Thread: War Without End

Originally Posted by Norton

It was but was no US troops involved in the defense os Saigon. All ARVN troops. The US had long before shamefully abondoned south vietnam.

True, but as Ohoh pointed out the Vietnam saga like others since was run for and ultimately lost in the political arena.

HCM got it right when he said, "You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win."

Originally Posted by OhOh

Don't forget the Russian's assistance as well. Although I don't believe Putin was President or Prime Minister of Russia at the time so he didn't get a medal for that one.

Fair, though my point was to snubby's bizarre reasoning that the French won the American War of Independence.

Blackwater founder seeks to privatize Afghan war despite mercs getting butt kicked in Yemen

Upon departing as commander of US Forces Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson recently said that America's military strategy, revised a year ago under the Trump administration, is working.

At the same time, Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater [currently known as Academi], apparently doesn't share that view and intends to renew his offer to his friend, President Donald Trump, to replace US military forces with Private Military Contractors, or PMCs.

Despite the differences, and any similarities, the military solutions for peace in Afghanistan offered by Nicholson and Prince are both delusional.

In saying that the latest US military strategy is working, Nicholson believes the current military solution is having the effect of "advancing us towards reconciliation" with the Afghan Taliban.

"I believe the South Asia Strategy is the right approach," Nicholson said during a brief teleconference with reporters at the Pentagon before the link was disrupted.

"And now we see that approach delivering progress on reconciliation that we had not seen previously. And I think that was because we clearly communicated to the enemy they could not wait us out."

While Nicholson believes that the military strategy of using troops to train and assist the Afghan military is going to work, he failed to point out that the US at one point had some 100,000 combat troops there and still couldn't defeat the Taliban. Today, there are no more than 10,000 soldiers who are not in a combat role but are there to train the Afghan military.

Nicholson's assessment comes despite the fact that the Taliban today has control over more than 50 percent of the country and has little trouble launching attacks on government buildings in the Afghan capital Kabul.
---
Even though the US war in Afghanistan is in its 17th year, Trump is sticking with his strategy that he implemented a year ago although privately he is expressing increasing frustration with the results.

Prince, whose sister is Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, believes it's time to renew his offer of PMCs and privatize the war in Afghanistan.

"I know he's frustrated," Prince said referring to the Trump's outlook on the progress of defeating the Taliban militarily in Afghanistan. "He gave the Pentagon what they wanted…And they haven't delivered."
---
In Yemen, the war effort continues with logistical and intelligence support from the US. Yet, it hasn't been going so well and has created a major humanitarian disaster for all the civilians the militaries of the Saudis and UAE have killed.

For the PMCs, the effort similarly has been a disaster, since their forces have been dealt numerous serious defeats in Yemen.

It raises the question of what the PMCs can do in Afghanistan if they are getting their butts kicked now in Yemen?
---
Unstated is the fact that despite the US military presence in Afghanistan, there also are PMCs working with them. One intelligence official told me that the ratio of PMCs to US soldiers in Afghanistan is better than five to one.

If that is the case, and PMCs already are fighting at some five times the strength of the US forces already in Afghanistan, what convincing information can Prince convey to Trump to get him to substitute his PMCs for the US military?

Trump's frustration suggests that inevitably he will need to face the fact that any military solution to halt the war in Afghanistan isn't going to work and that it is long past time to get the countries of the region together, with the US present, to come up with a lasting political solution.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/437175-blac...anistan-yemen/

Originally Posted by bsnub

The US fed the Argies bad intel on how to set the detonators on bombs they used as well as the proper altitude to drop them on the British ships.

Are you really suggesting that a countries military does no practise using bombs prior to going to war. That it believes one of many suppliers words rather than their own results?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Pearl Harbour. Or was the island not worth deploying a "battalion" to protect it?

You moron stop cherry picking my posts. I said after WW2 and besides PH was not a battle it was a surprise attack.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Which was decided by whom? A military commander or a politician?

A politician you utter buffoon.

