Today CNN was reporting the following: http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/201...e-for-thursday-january-5-2012/?iref=allsearch On CNN they went on to state that the policy of maintaining an active military to fight two concurrent wars which was established under the Bush adminstration is going to be reduced so that the US will only be involved in one war at a time in the future. While this might be an improvement over the Bush adminstration's involvement in two wars at once the only reason for having an active military large to engage in a war is if the plans are to actually be involved in a war. I have a huge supporter of national defense but actively planning to maitain a military force that is always engaged in war, even if it's only one war at a time, is not about national defense. National defense can be accomplished with a much smaller active military along with a much larger reserve component. For example, we simply don't require 11 US Navy Carrier Fleets if the goal of the US Navy is to defend the United States against attack by a foreign nation. Four carrier fleets with two in the Atlantic and two in the Pacific are more than enough to protect the United States. We are just winding down from the two wars that the Bush admistration started as we've just left Iraq and hopefully will soon leave Afghanistan. Being in Afghanistan is not about defending the United States today but instead is about supporting the corrupt Karzai regime that we installed in that country. Americans are simply tired of always being at war which has basically been the status quo since WW II. Not a single nation we've been at war with since WW II ever attacked the United States and none of these wars were about defending the United States from an attack by a foreign nation. These wars have cost the lives of many tens of thousands of Americans and left literally hundreds of thousands more suffering from the physical and mental disabilities related to war. Isn't it about time we stop? Instead of planning for endless wars why don't we plan for peace instead? No nation threatens the United States today and there is no rational reason for the US to start another war after we finally withdraw from Afghanistan. Who do we plan in invading next and the greater question is why do we plan on invading them? They do not threaten us. Why don't we plan for peace instead of war?
A very balanced and considered view . Unfortunately I feel there is a sub text . Namely , that the penny has finally dropped in sleepy Washington -- that the old strategy was a failure l. In fact , it represented the biggest ever repeated fiasco in History . And that apart from losing every single war since the second world war , the money cupboard is bare and has been so for many years . Further , my sense is that it has finally dawned on the goofy military that destabilisation is a more productive route . Time will be the final arbiter , but there is considerable non mainstream information that the Libyan situation was resolved essentially by the US throwing money and equipment to opposition groups . And now they are following the same basic pattern in Syria . Land armies are nearing redundancy , regardless . Most future wars will be conducted from the skies either by manned and unmanned planes plus unmanned drones . And Cyber warfare will become increasingly critical --- a very poor Russian military effort in Georgia in 2008 was only turned into a comprehensive victory , thanks to a mass cyber attack on Tiblisi and military communications , which overwhelmed Georgia and brought everything to a grinding halt . Also much of the successful effort against Iran has been achieved with the Stuxnet worm . Because America is a war mongering race ( separate Topic) I expect the old basic strategy to remain unchanged . But in the future , they will start to skin the cats in different ways .
What we need to really understand is that interventionism in the sovereign affairs of other nations has historically been a failure for the United States. We tried it in Iran in the 1950's and it blew up in our face by the end of the 1970's. We lost in Nicaragua by supporting the Contras during the 1980's as they were nothing but a terrorist organization. In 1991 we intervened in the Gulf War leading to interventionism in Iraq throughout the 1990's and paid the price on 9/11. There was no logic in the US support for either the tyrannical regime in Saudi Arabia or for the disposed tyrannical monarchy of Kuwait. It made no sense at the time and makes less sense today. In 2003 we invaded Iraq and now the concern is that the Shiite controlled government in Iraq is going to ally itself with Iran which actually makes sense for both Iran and Iraq. We're going to lose in Afghanistan eventually as the Taliban is unquestionably going to return to overthrow the corrupt government we've installed. Libya is probably going to be a failure as well. We just don't seem to ever learn.
The United States was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the United States. The United States Congress also issued a formal declaration of war against both of these nations but has never issued a formal declaration of war since WW II. We seem to have a failure to follow Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution which delegates the role of declaring war to the Congress, not the president. The Korean War had absolutely nothing to do with the defense of the United States nor did the Vietnam War.
WW II was a war in direct defense of the United States where no war since then has been. The Korean War is an example of a complete disaster as the US has been maintaining troops there for the last 60 years and there was only a ceasefire without a peace resolution. It's really the "longest war in US history" since it never came to an end and the US never withdrew our troops.
Put both of those down to the British !!!! My point -- may be Shiva agrees -- is that after the second world war America never won a thing . As for Korea . Technically the war has never finished , but if you think splitting the country and effectively creating the present regime is a success , then you are not on my planet .
WWII was a foreign intervention. So was the Korean War. There's no getting around that fact. Now you are equivocating over definitions.
America's objective in the Korean War was to protect Japan. The objective was accomplished, and in the process America created a successful satellite in the form of South Korea.
While I agree with your main premise and most of your points, I would like to point out that US military planning has centered around being to fight on at least two fronts for quite some time, perhaps a 1/2 century or so. I remember this from ROTC training.
all wars after WW2 were failures in my opinion , A financial failure as well . what has been the cost to us to Maintain the troops in Korea? Germany and other places
Because that is not what our enemies want. When the day comes that the planet is cleansed of them or when they want peace then we will plan for peace.
