... when an enemy actually fights back .

The question is simple enough- can the United States actually win a war when the enemy fights back ?

Notwithstanding the results in Vietnam or ' The Drug War ' - it seems that there are serious flaws in this greatest of militaries. It's possible that these flaws could result in defeat, should the US actually get in a real fight.
Some things to consider :
1. Theft, sabotage, and betrayal are rampant in the Contractor Corps. How about parents mailing body armor to their kids in Iraq... necissary, it seems, because the Iraqis actually shot back. Our kids heaping sandbags and other IADS ( improvised armor devices ) on their so-called ' armored vehicles '.
Does anybody remember Joseph Hellerman's ' Catch 22 ' - where a poor fellow looks for his parachute only to find a corporate stock certificate where it should have been ? Well... don't laugh ( at least not if you're American ).

2. The US military uses lots of high technology that can be easily defeated by a sophisticated enemy. Guided weapons, drones, etc.- rely on secure communications to operate. Jamming is as old as radio... ' nuff said.
Mercenaries ( Russian ) are known to have highjacked various laser guided munitions during the Iraq invasion... causing ( in some cases ) very expensive bombs to fall into empty fields. It's likely that most aborigines cannot figure out laser- light frequencies, but my hypothetical question has to do with people who are MODERN and Who Would Fight Back.

3. People who are of very dubious loyalties apparently have access to our military secrets. It seems that every other year, there's a scandal involving massive intelligence penetrations from one middle eastern nation that is implicated in all sorts of nastiness... some say terrorism.

So, could the US win if it had to ?


[edit on 2-7-2009 by Skelkie3]

if we absolutely had to, we have nukes.

but
i have we could win, if we actually declared war. i think most of the problem with iraq was that war wasnt declared and we werent really prepared for anything long term or even lasting over a couple months.

Sure we could win a war if we are left alone.

The problem isn't technology, betrayal or anything in your list. The problem is simply politicions and anti war groups.

There are so many rules of engagement that we might as well just play hide and seek. These groups do not believe in collateral damage. They feel as if there shouldn't be any and the military has their hands tied trying to make them happy.

Let those who know about war fight it and the rest should sit back and shut up.

Thats how we will be able to win wars.

If we fight the way we are doing now nope. More than 50 years ago when our hands are untied, hell yeah!

The US has never fought a formidable opponent in 50 years. The Russians would be a formidable adversary in a conventional war. Nukes and technology aside a Russian soldier DOES NOT fight like a sandal wearing Iraqi weighing a buck 50 carrying an AK-47. If America ever got into a conventional war with a real enemy it would be nasty. Not saying we wouldn't win but a real soldier from Russia or China is not some Taliban underfunded and unorganized. You haven't seen anything like a real war with the "war on terror".

War is extreme violence.
War is destroying the enemy's means of fighting while killing significant numbers of the enemy.


To truly win a war, you have to destroy your enemy. During the process of destroying your enemy, you're going to kill a huge number of civilians.

If you want to win, you have to fight to win, not fight to win the politically correct heading.

I think that the US is a great fighting force. The US military can inflict massive destruction on any opponent. Yes, the US can win a war, but you might need to take the journalists away from the battlefield while the fighting is still happening.

Then pummel the opponent into submission.