SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the but-an-army-marches-on-its-stomach dept.
The online analysis magazine Pieria runs an interesting piece on why the world's biggest military force keep losing wars. So far it identifies the following reasons, which I'll tersely enumerate and quotes snippets (just for teasing) and strongly recommend you read TFA in full (it makes a good read):
- Too much logistics, not enough combat
More than three-quarters of Americans in Iraq didn’t fight.
... Pecan pie, sweet ice tea, lobster and steak on Fridays, all shipped halfway around the globe. The logistical tail was wagging the combat dog. - Learn the Language
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. - Fear of Casualties
The American military is deeply committed to force protection, to not losing soldiers.
... Despite apparent American strength, its enemies know if they have a little patience and inflict a little pain, the Americans will probably leave. - War as Symbol
Fifty thousand Americans died in Vietnam. So did more than 2 million Vietnamese. If war were a numbers game, America would have been victorious.
...Lyndon Johnson only went to war because he feared being accused of “losing” Vietnam by congressional Republicans. - War, What is it good For? Absolutely Nothing
Angell observed that no German personally profited from the annexation of Alsace in 1870.
...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.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday February 18 2015, @07:22PM
You've been living under a rock if you can't see the US being complete assholes. Or maybe your internal propaganda is so so strong that it allows you to live in a pink world of delusion.
You did that in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Just 3 examples among many, many, many.
Lost, anyway.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 18 2015, @07:41PM
You did that in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Then we stopped. Walter Cronkite announcing today's body count every evening hammered home to people what war really is. The American public does not have a taste for real war. Even WWII was 'americans coming to the rescue'. They then threw money at the 'winners' and had them fix what Germany did but with strings attached to continuing loans of piles of cash.
To 'win' a war you conquer. You dont mess around. You hulk smash everything that is in your way or could help your enemy. You make the other dudes die for their country. America does not have a taste for that sort of subjugation. The English, French, Spaniards, Japaneses, and Germans did. America basically bribed them with the Marshal plan to stop being dicks. It was actually quite clever. But many in Europe do not realize it or if they do they like the outcome...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday February 18 2015, @08:24PM
And that may be the only virtue we retain, at this late stage of decay.
" America does not have a taste for that sort of subjugation. The English, French, Spaniards, Japaneses, and Germans did. "
And guess what. It didnt work out too well for any of them, and each and every one of the nations you mentioned eventually learned the hard way that this is not actually a good path.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 18 2015, @09:44PM
The Americans (those now living there) conquered the land in bloody wars from the natives.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 19 2015, @12:40AM
Yep, that and the Civil War were the last ones we fought like war should be fought. Sherman's March should be the the definitive case study in how to win a war. You go in as brutally and horrifically as humanly possible and you continue until they're either all dead or begging to surrender in a believable manner.
The two main benefits here are 1) You win. 2) Your people see how horrible it is and try to avoid war whenever possible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Thursday February 19 2015, @07:13AM
Those were the last wars fought in your own living-room. All the other wars are fought in foreign countries, leaving the American public in an unjust cosy feeling of invulnerability. If you think the wars on other countries were led too civilized, have a look back at e.g. Vietnam, the use of Napalm, massacres on villages etc.
The American public might have learned from their past how horrible war in their own country is. But I'm afraid that's about it. Regarding Americans partially following international rules of engagement, I don't think this is due to lack of blood-lust on your war mongers, it's more an international political decision. Even the almighty US can't / doesn't want to estrange itself from its international alleys.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 19 2015, @01:45AM
"America does not have a taste for that sort of subjugation"
Really? Talk to a Philippino. It was Americans who introduced concentration camps there.
Also the Marshall Plan was cheap loans and grants to rebuild Europe after WW 2. Britain got nothing. Britain has not finished paying the American loans from WW2 yet.
It was not anything to do with bribing the victors of WW2, it was all about getting Europe back to work, (especially Germany), and as such was the cleverest piece of foreign relations the US ever came up with.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 19 2015, @05:39AM
Actually I believe Britain recently finished paying off the war time debt to America. One thing is America were real dicks to the UK when it came to the strings they attached to the loans. "Sure we'll lend you money, just dismantle your * industry" type of dicks. People also forget that America only entered the war when forced to, Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war reduced the options, otherwise they were happy to sit back and profit from both sides
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19 2015, @08:48AM
Incidentally, that is exactly how Britain got an empire - for basically the whole of the c18th and into the Napoleonic wars, Britain sits back and loans to European powers to fight each other, while British navy picks off choice colonies here and there. cf: War of Spanish succession, War of Austrian succession, 7 years war, Napoleonic wars. The only time there was a fight on British soil (American revolution) the British lost.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday February 19 2015, @11:57PM
Well if you're going to call the colonies in America British soil, we'll have to call Canada British soil as well. The couple of American invasions of Canada did not end well for America
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday February 19 2015, @02:23AM
Do those wars go against the population will and the population is so "free and brave" they do nothing for centuries [wikipedia.org]?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday February 19 2015, @03:55AM
Cronkite lied.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120226056767646059 [wsj.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19 2015, @06:59AM
"To 'win' a war you conquer. You dont mess around. You hulk smash everything that is in your way or could help your enemy."
And that's pretty much how USA, Russia and all big countries do it. Instead of thinking of what you are doing, just send men there to be cannon fodder. What a load of crap you are.