...and history repeats...

[Whisky]

.
was watching a program about Korea - it told how (and why) the U.S. and the U.N. forces were "almost" defeated (until General MacArthur stepped in and told washington to go and do something nasty to themselves)...

the blame was placed on political decisions to RIF the Military to what amounted to a "police force" in Japan (after WWII) - and a virgin paper Military cut to pre-WWII size

and now, the powers that be in washington are about to do the same (with their budget cutting) - as mandated by your (not my) sitting prez and executed by his military puppet, the e-5 running the Pentagon

shame shame shame - we're gonna be in BIG trouble, folks

 

[Code3GT]

Granted I saw a LOT of fraud, waste, and abuse during my AD days, I agree the military doesn't need cut on capabilities but it could sure get by on a lot less and not be decimated.

Perfect $50 million example...
New Air Force cargo planes fly straight into mothballs | Fox News

 

[shortround]

You watched a revisionist version of history. Mac Arthur failed badly in WWII. He was known as "Dug Out Doug."

While at the United States Military Academy at West Point as a cadet, his mother moved into a nearby hotel to dote over her little boy, and brought pressure on his instructors to give him good grades. (After all, he descended from a Medal Of Honor line).

Mac Arthur quit the Philippines when the Japanese attacked, and fled to Australia while leaving his entire command condemned to death or capture. He never shared the hardships of his troops.

President Truman fired Mac Arthur for insubordination plain and simple. The USA did not want to escalate the war in Korea into a global conflict with the Soviet Union and China.

Obama fired Stanley McChrystal just for letting his staff vent openly with a Rolling Stone reporter on background about the ineptness of U.S. foreign military policy and strategy. McChrysal's only mistake was to trust the word of a reporter.

It is a crying shame that the highest leadership recognition given to a Captain in the U.S. Army is the "MacArthur Award."

Alas, history is often written by people with agendas.

 

[Code3GT]

Wow, thats really interesting about MacArthur! Thanks for the history lesson! ^^

 

[trigger643]

A really good and well researched book on the lessons of Korea is The Coldest Winter by David Halberstam. Shortround is pretty spot on. MacArthur was at the height of his incompetence during this conflict and much of the failures of our forces there rest squarely on his arrogance and detachment from and denial of the realities of the situation. Had it not been for the brilliance of commanders like Ridgeway, it could have been much worse than it was --- and thanks in a large part to MacArthur it was pretty bad.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

.
was watching a program about Korea - it told how (and why) the U.S. and the U.N. forces were "almost" defeated (until General MacArthur stepped in and told washington to go and do something nasty to themselves)...

the blame was placed on political decisions to RIF the Military to what amounted to a "police force" in Japan (after WWII) - and a virgin paper Military cut to pre-WWII size

and now, the powers that be in washington are about to do the same (with their budget cutting) - as mandated by your (not my) sitting prez and executed by his military puppet, the e-5 running the Pentagon

shame shame shame - we're gonna be in BIG trouble, folks

You are quite right.

I was in Korea in '78-'79 with the 1st Bn 9th Infantry (Manchus) on the DMZ. We are no longer on the DMZ its now S Korean soldiers who, unless they have magically upped their ante they are best are ragbags. At the time I was there we had a full Div, 2nd Inf Div, of note Commanded [FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]David E. Grange, Jr, one of the finest GO's I ever served under. He served in WWII (enlisted) and fought in Korea. He was well regarded by enlisted and officers alike.
[/FONT]
I see our military heading to towards a major crises: We will have command and control issues with women in the combat roles along with LGBTQ, no place for any of this in any military let alone ours.

 

[Acera]

Wow, thats really interesting about MacArthur! Thanks for the history lesson! ^^

If you thing that is interesting, look at the re-conquest of the Philippians. (Some say his incompetence lost the islands in the first place.) An unneeded invasion that cost thousands of American lives (and hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Filipino.) for his ego. The war was won because of destruction of Japan from the air. Those raids came from islands that were not close to the Philippians. The US should have forgone the invasion and let them surrender after the war, they posed no threat to our war effort bottled up there.

