Misjudging War

Duty Honor Country

Active member
I know the US is catching hell on multiple fronts for miscalculating the war in Iraq. People have been saying, and I agree with them, that the military did not properly plan to take over Iraq. I got to thinking a little bit on the subject. Misjudging war is pretty common in American history.

During the American Revolution, the British seemed to think that the war war would be very short. I have read a few letters and correspondence from British Generals in America to Britain that have upbeat predictions. The British found that they could beat the Americans, but never deal that fatal blow.

The Civil War also started with the thought of the War lasting 3 months at the most. The battle of Bull Run (First Manassas) had a lot of civilian spectators who came to watch. Everyone wanted to get a look before the war was over. No one ever thought that the War would last 3 long and agonizing years.

The Philippine war, from 1899-1904, started out like a policing action. The American forces went in thinking they would only be taking one island port. Soon 60,000 American soldiers were sucked into a conventional war. The remanence of the enemy forces retreated and fought a insurrection war that took 4 years to win and the lives of over 5,000 dead.

There were more than a few miscalculations in the Korean War. The American leadership refused to believe that the Chinese would attack. Man we were wrong on that one.

I do not think Kennedy was thinking about a full scale war in Vietnam when he approved American military advisers to assist South Vietnam. Once again, America found itself in a war no one really planned for.

I remember Clinton telling the American people that the actions in Bosnia and Kosovo would only be 2 years. We have been in Bosnia for over 10 years and Kosovo 6.

And now we have Iraq. Someone said that all the war plans go out the window as soon as the bullets start to fly. Yes we misjudged Iraq. You could say that history has a funny way of repeating itself.

SGT Doody
 
Misjudging war is common throughout human history. With the notable textbook case of the 1992 Desert Storm war, it is foolish to believe any major war can be perfectly planned and won. However, on the point of the 2003 War in Iraq it must be noted that you had high ranking American generalls (General Schinseki in the lead) that TOLD us exactly what was going to happen if we went in with too few troops but they where overrulled by politicians (rumsfeld) who said "Bah, what do you know about war?"
 
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events

-Sir Winston Churchill
 
so true...great quote Chocobo_Blitzer

I am sure people know of other instances in history of severely misjudging a war. Let's hear them

SGT Doody
 
In WWI Germany thought France would be a push-over and Russia would be a rediculously difficult foe.

WWII Hitler thought the itallians might actually help him :lol:
 
I guess I have always looked at the Phillipines as a sort of guide when dealing with Iraq, they are strikingly similar except that Iraq is not a newly independent colony but instead a country on the rebuild.

One can and should plan for war to as eacting a degree as possible, but once the war starts it us up to the pilot in the air, soldier on the ground, and seamen on the ocean to carry out these plans, it is their courage and steadfast decotion that will make the difference and determine the outcome of the war.
 
The "hot" portion of the Nato action in Kosovo lasted 78 days. The occupation may have lasted longer than predicted, but it has been very light in US casualties.

The predictions that were way off were from critcs of the Kosovo war, who predicted out-of-control casualties in a prolonged, Vietnam-like scenario.

The war was in 1999.
 
There are always people who expect the next war to be another Vietnam. Because their movement depends on a Vietnam in order to gain power and influence.

And I leave you:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt quotes (American 26th US president (1901-09), 1858-1919)
 
lets face it, its a lot easier to be upbeat about things and frankly, people dont like hearing bad news. the military aren't going to release statements that they expect a long hard war, with lots of casualties, the public morale would fall through the floor.
yes, apparently they didn't plan enough, but i think it is more common for countries to overestimate than underestimate themselves.
 
Whispering Death said:
Misjudging war is common throughout human history. With the notable textbook case of the 1992 Desert Storm war, it is foolish to believe any major war can be perfectly planned and won. However, on the point of the 2003 War in Iraq it must be noted that you had high ranking American generalls (General Schinseki in the lead) that TOLD us exactly what was going to happen if we went in with too few troops but they where overrulled by politicians (rumsfeld) who said "Bah, what do you know about war?"

Totally agree with you on this. 8)

With Iraq, maybe this topic should be called "Deception in War". :roll:
 
what about when napoleon decided to attack russia... during the winter. its been said that the greatest ally the russians have is winter.
 
I would have to say that the War of 1812 has to be the USA's worst judged war.
The US thought that with the weak forces that Britain had stationed in British North America (aka Canada), that victory for their army would be, according to one of their leading politicans,Henry Clay, a 'walk in the woods'
 
I'll agree with that. What was it? 20 US ships vs. 360 British? Not the best of odds. Still, fortunately for us, Britain was preoccupied with Napolean and we got out of it by the skin of our teeth. The History Channel recently did a fine show about The War of 1812 saying essentially what we just agreed on.

