Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddies66
1983-Granada (regime change), 1989-Panama (regime change), 1991-Iraq (defeated 4th largest military force in 48 hrs), 2003-Iraq (regime change), 2011-GWOT (bin Laden).
|
With all due respect, the first two were not wars. They were brief military actions of very limited scope. Those were pretty well run, and successful. Low number of casualties, relatively successful result.
Desert Shield/Desert Storm was a joint military action with a large coalition. It was relatively brief. It was also well run.Low casualty rate, somewhat short term successful result. Except that Hussein continued to remain in power, operate, threaten his neighbors, as well as fund, support, and sanction terrorists. It was necessary to maintain a large presence, and run constant operations to keep Iraq somewhat in check. And twelve years later, it was necessary to go back, in force, with fewer allies and less support.
While the 2003 war to remove Hussein was successful in the very beginning, Hussein was deposed, and eventually captured, however, long term it was an abject failure. The military was severely restricted in what they were allowed to do. Rarely were they allowed to fully engage the enemy and outright destroy them. Consider that, as ONE example, al-Sadr was allowed to live, and his organization allowed to survive, operate, and "participate in the government". This while he openly ran operations which killed U.S. personnel and their allies, and destabilized the new government. Rather than a complete defeat of the enemy, there were 15+ years of operations, presence, and casualties, with a very questionable result.
The 2011 operation to kill bin Laden was hardly a war. And it was a tiny part of the GWOT. Yes, the Seals and those who supported them did a great job of finally seeing to it that the ******* achieved room temperature. However, the "GWOT' as a whole has been poorly prosecuted. The eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan was an abject failure, and a disastrous embarrassment. Once again, after the short term success of the first part of the operation, there was a ludicrous "restricted warfare" policy, which caused unnecessary casualties, and prevented the total defeat and eradication of an enemy that practiced no such restraint. After the initial successes, there was an 18+ year period of lackluster results, because the military was not allowed to go out, and do what was necessary to win. In the end, the exit from Afghanistan bore a striking resemblance to the Fall of Saigon. Unnecessary casualties, embarrassment, and billions of dollars of military equipment abandoned, left for enemies to share, copy, improve, and use against the military.
As a person who was the son of a veteran of two wars, the nephew of three uncles who went to war, one of which never came home, and who, due to injury was not very welcome in the military, I have an extreme respect and admiration for our military. I have dozens of friends and relatives who have given a lifetime, as you have. It angers me to no end to see the military abused in the manner which has been almost customary since the end of the second World War.
While I believe that there ARE reason why battles MUST be fought, I also believe that if you tell a man he should go fight, you should NEVER restrict his ability to seek out and destroy the enemy, with maximum effort, excellent results, and the least possible risk. "Restricted warfare", with "limited rules of engagement", written by lawyers and politicians, are criminal policies. So are vague and obtuse "objectives".
These policies obviously do not work. There was no such "restricted warfare" in the war with Japan. Yet, since the end of World War II, and the brief occupation, Japan has become an extremely stable and reliable friend and ally. While not quite as reliable and friendly as Japan, Germany has been stable, and reliable. So these policies used after World War II just don't work. They're NOT an improvement. They're a complete and abject failure.
The United States military is the finest in the world, and the vast majority of its personnel are some of the very best humans on the planet. Unfortunately, a large portion of our government, criminally corrupt and morally bankrupt as it has become, sees that military, and those personnel as expendable pawns.