From those I talked to say Stanley A. McChrystal was (is) a hell of a soldier who got promoted above his competence. He made political and tactical mistakes that cost him. It happens.

For those that think that great American heroes don't have dirty laundry, you have to get a deeper look into areas that public schools will not touch. Do some digging into John J. 'Black Jack' Pershing and the stunt he pulled on the day the armistice was signed, 3,500 American casualties resulted. (Can't claim he did not know day and time of German surrender, he set it up.) Had patrols go out and make contact that morning, surprising German machine gunners who knew the war only had a few hours to go. They were however not surprised enough not to mow the Americans down though. Zero reason for it, no land to gain or any tactical advantage, they had quit and everyone just wanted to live.

Got to remember, the US armed forces used to be pretty damn good at PR, and making sure the story they wanted to print got written into history, folks it wanted to be remembered as heroes got that, all done in the best light possible for them. Then came Vietnam and it all changed, they got competition in telling their story. Now we all have a different perspective on how we view history.

 

[jrbfishn]

Pretty much, yup


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[Whisky]

You watched a revisionist version of history. Mac Arthur failed badly in WWII..

read my post again - absolutely no mention of MacArthur and WWII - only reference was about Korea

the crux of the program was how the d.c. morons had raped the Military after WWII then sent an ill prepared force into the korean nonsense incapable of winning (which it couldn't and which it didn't)

the same is happening now, with the same morons pulling the same crap

 

[Ole Cowboy]

read my post again - absolutely no mention of MacArthur and WWII - only reference was about Korea

the crux of the program was how the d.c. morons had raped the Military after WWII then sent an ill prepared force into the korean nonsense incapable of winning (which it couldn't and which it didn't)

the same is happening now, with the same morons pulling the same crap

We have not won a war since WWII. In modern America military does not win wars, they win battles, but politics decides on who wins the war. We won WWII because poltics (Truman) made the decision to drop the bomb(s). But since then all we have done if win battles, no more, no less.
Polticians love wars, its fun to be the Field Commander from the oval office, so a few soldiers die, no big deal, but most of all its GREAT for a foto op, just Obammy who would pizz on a soldier if he was on fire. Same for Clinton.

As someone who has traveled to all 50 states, lived in many of them and almost in every major city in the US I can tell you most folks find the military to be less than them, gun shooting, camping out, smokin dope around the campfire and nut jobs with a disease called PTSD that makes you crazy.

I now live in one of the most military friendly places in America, ONLY because there are so many military here.

 

[Acera]

We have not won a war since WWII. ........................

I take exception to that. We clearly won the first Gulf War.

President Bush said he would remove Saddam from Kuwait and he did just that with the help of the coalition.

Just becasue some folks think that we should have invaded further into Iraq and taken out the political regime, that was not what we set out to do.

George Herbert Walker Bush was then and is now a man of his word. He told our allies what he wanted to do, they signed on for that and he did not break his promise and we won that war. Any attempt to do more than would have cost us the support of the Arabs that fought on our side.

Grenada turned out pretty well for the limited war we fought there, have you heard a peep from them???

Panama has not posed any problems for us either after we kicked their ass.

I think the next generation did a heck of a job in Iraq when the second Bush kicked the repressive government there to the curb.

In Vietnam we had the last combat soldiers out almost 2 years before the north invaded. We did not lose that war.............we quit (which I think is worse in many regards).

I agree we still have some projects ongoing in Afghanistan and Korea but they are by far not lost......................

Saying that we win battles and not wars is selling a lot of folks short in what this great country has accomplished.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I take exception to that. We clearly won the first Gulf War.

President Bush said he would remove Saddam from Kuwait and he did just that with the help of the coalition.

Just becasue some folks think that we should have invaded further into Iraq and taken out the political regime, that was not what we set out to do.

George Herbert Walker Bush was then and is now a man of his word. He told our allies what he wanted to do, they signed on for that and he did not break his promise and we won that war. Any attempt to do more than would have cost us the support of the Arabs that fought on our side.

Grenada turned out pretty well for the limited war we fought there, have you heard a peep from them???

Panama has not posed any problems for us either after we kicked their ass.

