Can an infantry soldier interject his level of thought on this question?  I asked the question once before and I ask it again. When does limited warfare ever work?  I cannot for the life of me think of when it does.  I'll be honest, I don't want to fire live rounds at other people but it is my job.  I think soldiers should be the last ones who want to go to war because we know what the cost might be.  But having said that I think there is something to Herc's message.  If we keep trying to "fight" wars by limited methods I doubt we can pull it off.  It is not from the lack of modern equipment, training or leadership.  We have these tools.  But it is lack of commitment to do the job.  Maybe it is because most Americans do not percieve the threat as life and death.  Or maybe because the natural American wanting to stay out of it all is resurfacing.  We didn't want to get involve in either World Wars, but we did.  And when we did it was an all out effort.  These limited wars baffle us.  What are we trying to do?  I could be trying to make this a black/white issue to fit my personal notion of what it should be.  My belief is very simple.  If you are going to commit the troops to battle, you go all out, 100%, no holds barred until the enemy is so tired of the fight they completely quit.  I disagree that we can do nation building while we are also fighting.  Do the fight first, then put the pieces back together.  Again, I'll state that I am just an infantry soldier who is proud of his profession and will do as he is ordered like a good soldier should.  So please try and see it from my view when you comment.  I realize that some of you are above my level of thought and I look forward to your replies. 

"I asked the question once before and I ask it again. When does limited warfare ever work?  I cannot for the life of me think of when it does. "

 

I'd say most of modern history is full of successfull limited warfare. After all, what does "unlimited" warfare really mean?  You want to go really old school and say the enemies village burned to the ground the population either killed or enslaved and the ground salted? That certainly resolves the issue without question. Now, thats what some folks might advocate but we have more or less moved away from that style of warfare.  The fact that we have infantry in the days of nuclear weapons point to the fact we are willing to fight a limited wars and the past 61 years of warfare have not all been losses and not one nuclear weapon has been used.

 

I think the question here is maybe more of how much can warfare be limited and still be successfull? 

and politics by other means. Soviet Union collapsed because they ran out of money -Kim Jong iLL comes to papa for Money. Sigh!! And yes I have the latest ab machines to firm up my belly, golf and parties don't help.

Lets say you have 3 more years $80billion per year, 140,000 troops + say 20000 more--and CNN leaves town.

Could you do it??

1) I agree with you, but in your original post you said they had "won".

2) I never said they were any good whatsoever, I mean't that they are very tough and determined. The Taliban/AQ guys are even tougher, but their tactics also suck.

 

3) There is no easy way out, herc. Definitely not any magical plan. We are dealing with insurgents who know what they have to do to win, and we also know what we have to do to win. It's all about hearts and minds, staying the course, killing their leaders, and securing the boarder. We could kill 10,000 insurgents tomorrow, but 11,000 would be back tomorrow because of how easy it is for these guys to get in. I realize most of the insurgents are homegrown, but the 'professionals' so to speak are foreigners...they are the carbombers and mass mayhem types who do most of the damage. 

3)

You said there is no magical plan--I would kindly remind u that we live in the USA and all of us like nothing short of magic--microwave dinners to instant money to rmote control. Now what did u say about hanging around in Iraq for years spending 80billion a year as long as Bush is there it is ok?? I am shocked Bush thought we were that persevering. Perhaps he should remeber he is President of USA-- a 30 second sound bite is all he is got-frankly its a drag. Gone Fishing.

Honestly, I don't know.  Off hand, I'd say CNN leaving town may help.  I don't think CNN covering the Normandy beaches or Iwo Jima would have helped our WWII war efforts at all.  Maybe the 80 Billion would be helpfull if we could dump it more directly into the Iraqi economy and put more people back to work on reconstruction projects.  A pay day, a job and some self respect I think would go a long way to making the populace more resistent to the various groups of trouble makers.   I'd think an additional 20,000 troops there would helpfull.  Use them to further secure rough areas or to more agressively search for trouble makers.  And that is really just my 2 cent armchair opinion only.. I certainly don't feel like I have any sort of special knowledge of the situation.

 

That being said.. 

 

Darth know's that I don't often agree with him, but in this case I sort of do.  Since when have wars been fought on time tables and budgets?   Did anyone go to Washington and say, ok you have 3 years, 2 million dollars (or whatever) and 20K thousand troops (NO MORE!) and get rid of those Red Coats or all is lost?  Did anyone go to FDR and demand on Dec 8th, 1941 that he present his budget for WWII and by the way, we would really like it done by 1944?

 

Now, I suppose this comes up with Iraq more because a lot (dare I say most) people viewed this as an option. Maybe thats the case.  I suppose, that is my biggest problem with the Iraq war is I feel the President did an insuficient job in explaining some simple facts to the instant gratification generation that things could take a very long time to accomplish our goals. 

 

"Reforming" a nation of 25 or so million people simply can't be done over night and on the cheap.  Either we accept that to be successfull (which is never a guarantee) it will likely take a long time and a rather large sum of money (I'm thinking like the occupation of Europe and the Marshall Plan post WWII but on a smaller scale) OR we don't in which case we are stuck with a sunk cost of the operation to date and whatever inadequate amount we spend in the future in some sort of scheduled withdrawal.

 

Frankly, I don't feel that have a great enough understanding of what is actually going on over there to even come close to saying what I would do differently at this point. 

 

 

I won't quote Associator's entire thread, but this is exactly what I agree with and have tried to say a few times.   The West will win wars in the future, although it will be the type of wars that we all wanted to avoid.  But, unfortunately, those wars are the only acceptable ones where we can use brutal force and will.

 

The US in particular and others have learned that regional or minor wars with media and caring for the population as a whole will never work when trying to rebuild or achieve a military goal.   Overwhelming brutal force of defeating the enemy is the way to go.   I completely understand what we were trying to do with winning the hearts and minds.   But that only works with civilized peoples.   From Viet Nam to Afghanistan to current Iraq.   All three nations would have crumbled like Japan and Germany if the proper force was used.   But the world and many in the States would not accept it.  So we got what we got here.

 

We can no longer go in half assed with our troops and expect to win.   World opinion is too strong, at home no one has the heart for our soldiers fighting and some dying (and I don't blame em but it is what we/they signed up for).  

 

The US I think has learned that we will protect our interests and if Military force is required from here on out, it won't be pretty.  

 

The saddest part of this is we've (The US) have been painted in this corner.   I'll admit we're guilty of this too at times;   Chechnya we should say, Russia do what you got to do, we're done caring for the masses b/c we've learned that everyone will turn everything against us when we try it next time.  And unfortunately, there will be a next time, but our troops will be on a mission to do what they've been trained to do.  Not Peace Corp crap..

 

Mark this time in history as the time the US revamped it's view on global politics as well as military use and plans.   That's if we're smart...if we're dumb it'll happen again....But make no mistake for next time, if we suspect Iran supplying arms and men, next time we will expand into their territory and destroy anything that moves, cuz we can.   Syria the same.   Eventually like Germany and Japan the will to fight the economic loss, the destruction will be enough to destroy anyones fight.  I don't think Japan nor Germany particularly cared for us in 1946......but they seem to be pretty good friends now don't they?