A lot of our military is still structured around the Cold War legacy. We're like the British during the American Revolution. We either adapt or our enemies will find other ways to drain our coffers. Plus, the military-industrial complex makes a buttload of cash under the current system. The "defense" budget is practically given a blank check by both sides of the political spectrum.
The only enemies the United States have are those we've created in our minds. No nation wants to go to war with the United States. Not a single one so why do we want to wage war on them?
the US cannot plan for peace until it removes its financial interests in high conflict areas, the middle east wars to stabalize those countries with governments of our choice are to protect the oil spike in prices that will affect many american consumers and the nations productivity if transportation is harmed on a short term outlook of the future the only way the country could plan for peace is if it ended its dependence on foreign oil
Which is what the rest of the world knows . It then has to watch you " create" wars , to try and win control of Oil producing countries and their means of distribution . This leads to disgust and huge dislike , turning into hatred . You are not going to like it when literally everybody turns their back against you .
The idea of being able to fight two wars at one time grew out of the experience of having to fight a two front war during WWII.
This really makes no sense at all. We're one of the primary reasons for the instability in the Middle East today because of our military interventionism and support for tyrannical regimes. Additionally we have absolutely no rights to the resources of foreign countries. If all of the oil wells in the Middle East dried up tomorrow the United States wouldn't be hurt economically in the long term and we've spent far more money on our wars in the Middle East than any economic advantage we might have gained. If we added just the cost of the Iraq War, which is something like $800 billion not including the long term costs, to the price of gasoline how much would a gallon of gasoline really cost? This is about as stupid as invading a country or contributing to the overthrowing of a government like we did in the 1950's in Iran to protect business investments. It ultimatelly cost the taxpayers more money than the oil interests that would have been lost when Iran planned to nationalize their oil industry and it wasn't even US oil companies that were at risk. It was British Petroleum that had oil interests in Iran at the time as I recall and we helped overthrow a democracy for the British "economic" interests. Rather stupid IMO. When a corporation does business in another country then it does so at risk. If anything occurs that costs that enterprise money then the investors carry that risk, not the US taxpayers. I don't get a dividend payment from any corporation that the US would bailout so their stockholders shouldn't benefit from my tax dollars. Of course nothing prevents the US from ending it's dependency on foreign oil today. We're going to have to in the future anyway so why not now? As T. Boone Pickens pointed out, albeit for his own personal financial interests, we could switch to compressed natural gas for all of our transportation needs if we wanted to. We have enough natural gas for several hundred years in the US today if it was used to power our transportation needs.
When you Say USA, you must be refering to the engineers of war. Paul the wuss Wolfowitz, Sick Dick Cheney, and Donald Dumb Rumbsfeild. These and people like them are the engineers of war. They profit greatly off the USA taxpayer at the sacrifices of the military. Most Americans do not want ongoing wars, because it screws up the US economy. As these people do not want to pay for war. The US military has become so great compaired to the rest of the world in military technology. The USA's only corporate industry that does profit in todays global competitive world is the defence industry. Because other countries do not want to partake in war, or buy the USA's military equipment. The USA starts wars with them so they will be dependant on the USA for aid and military equipment. So in a sense you are correct, the USA's military industry has been able to manipulate the government and public into many long costly wars. No other country in the last 250 years in history of the globe started and declaired war longer and more than the USA.
it is not that easy anymore to pick and leave and not use our military to protect big business corporations have become too big to fail as we have seen recently the oil market is no exception they pay alot of taxes if they failed overnight it would devastate the US economy as transportation and every other market that depends on big oil like the automakers, people who use car transport to work etc... would all crumble and severely weaken us in the short term and cause a depression ideally yes we should pull out of all wars and let the oil market go down the drain but Americans are barely surviving a reccession they will not survive a depression as easily as past generations have as they are too accustomed to the fruits of past labors. this means no peace for the immediate future and a need for the military to work for the people but we can slowly through grassroots efforts have corporations become ethical again as they are doing now with nat gas and other investments to get the US off foreign oil.
You're parsing here a bit. We got into WWII because Japan attacked us, not Germany. The axis alliance linked Japan, Italy, and Germany, but we didn't get involved in Europe because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. We could have retaliated against Japan only. Our assault on Germany was the result of our deep alliance with England.
On December 11, 1941, just four days after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Germany formally declared war on the United States. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/germany-declares.htm Had it not been for this FDR would have had a hard time convincing Congress to become involved in the European war. This declaration of war by Germany was immediately followed by German U-boat attacks against American shipping of the East Coast often in sight of major US cities that never imposed blackouts making ships very visable to the U-boats at night and easy prey.
Which two fronts were they <<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>> ? There was a front sweeping down from Russia but I can't remember seeing any GIs alongside the marauding Red Army . We moved from North Africa up through Italy And we guided you toward Berlin from the coast of northern France .You were definitely on one front but I missed the other action that Audie Murphy , John Wayne and William Holden were involved in . Unless you are counting those little islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean What was all that nonsense about?
