Originally posted by WestPoint23
I agree with that but isn't the type of combat we have fought since the Vietnam war the most difficult one of all to succeed in?

It's not the most difficult to succeed in as you can simply avoid it by not invading countries that never did anything to you! The most difficult type of war to win is the type where you actually fight a first world enemy that not only has trained professionals but also modern equipment, experience in such warfare and a interest in fighting.

Given the fact that there are so many more factors which must be dealt with.

Like what? Lots of individuals and small gangs with guns shoots at you; big deal. If you can not suppress a local population effectively enough to control their economic activity your either not trying very hard or just not allocating the resources required to do so. If you want to see how it's done go study the last few hundreds worth of imperialist world domination.

I was under the impression that large conventional conflicts were the bred and butter of the US military machine. Maybe man for man we're not the "best" but as a whole I'm almost tempted to say it.

The US does not in my opinion have a very good record when it comes to large scale conventional conflicts and it just gets worse when it comes to anti insurgency fighting. Maybe Americans are simply too nice for this business otherwise called imperialism? Man for man the US armed forces are dismally inefficient in it's use of taxpayer funds ( the Canadians, Germans , Swedes and many others just seem to have far greater capabilities with less money and less personal) and i have seen no evidence that this does not seem to be case when the bullets start flying. Obviously all of these things are relatively easily corrected but it's slow going given how even back in world war two German divisions of the same size as American one's managed 10-15% more personal actually wielding weapons and applying firepower. The fact that the US has always had a far larger population base and massive industrial resources means it has always managed to get away with such inefficiency so while it destroys the argument that the US armed forces are man for man anywhere near the best it does not mean much in the big scheme of things.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
The US does not in my opinion have a very good record when it comes to large scale conventional conflicts and it just gets worse when it comes to anti insurgency fighting.
Stellar

Can you show some examples of our poor record in conventional warfare?
Would our foe have to be Russia, China, or something along those lines before it would count? How many years did Iraq and Iran fight, only to end in a stalemate, with over a million dead? How long did it take us to defeat them conventionally? 100 hours in Desert Storm, and a few weeks to topple Saddam. Are you saying other countries could've achieved these goals faster, due to our incompetence?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Can you show some examples of our poor record in conventional warfare?

The Second World war, Korea, Vietnam? The US most certainly does not have a history that shows anything remarkable when it comes to waging war on third world nations or first world nations that have already been devastated by wars on other fronts.

Would our foe have to be Russia, China, or something along those lines before it would count?

All war counts and all i am saying that is that US citizens should not presume such a complete superiority when such is not proven by the historic record. Maybe it may turn out that why in a world war against a major power but since that hasn't happened yet we just don't know.

How many years did Iraq and Iran fight, only to end in a stalemate, with over a million dead? How long did it take us to defeat them conventionally? 100 hours in Desert Storm, and a few weeks to topple Saddam.

So when a bunch of five year old kids fails to beat up a bunch of other five year old kids what does it prove when a bunch of thirty year old men with machine guns and hand grenades manages to blow either side to kingdom come? I don't understand why the first gulf war ( a UN coalition effort after all) somehow proves that the US has a vastly superior armed force that is somehow different, and certainly not superior, from those that came before?

Are you saying other countries could've achieved these goals faster, due to our incompetence?

In even recent history the eviction of Iraqi forces from Kuwait was hardly some kind of revolutionary victory and comparatively the German invasion of Yugoslavia , or even the low countries and France, were far more significant and revolutionary than anything the US armed forces has ever even contemplated. To suggest that the US armed forces has ever been able of similar feats of arms is in my humble opinion laughable at best.

If we were to give the same resources and money to Canada, Australia, Germany, Israel , and in my opinion a number of other countries, you would get a far more efficient and deadly force than what the USA has so far managed.

Stellar

[edit on 22-3-2008 by StellarX]

The main reason why US forces are poor compared to others is their reliance and technology and superior fire power to get them out of trouble.
But even then that does not work as seen in Vietnam and Korea. Then in Iraq they came up against a 3rd rate force that did not test them.

Overall the US armed forces have never had to fight on their own.
When they do you will really see just how bad they are, they may spout that they do it all but they have never done it on their own and never will. The fear of another Vietnam is coming to haunt them again in Iraq and sooner or later they will be going home wupped once again.

The people of the World did not want the British in their countries and will certainly not want the Americans. But again the record looks bad, the only superpower beaten by a group of poorly armed insurgents, it makes you wwonder why they spend all those trillions on the military because its a poor rate of exchange. America would do better to slash the spending by 80% and use the money for its own people and those of the third world. Helping people makes friends killing them makes enemies.