I think the next generation did a heck of a job in Iraq when the second Bush kicked the repressive government there to the curb.

In Vietnam we had the last combat soldiers out almost 2 years before the north invaded. We did not lose that war.............we quit (which I think is worse in many regards).

I agree we still have some projects ongoing in Afghanistan and Korea but they are by far not lost......................

Saying that we win battles and not wars is selling a lot of folks short in what this great country has accomplished.

I am afraid you are missing the point. As a career soldier of 26 years my last 10 on General Staff at the 4 Star Command I have some good insight in what really happens.

WWII was truly the last war really run by Generals, but even then Truman made the final call which led to winning the war. Since then Congress has got involved, and as time has gone by more so the WH.

You weren't in Vietnam when LBJ stopped the bombing...I was, you might want to do some further reading on that, Especially the notes from the Commanding General of the NVA on his thoughts. He was ready to surrender, he was beat, but we stopped the bombing and he attacked and did he!!!!!!

As for Iraq, sure we took out Hussein, but look at them now. If that was Bush's goal then it was not enough, but then again we see the WH setting the goals and objectives. I will give him credit in allowing General Swartz to run the war, other than that I don't care for Bush very much.

As for Panama and Grenada, those were not wars by any measure.

Afghanistan not lost, you must be kidding.



The military does not declare war, this takes place at the political level Congress/POTUS. If you want to see how we win a war then look at Germany, Italy, Japan. As for Vietnam, if you think the N did not invade S Vietnam until 2 years after we left you have some reading to do.

FACTS:
N Vietnam invaded S Vietnam: March 1975

30 April 1975: S Vietnam surrenders to N Vietnam communists

2 July 1976: Vietnam becomes a unified country under communist rule as: Socialist Republic of Vietnam

To get some insight into the mess in the ME, read: 'The Strange Case of Lieutenant Waddell: How Overly Restrictive Rules of Engagement Adversely Impact the American War Fighter and Undermine Military Victory' Dr Jeffrey Addicott [I know Jeff quite well, in fact had lunch with him Tuesday, he is a retired US Army Lt Col and was the Sr Advisor on legal matters to SOCOM]

Its my guess the last time we had wide open 'free fire zones' was in Vietnam in '68 and what from what I understand that was only in I Corp where I was at that time. I left in Nov '68 and in talking with other who were from down S they have been highly restricted in some areas you could not fire unless fired upon...

 

[shortround]

Cowboy:

Our problem is that since WWII, our political leadership forgot how to wage war.

They never read Clausewitz or Sun Zsu.

Most never served in combat arms and had to deal with the aftermath of close combat.

Even Colin Powell got it wrong -- he said if you break it, you own it.

Bull Schnitt!

Don't go to war in the first place unless the nation is threatened by a foreign enemy crossing our shores or is launching nuclear missiles at us.

It is a waste of blood and national treasure to fight on foreign soil.

Neither Germany or Japan had the capacity to invade the USA. Had they tried, they would have been slain in numbers far worse than what we suffered on D-Day.

We once had the economic power to buy off every rascal asshole on the planet.

Now, we are so far in debt that every rascal asshole on the planet wants to flock with us.

 

[Acera]

I am afraid you are missing the point. As a career soldier of 26 years my last 10 on General Staff at the 4 Star Command I have some good insight in what really happens.

No, you seem to have a skewed perspective, using only those little bites of incomplete information you feel are needed to get your narrow point across. Not entirely correct. You might have been too close to see the entire picture.

WWII was truly the last war really run by Generals, but even then Truman made the final call which led to winning the war. Since then Congress has got involved, and as time has gone by more so the WH.

Funny, wrong again. Our form of government is such that the Commander in Chief is a civilian. It was set up so that Generals don't run the wars, the duly elected civilian leadership is in charge. Always. Period. Congress raises taxes, authorizes war bond drives, etc. to allocate the funding to finance the wars. All parts of our system have an important and vital role to play.

As for Iraq, sure we took out Hussein, but look at them now. If that was Bush's goal then it was not enough, but then again we see the WH setting the goals and objectives. I will give him credit in allowing General Swartz (I assume you meant to write Schwarzkopf, but not sure........considering) to run the war, other than that I don't care for Bush very much.