Little known fact: ever wonder why the war has such a silly name as "The War of 1812"? It's because it was the war immediately after "The War of 1776" which was what Americans originally called The War of Independance (AKA The Revolutionary War). It wasn't until many years after the American Revolution that it was named thus. There are still gravestones here in Vermont of soldiers from that era that state something like "Eli Smyth, Sergeant, The War of 1776". Nobody ever came up with a better name for The War of 1812 so it remained named the same as it was originally.
 
The War of 1812 was fought to force Britain to recognize the rights of American sailors and merchants, to force Britain to stop arming the indians, and supposedly most of all, to take Canada and force Britain out of North America (I always thought this was a secondary objective). The war succeeding in ending impressment and Britain agreed to stop arming Indians. The Great Lakes were de-militarized and the British abandoned all forts east of the Mississippi. The War of 1812 was the best thing to happen in British/American relations. It caused both sides to wake up and realize that they were both dependent on trade with each other. This was a victory for American in the fact that Britain held all the cards but yet we managed to walk away with something, but this was also a victory for Britain in that they were still able to trade with America even after their repeated violations of our rights as a nation.
 
British Misjudged the Japs

Well its common in most countries.. Brits did that in Malaya .. They thought the feeble bodied Japs wont last long in Malaya .. But to the worlds utter surprise ..fortress Singapore fell without firing a shot ... and that to the Japs used only 11 Inf divisions for the conquest of this side of the Pacific... Truth is stranger than fiction
 
Damien435 said:
. The war succeeding in ending impressment and Britain agreed to stop arming Indians. The Great Lakes were de-militarized and the British abandoned all forts east of the Mississippi..
No and no
The war didn't stop impressment, the end of the war against France did that, we didn't have the need for sailors any more. Its not referred too in the Treaty of Ghent.
Also the British didn't agree to stop arming the Indians in the Treaty, its also not mentioned. Though it should be pointed out that the British government wasn't even arming the Indians before the war. Any British weapons they had were supplied by local traders in British North America (aka Canada)
The Great Lakes weren't de-militarized, and the British didn't abandon any forts that they had held before the war.
 
The Americans won control of the Detroit frontier region when Oliver Hazard Perry's ships destroyed the British fleet on Lake Erie (Sept. 10, 1813). This victory forced the British to retreat eastward from the Detroit region, and on Oct. 5, 1813, they were overtaken and defeated at the battle of the Thames (Moraviantown) by an American army under the command of Gen. William Henry Harrison.
 
1). Pakistan's folly in initiating Op. Gibraltar and subsequently, Op. Grand Slam in 1965.

The first was intended to sow the seeds of a revolution against India in Kashmir - it was done by infiltrators spreading rumours, attempting to take over radio broadcast stations and proclaim Kashmiri independence and sabotaging lines of communication of the Indian Army.

When that failed to incite popular riot, Pakistan sent in its regular troops to Kashmir under Op. Grand Slam. They believed that the Indian response would remain confined to Kashmir. Instead, India attacked along the international border in the Punjab to relieve the pressure in Kashmir and after 3 weeks of fighting, the US and the USSR brokered a cease-fire in which both sides returned the territory they captured.

Some accounts suggest that Pakistan believed that the Indian response would be muted because earlier that year, a border skirmish between the Pakistan Army and the Indian border police in the marshlands of Gujarat resulted in Pakistan capturing a couple of posts. They misjudged the Indian resolve to hold Kashmir along the existing Ceasefire Line on the basis of this incident and the prevalent belief among the Pakistani General Staff that 1 Pakistani soldier is the equal to 10 Indian soldiers!

2). Pakistan's attempt to infiltrate and hold unoccupied peaks in the Kargil sector of Kashmir in 1999. Prior to this incident that led to a 3 month conflict (which resulted in Pakistani withdrawal from the posts they occupied), both Indian and Pakistani soldiers would withdraw from their posts in this high altitude area during the winter months and reoccupy their posts after the thaw.

After the 1998 nuclear tests by both India and Pakistan, Pakistan believed that India would not contest their occupation of these peaks for fear of the conflict spiralling to a nuclear exchange or even if they did, international pressure would force India to back down. Given the logistical difficulties in dislodging the enemy from the mountains (the heights were generally between 15,000 and 20,000 ft, with sharp ridges and no cover), it was believed that Pakistan could hold on till the next winter and that their occupation would be made permanent.

After early reverses sustained in hasty frontal attacks, the Indian Army brought in the artillery to an extent unseen before in the Indo-Pak scenario, and helped by the IAF in destroying Pakistan's logistical nodes, recaptured the main peaks before Pakistan withdrew to its territory under American diplomatic and Indian military pressure.

In both cases, the Pakistani aggression was based on very optimistic estimates of Indian reaction.
 
misjudgement

I think the Classic is Croesus consulting the Oracle at Delphi about going to war with a neighboring state(Persia?) and receiving the answer that "if you go to war a great empire will be destroyed" whereupon he did and his empire was destroyed.
 
How many times have conflicts started with the idea that they will be over by Christmas, the only thing is no one ever says just which Christmas.
 
Back
Top