I watched some documentary about Bin Laden and how he was able to escape the clutches of the US Military in Afghanistan.
There was one point that most of the so called "experts" that were interviewed kept mentioning when asked why he wasnt caught.
Their opinions were that the US sent the wrong troops in after him, they sent a Mountain division thats based in Alaska, when they should have sent the best fighting force in the world. The US Marines

Also, you may forget that for the past 50 years the US Military has trained its forces to fight an open war in the plains of Europe against 5000 Soviet Tanks.
Every weapon that was developed was centered around this scenario, the Apache was for killing tanks as was the A-10.
Only in the last 10 or so years have they started to require urban combat and counter-insurgency training.

[edit on 3/25/2008 by Kr0n0s]

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
... the best fighting force in the world. The US Marines

That's hilarious. Why do you say they're the best? What metric do you use to gauge that? Did you use a Pride-o-meter?

Blueraja, you lost the Vietnam war period, stop splitting hairs by saying which battle did they loose or win. Comparing Iraq's military to America's is just childish. Iraq's armed forces had been depleted by the Iran/Iraq war and were by modern standards 3rd rate. In other words no effective force to stop the allies ranged against them.

The simple truth is that man for man American troops are inferior to the British, Israel's, Germans and Japanese just to name a few. America spends much on technology and weapons systems but fails to provide its forces with the proper training and support that they need. If you want examples an ww2 SS Regiment could take out a US division the Japs were the same.

This is witnessed by its actions in past conflicts and the present one. Again the worlds only super power is getting wupped by freedom fighters and one of the main reasons why is the mindset of the forces on both sides. The Iraqis and their supporters are fighting an occupying alien force and have a legitamate reason to do so where as American troops know they are just hired guns doing the dirty work for the corporate machineand as such are doomed to failure.

History is replete with such actions and its only a question of time before the US throws the towel in if only because it can no longer afford to continue this conflict. Some times its not just quantity but quality and fighting for all the right reasons rather than the wrong ones. The US will fail in the ME and will once again be tarnished by the stain of an illegal war and the deaths of millions for no gain.

It must come as a shock when you think your the best when reality proves otherwise.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Blueraja, you lost the Vietnam war period, stop splitting hairs by saying which battle did they loose or win. Comparing Iraq's military to America's is just childish. Iraq's armed forces had been depleted by the Iran/Iraq war and were by modern standards 3rd rate. In other words no effective force to stop the allies ranged against them.


This is witnessed by its actions in past conflicts and the present one. Again the worlds only super power is getting wupped by freedom fighters and one of the main reasons why is the mindset of the forces on both sides. The Iraqis and their supporters are fighting an occupying alien force and have a legitamate reason to do so where as American troops know they are just hired guns doing the dirty work for the corporate machineand as such are doomed to failure.


It must come as a shock when you think your the best when reality proves otherwise.

Vietnam wasn't lost militarily. It was lost politically.
As for the military getting whooped by "freedom fighters," that's pretty laughable. Would you care to list how many engagements these "freedom fighters" have won, when going up against US forces? They seem to be much more effective at killing other Iraqis than they are at killing soldiers and marines. As for it being a case of the military vs. the Iraqis, that's just not accurate, and gives a great deal of insight into your lack of understanding of the ground truth. The Iraqis are fighting these "freedom fighters" too, though I suppose they don't count because in your opinion they're on the wrong side.

Blue, there is nothing laugthable about war, but irrespective of what you think American was beaten militarily in Vietnam, the US used everything bar nukes and could still not win. The same story is happening in the ME, Saddam Insane to a degree kept all the waring factions at bay, the US created a vaccuum by toppling SI but the vaccuum has now been filled with all these waring factions and to which the US Goverment has no solution to the problem.

Age old differences and grudges have been allowed to take wing and this is a conflict that cannot be one by means of force. If you look at the history of the ME we have been fighthing for a thousand years on and off and has it got us anywhere no. Has the occupying forces ever won in the ME no they have not and neither will the US.

Strip the techno away from the average US grunt and thats what you get average. Dont take it personal you should feel sorry for your trooops because its them at the sharp end doing the dirty deed for the benefit of others who make profit from death and war.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
You failed to address any of my points-

By points i presume you mean your host of allegations and general recounting of popular mythology?

A- name one major military battle in Vietnam that the US military lost, or any post Vietnam battle for that matter, seeing as how we're discussing the current state of the US military.

You do not have to lose major battles ( as if there many of those and a real way for the US to lose them) to lose a war and that has always been the case with occupying foreign countries.

B- The Iraqis and Iranians didn't seem to have problems killing each other, so we know that their weapons are lethal.

Sure.

In Desert Storm, Iraq had the 5th largest military in the world,

Not true.

and with the exception of Russia, China, North Korea, they had one of the most dense air defense networks deployed.

Which posed only a limited threat to a coalition of modern aircraft and systems. Remember that the gulf war happened before the serious run down of the US military ( it had built up all trough the 80's to basically reach the level it did for the invasion of Iraq) and that it has nowhere near the same capacity today. After the French had given the US the information required to effectively sabotage/negate the integrated nature of the Iraqi air defenses around major centers it had little capability to inflict the type of attrition the coalition could not stomach.

