Can "Limited War" be an effective strategy in defeating a nation's enemies?

2016-06-05T18:35:59-04:00

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2016 6:39 PM

2016-06-05T18:39:42-04:00

I will answer with a question. How has it worked since WW-II?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 5 at 2016 6:46 PM

2016-06-05T18:46:54-04:00

Depends upon the limits and the political will to win.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2016 6:54 PM

2016-06-05T18:54:53-04:00

GySgt Charles O'Connell Yes, if you want limited victory.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 5 at 2016 7:08 PM

2016-06-05T19:08:39-04:00

Define "limited war"

Response by GySgt Charles O'Connell made Jun 5 at 2016 7:26 PM

2016-06-05T19:26:54-04:00

As I posed this question I had an idea what the majority response would be, "limited war" brings limited results. So why, when faced with a national threat, our civilian leaders trot out the "limited war" strategy to counter the threat?

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Jun 5 at 2016 7:43 PM

2016-06-05T19:43:14-04:00

What do you mean by Limited War?

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jun 5 at 2016 7:55 PM

2016-06-05T19:55:09-04:00

In a word; No.

Response by SGT David T. made Jun 6 at 2016 7:32 AM

2016-06-06T07:32:29-04:00

Depends on what you mean by limited warfare. If you are describing only partially mobilizing the nation's resources (industrial, political and military) then yes. If you are referring to restrained warfare, then the answer gets a bit more complex. The term limited and total war refer typically to mobilization. Restrained and unrestrained refer to tactics and strategy. This is why I asked what you meant by the term.

Response by LTC Eric Coger made Jun 7 at 2016 6:09 AM

2016-06-07T06:09:01-04:00

No. It takes longer and requires more will, discipline, attention, cost, lives, etc. It's a long way to lose.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Jun 7 at 2016 6:44 AM

2016-06-07T06:44:58-04:00

No, we have lost, Korea, Vietnam.Sololia, Iraq and Afganistan with Limited war. We need to let the military loose and let them Kill or capture all the enemy and take the funds from the captured Army to pay for it Kill and keep killing till there are no more swearing to kill us. Our pantywaste politicians will keep interfearing until we have no country left.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 8:02 AM

2016-06-07T08:02:04-04:00

In 2012 I was working at ISAF HQ in Kabul. I was fortunate enough to be able to listen in on the briefings of the previous nights operations. One in particular stood out in my mind, not because it was different than the others, but because they were all similar.

12 SF teams were sent out the previous night. 2 Afghan teams (with US radio and medical team members), 1 Polish team, and the remainder US and UK. They had a list of 8 named bad guys to pick up. Results the following morning, 7 bad guys picked up or killed, 80 bad guy supporters killed, wounded or captured, one friendly Afghan killed, and 1 coalition guy wounded.

That's pretty good math, and we did that about 4 times a week for the time I was there.

Daesh apocalyptic writings say that there will be a final battle at a town in northern Syria. It's one of the few towns they took that has no strategic location and no military significance. They expect us to attack them there, and they expect to lose all but 5,000 of their fighters, but then Jesus, who has converted to Islam comes riding to the rescue and kills us.

If I had my way, I'd attack that town now, and fortify the hell out of it like Bagram. Then I'd invite Daesh to come and take it back. And I'd send out the same teams with the same lists of bad guys to pick up. And I'd make sure Daesh knew that we knew this is what they wanted, and we were ready to settle the whole thing. And I'd be sure and laugh at them.

Why? Because while "Limited War" is an abomination, you cannot fight a conventional war against an unconventional enemy. Also egotistical bastards (like Daesh) hate being laughed at and the successes we would have would hurt their recruitment efforts.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Jun 7 at 2016 8:36 AM

2016-06-07T08:36:25-04:00

When the threat is not existential, then defining limits on what you are willing to risk as well as what you expect to gain is the **ONLY** way to prevent creating an existential threat by risking too much for too little gain.