Got a point to debate about the first Gulf War, or will you concede that it was a victory????

Want to tell me how the soldiers that invaded Iraq in March of 2003 lost? There are plenty on here who served then and would probably take exception to your assessment of their performance. By your logic, you could also claim WWI was not a victory because many believe that the way the peace was dictated, it caused WWII. What happens after a decisive military victory is a different chapter, and must be viewed as such. It's not always pretty with a bow on top like many want it to be.

As for Panama and Grenada, those were not wars by any measure.

Just because you don't like to admit it, they were wars by definition. Congress does not have to declare a war for it to be a war. Wars went on for centuries and still do with out any legal entity putting some sort of declaration of it on a sheet of worthless paper.

You need to check the various reference materials available, (FYI, usually found in dictionaries) about what the definition is.

Websters is pretty clear in one of their definitions:

a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as:

armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of such fighting

Both those events clearly fit the definition.

Not being a 'war' is bullshit tactic used by shithouse lawyers usually trying prove a liberal point of view as the war they are protesting was 'illegal' or not 'just'.

If you really do have the background you claim, you should know this very, very basic concept.

As for Vietnam, if you think the N did not invade S Vietnam until 2 years after we left you have some reading to do.

OK, no need for reading, I know what happened, like I posted above. But for you I have added the facts into your timeline you seem to have conveniently forgotten.

FACTS:

January 27, 1973 Paris Peace Accords: All warring parties in the Vietnam War sign a cease fire.

March 1973 The last American combat soldiers leave South Vietnam, though military advisors and Marines, who are protecting U.S. installations, remain. For the United States, the war is officially over.

N Vietnam invaded S Vietnam: March 1975

30 April 1975: S Vietnam surrenders to N Vietnam communists

2 July 1976: Vietnam becomes a unified country under communist rule as: Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Hic finitur Lectio

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Funny, wrong again. Our form of government is such that the Commander in Chief is a civilian. It was set up so that Generals don't run the wars, the duly elected civilian leadership is in charge. Always. Period. Congress raises taxes, authorizes war bond drives, etc. to allocate the funding to finance the wars. All parts of our system have an important and vital role to play.

Got a point to debate about the first Gulf War, or will you concede that it was a victory????

Want to tell me how the soldiers that invaded Iraq in March of 2003 lost?

More than evident you either have not read or fail to comprehend. You fail to get the point, you clearly are unable to separate military victories on the killing fields vs the politics of war among leaders of countries.

For the 3rd and last time, soldiers fight battles, politicians fight wars, its when polticos interject themselves into the tactics and command and control of operations and ROE from the comfort of their chair in the Oval office things don't turn out right for anyone...you might read some of your own statements a bit closer.

So far you have mostly contradicted yourself, made statements that were not true and even a modicum of study would have shown you such.

You are starting to unravel, suggest you go back and read all the posts...

 

[Acera]

More than evident you either have not read or fail to comprehend. You fail to get the point, you clearly are unable to separate military victories on the killing fields vs the politics of war among leaders of countries.

For the 3rd and last time, soldiers fight battles, politicians fight wars, its when polticos interject themselves into the tactics and command and control of operations and ROE from the comfort of their chair in the Oval office things don't turn out right for anyone...you might read some of your own statements a bit closer.

So far you have mostly contradicted yourself, made statements that were not true and even a modi$#@! of study would have shown you such.

You are starting to unravel, suggest you go back and read all the posts...

You know that Agent Orange is not suspected of causing Alzheimer in some folks, talk to your doctor. You still don't understand some basic concepts and seem unwilling or unable to see your many flaws in this debate. You want to act like you know shit, but post nothing but your tired old opinions instead of facts, like I have done to correct you. Yes, I have studied this. Do you want to counter my correcting of your timeline, or is that too much for you to handle???

Just because you think it's cool to make that blanket statement about not winning any wars since WWII does not mean it has the least validity at all. That statement is BS and you have to know that on some level.

Dude you are all trying to be style over substance.