Originally Posted by jabir

Strange 'dare', even for you, and btw why the qualification from war to battalion-size battle?

Because you are trying to claim that the US military is incompetent when the facts clearly and decisively show otherwise. If the generals on the ground were in control during many of these conflicts it would have resulted in a decisive US victory on almost every account.

To be a student of military history you have to separate overwhelming tactical victories and dominance from strategic loses. Is that too hard for you to understand?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Are you really suggesting that a countries military does no practise using bombs prior to going to war.

A country like Argentina yes that is exactly what I am saying. They never used those WW2 era bombs before. They got them in surplus from the US years before the war started. They never used them in live fire drills before.

I think that you and jabir are laughably ignorant on not only the Falklands war but military history in general. This book would do heaps to enlighten you as to what really happened...

https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Falkla.../dp/0393301982



But then again OhDoh you do not do facts well.

Erik Prince...another taxpayer financed cnut.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Xe

Originally Posted by bsnub

The US fed the Argies bad intel on how to set the detonators on bombs they used as well as the proper altitude to drop them on the British ships. If you know the history of that conflict several bombs did not detonate on impact. All of these ships would have been sunk before the Brits even got to land on the islands...

* HMS Glasgow (destroyer)

* HMS Argonaut (frigate)

* HMS Plymouth (frigate)

* RFA Sir Lancelot (landing ship)

* MV British Wye (tanker)

Unfortunately, that little idea did not work in the heat of battle.
HMS Ardent was hit by bombs, at least one of which didn’t explode. The efforts to protect Ardent and save her, and her crew, would have diverted effort from war fighting. Unintended consequences I’m sure.

HMS Antelope was hit by at least 13 bombs, all of which exploded, resulting in her sinking the day after she was attacked.
HMS Yarmouth was placed in a dangerous position in Falklands Sound while evacuating the Antelope crew, before the vessel sank.

That amounts to the loss of two fighting ships and considerable effort diverted from the purpose of the war .
While I am sure the intent was to promote a positive outcome, it did not work as hoped.

Also worth remembering that the US could not be seen to be taking sides at the time, but continued to provide support via other means.

Originally Posted by bsnub

...Because you are trying to claim that the US military is incompetent when the facts clearly and decisively show otherwise. If the generals on the ground were in control during many of these conflicts it would have resulted in a decisive US victory on almost every account.

To be a student of military history you have to separate overwhelming tactical victories and dominance from strategic loses. Is that too hard for you to understand?

Because you are trying to claim that the US military is incompetent.

Utter nonsense, and an outright lie, though I don't expect you to grasp it in line with general ignorance that causes you to shift the goal posts as part of your digging technique.

The US military is the most advanced military force in the history of the world, and I cannot imagine anyone would disagree with this. But even the best machines only work as and how the controller tells them, and politicians control the military, and politicians think short term, which can turn a thoroughbred force into an incompetent, impotent mutt. In this respect, the US military is often an impotent mutt, and a noisy one.

If the generals on the ground were in control during many of these conflicts it would have resulted in a decisive US victory on almost every account.

Common enough when you attack a post, that you follow by publicly beating yourself up with absolute confirmation of the very thing you are busy attacking. I'd hate to meet you or your kin in real life.

To be a student of military history you have to separate overwhelming tactical victories and dominance from strategic loses. Is that too hard for you to understand?

You are obviously a student of military history, as you are of everything else, and you would know the difference between tactical and strategic. So please explain the virtues of tactical victories over strategic losses, and then the political implications of tactical victories over strategic losses, and then who brings about the strategic losses (simplified for your benefit: military or politicians), and then of course, just how efficient the most advanced military in the history of the world can be under these conditions.

Or better still, ignore it and find something else to twist or lie about.

Originally Posted by Switch

Unfortunately, that little idea did not work in the heat of battle.

24 hours from ordering the book, reading it and no doubt quoting verbatim.

Please don't say there are other books one can buy, with different perspectives, that might cause an argument. Better that one must only buy the best book for military men, women and the gender variable, as suggested.