 years, far longer than Germany as a nation. Both N Korea and S Korean leaders had been calling for a united Korea, even with force, even before the Korean War. For this reason, US govt hesitated giving heavy weapons to S Korea before the start of the Korean War. So no, US didn't exactly invade N Korea. N Korea invaded S Korea first.
angersock 12y ago
When fighting monsters, one must take care not to become a monster. Anyways, to answer you more fully: The media has, depending on what sells, never shyed away from hawkishness. Consider the coverage from, say, Fox in the last decade--only reconsidering the war effort when it let them score political points against someone they disliked. There is no compelling reason to "throw away the Geneva Conventions". You're a savage. Also, since when is a people "tired, broken, and without refuge" anything you want to have around? The vast majority of the people conducting these acts of terror across the world are young men hailing from exactly that background--if they were members of proud, stable cultures, they wouldn't be engaging in such behavior.
- walshemj 12y ago
  And as Sir Harry Peirce says Mi5 (Spooks) " I like the niceties, they protect us from tyranny"
chrisbennet 12y ago
A satisfying as that view may be, "winning" in that fashion isn't that effective when confronting a non-nation state force. When you engage in all out war, you don't win hearts and minds. When you don't win hearts and minds you must commit yourself to occupying the country forever. Slapping your wife may "win" you the argument but you don't actually achieve long term goals that way. When confronted with a gorilla enemy, your potential allies look the same as your enemy. The "just kill em all and let god sort them out" approach is even worse than the current method which aims to reduce killing potential allies. Blowing up a wedding party may kill a terrorist - but also radicalizes the survivors. Chopping one head off the hydra doesn't work. At the end of the day, one has to accept that some wars are not worth the cost of winning - and if they aren't we shouldn't get involved in the first place. The cost of war is considered "acceptable" by people who aren't actually sending their own sons to die.
hackuser 12y ago
> The media have never been pro-war, never been able to stomach seeing and reporting the brutality of what war really entails. The most popular cable news channel, Fox, and the most popular newspaper (or at least one of the leaders), the Wall Street Journal, are both hawks. Many local papers are owned by hawks as well as many popular blogs.
meowface 12y ago
WWII was a time when the potential fate of the entire world was at stake. You had no choice but to be as ruthless as possible. It was a completely different situation. In Vietnam and Iraq, that simply wasn't the case. Neither of those countries were worth going "all-in", and it's a good thing we didn't. Your proposal is not a good one. The increase in civilian casualties will only empower the rebel forces in the long term if we had a "Total War" situation. Not to mention it's completely unethical.

pluma 12y ago

For the record, the US didn't win in Vietnam either. Despite not pulling any punches. But yes, if the US gave a 100%, it may have a chance of actually winning those wars. Considering the collateral damage from decades of "surgical" strikes and drone attacks, I'm not even sure an all-out war would be any worse for the civilians on the receiving end. It would absolutely ruin any pretence of moral superiority and "clean" warfare, however. And that would make it even more difficult to explain to allies why the US is better than Russia, China or Saudi Arabia.

rstupek 12y ago
I'm not sure you can classify Vietnam as a place where the military didn't pull its punches. We didn't invade North Korea, for example.
- pluma 12y ago
  I didn't, the parent did: > We haven't done this since Vietnam.
- dajohnson89 12y ago
  We didn't invade North Korea, but we left behind a force to protect the South from a North re-invasion.
- BerislavLopac 12y ago
  You did, in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#UN_forces_cross_partition_line_.28September_.E2.80.93_October_1950.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#UN_forces_cross_part...
  - rstupek 12y ago
    That's the Korean war, not the Vietnam one.
    - BerislavLopac 12y ago
      The parent mentioned Korea.
  - dba7dba 12y ago
    Answer is less clear. US was hesitant to go above the 38th parallel line once N Korean army was routed. They were happy to stop there and go back to having 38th parallel line before the Korean War started. However the S Korean troops just marched across 38th parallel in order to reunite the peninsula under 1 government. And the US troops in away just kept going with them. Because the Korean war was so unexpected, no thoughts had been given on what to do. The Korean peninsula had been 1 kingdom for over 500 years, far longer than Germany as a nation. Both N Korea and S Korean leaders had been calling for a united Korea, even with force, even before the Korean War. For this reason, US govt hesitated giving heavy weapons to S Korea before the start of the Korean War. So no, US didn't exactly invade N Korea. N Korea invaded S Korea first.

angersock 12y ago

When fighting monsters, one must take care not to become a monster. Anyways, to answer you more fully: The media has, depending on what sells, never shyed away from hawkishness. Consider the coverage from, say, Fox in the last decade--only reconsidering the war effort when it let them score political points against someone they disliked. There is no compelling reason to "throw away the Geneva Conventions". You're a savage. Also, since when is a people "tired, broken, and without refuge" anything you want to have around? The vast majority of the people conducting these acts of terror across the world are young men hailing from exactly that background--if they were members of proud, stable cultures, they wouldn't be engaging in such behavior.

walshemj 12y ago
And as Sir Harry Peirce says Mi5 (Spooks) " I like the niceties, they protect us from tyranny"

chrisbennet 12y ago

A satisfying as that view may be, "winning" in that fashion isn't that effective when confronting a non-nation state force. When you engage in all out war, you don't win hearts and minds. When you don't win hearts and minds you must commit yourself to occupying the country forever. Slapping your wife may "win" you the argument but you don't actually achieve long term goals that way. When confronted with a gorilla enemy, your potential allies look the same as your enemy. The "just kill em all and let god sort them out" approach is even worse than the current method which aims to reduce killing potential allies. Blowing up a wedding party may kill a terrorist - but also radicalizes the survivors. Chopping one head off the hydra doesn't work. At the end of the day, one has to accept that some wars are not worth the cost of winning - and if they aren't we shouldn't get involved in the first place. The cost of war is considered "acceptable" by people who aren't actually sending their own sons to die.

hackuser 12y ago

> The media have never been pro-war, never been able to stomach seeing and reporting the brutality of what war really entails. The most popular cable news channel, Fox, and the most popular newspaper (or at least one of the leaders), the Wall Street Journal, are both hawks. Many local papers are owned by hawks as well as many popular blogs.

meowface 12y ago

WWII was a time when the potential fate of the entire world was at stake. You had no choice but to be as ruthless as possible. It was a completely different situation. In Vietnam and Iraq, that simply wasn't the case. Neither of those countries were worth going "all-in", and it's a good thing we didn't. Your proposal is not a good one. The increase in civilian casualties will only empower the rebel forces in the long term if we had a "Total War" situation. Not to mention it's completely unethical.