Whats Wrong With Winning One
brinktk
Active member
Wars aren't fought the way they used to be because our opponents have caught on to what our strengths and weaknesses are.
They know we are casualty adverse so they publicize our casualties as much as possible.
They know if they wear a uniform then we will blow them away quickly...seems the enemy doesn't like to line up Napoleon style the way our RD people seem to think they will.
They know they have to do just enough to justify us staying over there (costing billions on our part for a cheap investment on theirs)
They know they control the tempo of combat and rate of casualties which means they can prosecute it indefinitely.
They know to avoid a straight up fight at all costs until we are either gone or on our heels.
They know, which we don't, NEVER get into a land war in Asia...
They can produce cheap, effective counter measures to things they know we will spend BILLIONS to overcome (I.E. MRAPS, Duke systems, RG-31s, MATVs, Rhino's, etc)
They know we are casualty adverse so they publicize our casualties as much as possible.
They know if they wear a uniform then we will blow them away quickly...seems the enemy doesn't like to line up Napoleon style the way our RD people seem to think they will.
They know they have to do just enough to justify us staying over there (costing billions on our part for a cheap investment on theirs)
They know they control the tempo of combat and rate of casualties which means they can prosecute it indefinitely.
They know to avoid a straight up fight at all costs until we are either gone or on our heels.
They know, which we don't, NEVER get into a land war in Asia...
They can produce cheap, effective counter measures to things they know we will spend BILLIONS to overcome (I.E. MRAPS, Duke systems, RG-31s, MATVs, Rhino's, etc)
You know I think these 2 statements of yours are really the key to answering his question. Modern day Casualty aversion and fighting enemies that avoid straightway fights. These later wars do not consist of large set piece battles for the most part.
This isn't Iwo Jima where were willing to loss 7000 dead is 3 or 4 weeks. Nor do we have an enemy that will stand up and fight like the Germans, Japanese, in Korea the Chinese, even the NVA tried it a time or 2. (which they lost big time) when they did go toe to toe with the US and left their guerrilla tactics behind.
Last edited:
The U.S. Army chased the Comanche's and the Apaches around for years with little results the Indians fought on their own terms and on their own lands they fought for their ideals and they played hardball in the end hardball begot hardball , the Texas Rangers figured it out early they didn't just set out to destroy the Tribesmen they set out to destroy the tribe which in reality is the only way to fight a guerrilla war with conventional forces .
1st we are not about to get involved in a war like WW2 any time soon where the allies killed >> 1/2 million German civilians, not to mention 10's or more likely 100's of thousand of other civilians via bombing – artillery and nearly a million Allied lives are lost to win a war. This isn't 41 to 45, and we are not fighting an enemy that can change the world order.
The poor good guys today are under so much media scrutiny it's sickening. Then the operations are much more limited in scope. So the troops must do the best with what they have-had. Also the people you are fighting with-for must support you and hopefully desire a democracy. Yes they may have voted put is or has the country been a true democracy.
I just finished talking to my friend a Vietnam vet. He was telling me how difficult it was after a while to believe in what he was fighting for because the people in SVN didn’t support the
US “just his opinion”. So you can stay there and police the country but eventually without the support of the South Vietnamese people that’s all you can do.