We ran over them in 100 hrs. When we launched the ground invasion in 2003, we took Baghdad in 3 weeks, with a pretty small force.
Tell me which country could've achieved these feats faster.

The German army managed to defeat comparatively far better armed and organized forces in many occasions during the second world war... Sure one can make the argument that the victory was gained trough shear brilliance but as far as my information goes it had far more to do with the lack of Iraqi spirit and means than with what the Coalition did.

Since i am so hopelessly biased i can but point out what the Chinese did to the UN ( read US ), to say nothing of the second world war, forces in Korea for me to understand that the US has so far been able to rely on shear firepower and that it has not been tested against nations that could call similar resources into action. When it does we may get to judge but until then defeating third world nations conclusively will no more help the US than it did Germany in 1939-1941.

C- So if the countries you mentioned only had the size, firepower, logistical capabilities, command and control, and situational awareness as the US, they'd be far more deadly and efficient eh?

What i am saying is that there are many nations today that are achieving similar or superior general operational capabilities and that given the same natural resources, population and educational standards( and that's mostly superior in Europe) they may not only operate far larger standing armies but will deploy larger numbers of more efficient weapons. Since this argument will be hard/impossible to prove in general terms it's just my opinion which i believe i can defend on a few specific points that may or may not prove the overarching view.

Stellar

Westcoast I dont think you need to use insults to try and give weight to your opinions. The US armed forces were beaten in Vietnam end of and talking of ends what happened there. Was there an orderly retreat, a compromise, treaties signed etc. no there was not what there was, was a disorganised rout with many of your own people left behind and many more south Vietnamese left to face the music.

And why do some Americans still live in the belief that their armed forces are superior to all others and greater is beyond me. The US forces for some time have never had to deal with a modern well equiped and motivated force. In the History of the US armed forces when they did come up against such forces they were well beaten and only the fact of allied forces working together made the real difference.

Man for man the US soldier is inferior to many of his counterparts as already stated. Over reliance of weapons systems to get the job done rather than individual skill or courage is seen on a regular basis in Iraq and Afganistan. Quite simply the US employs a sytem of overkill to achieve a result and this practice has been used for decades. The reason for this is that the gruntys on the gorund are simply not good enough to do the job as they lack the skills, courage and motivation to obtain the required result.

We are not taliking about elite or special forces here but the ordinary joe's, to date the US has suffered 140,000 casulties in Iraq since it invaded, this figure includes dead, wounded, disease etc. How large has this figure got to be before some one realises something is going wrong. And at what cost to Iraq and its people and the cost born by American families and the taxpayer.

It must come as a terrible shock when you believe and are told that your country and its people are invincible and superior to all others and then find out that its simply not true. Perhaps we will see another so called political withdrawal from the ME.

Originally posted by magicmushroom

A- The US forces for some time have never had to deal with a modern well equiped and motivated force. In the History of the US armed forces when they did come up against such forces they were well beaten and only the fact of allied forces working together made the real difference.


B- The reason for this is that the gruntys on the gorund are simply not good enough to do the job as they lack the skills, courage and motivation to obtain the required result.

C- to date the US has suffered 140,000 casulties in Iraq since it invaded, this figure includes dead, wounded, disease etc. How large has this figure got to be before some one realises something is going wrong.

A-and what example of the US forces that currently exist are you referring to, where they were beaten and had to be saved by the allies?

B-That's complete BS. What is your empirical measure to make such ludicrous remarks about skills, courage, and motivation?

C- 140,000 casualties? Let's see there's been 4,004 KIA, and 29,314 WIA, so you're telling us that we've had 107,000 casualties to disease?
I'd love to see the source you're using for these figures.

Blue, if you have any knowledge of military campaigns you will realise that casulties are not just dead or wounded, there are accidents ,sickness and disease especially over prolonged periods ot time like 5 years and as for he figures there on the net if you wish to look. Its bad propaganda to tell you people just how many people are suffering, yes you are told about the dead and wounded but not casulties due to other causes.

As for conflicts that the US has required the help of others again check history. Just as an example from the American point of view the war in the pacific was the US v Japan yet many others were fighting them as well. Without the help of the Ruskies in ww2 we would have never beat the Germans and never got back into Europe, while the Ruskies were facing the cream of German forces we had the christmas tree soldiers to fight.

The US soldier uses technology to do the job then they have to, but I wouldn't say it's an over reliance on technology. If it was me, the choice between using a relatively safe air strike to remove a threat or sending troops in to do the same mission with an almost certain higher death toll, is a no-brainer.
As to the issue of the other nations mentioned, apply the same yardstick regarding last time fought a major power, kill ratios, etc. and see how they compare.
It comes down on how they are employed and what the mission is, I feel. Given the way the US forces are being currently used, I don't feel that they are being used to their best ability. They were not trained for their current role and I don't believe that any other nation could do any better at the same tasks.
I do believe that if you wanted a nation laid to waste, short of using nuclear weapons, no other nation could do it was well as the US. This isn't a statement of national pride; it's a statement of capabilties.