Response by SSG Dale London made Jun 7 at 2016 8:40 AM

2016-06-07T08:40:13-04:00

Limited war is just a boondoggle to make more money for the arms suppliers. If you have a problem that only military action can solve, use it fast, hard and unreservedly. Get the job done then get the hell out.
If the problem does not absolutely require military action, then don't use it at all. This fannying about, fighting, then giving the property back just costs money and lives. If you can't decide, then leave the weapon racked.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 8:52 AM

2016-06-07T08:52:49-04:00

I don't think so but, is what our nation is stuck with because politicians don't take the hard stand. We fight wars on a budget because of the cost in people and money. We have dodge a bullet in 2004 were the military was stretched to a breaking point. The Army took a brigade out of Korea to fight in Iraq. If North Korea decided to attack in 2005. I'm sure the need for a mass mobilization to include a draft might have occurred. Since this didn't happen our nation as a general population would rather fight a "Limited War" use few resources and people but, take a longer time.

Response by CPT W Brown made Jun 7 at 2016 9:06 AM

2016-06-07T09:06:37-04:00

It is a more complex question than I think some/most respondents are addressing.

At the first level, the answer is "no." Did the Romans, Napoleon, or Hitler conquer Europe, or the Allies defeat Hitler and Japan by fighting a limited war? Absolutely not. Without unlimited wars, the outcomes may well have been different or at the least be more costly in life and longer term bad will.

At another level, it seems that fighting an unlimited war today in the Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, ... arenas would be difficult to define. It's not like protecting the world against a possible USSR onslaught where the enemy during the Cold War was a nation state of people who look, act, and believe alike for a cause.

The Middle Eastern situation is different. Who are the bad guys? Do they look, act, and believe notably differently from the good guys? Who is the real enemy? What are they fighting for? Winning takes away the will and resource to fight. Can we find real and actionable answers to these questions? Can we remove the will to fight?

I think that until we can do so, an unlimited war is a waste. Battles can be won; a WAR against an amorphous enemy can not be won, but with it a lot of collateral damage would occur resulting in no hope of ever ending.

I do not have an answer on how to win, but not because of the argument of limited vs. unlimited warfare, but because the cultural conflict transcends the effectiveness of the principles of war. I have to think about a solution where the indigenous people fight their own conflicts, but I am not alone in not having a solution to offer. No one running for president nor does the sitting POTUS have a solution. Perhaps it is a problem that cannot be solved.

Response by SSG Michael Scott made Jun 7 at 2016 9:10 AM

2016-06-07T09:10:59-04:00

hell no! What would Patton do??

Response by SFC Dennis Calkins made Jun 7 at 2016 9:34 AM

2016-06-07T09:34:07-04:00

No. All "limited warfare" does is allow the politicians to not dirty themselves with the harsh realities of war. By not allowing the military to use its full force they can claim they tried to keep it clean and limit the damage caused, so there is no incentive to use political instead of military might.

Response by SrA Joseph Price made Jun 7 at 2016 9:34 AM

2016-06-07T09:34:13-04:00

No. This has been a huge problem since WWII. If we are willing to go to war then we should be willing to go the distance. We should Conquor and assimilate the conquered country. It's pretty easy to look at world history and see how successful campaigns were carried out.

Response by CPL James Zielinski made Jun 7 at 2016 9:36 AM

2016-06-07T09:36:19-04:00

No.

Response by CW3 Stephen Mills made Jun 7 at 2016 9:44 AM

2016-06-07T09:44:23-04:00

The idea of limited war is only as effective as the dedication of the enemy. If two dedicated enemies practice limited war then in effect the war will have no limit as neither side will ever feel compelled to sue for peace. How do you think the theory of limited war would work against ISIS? About as well as it worked in Vietnam!

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 10:17 AM

2016-06-07T10:17:44-04:00

Without a Congressional Declaration of War, they aren't successful.

Response by PO3 Terry Miller made Jun 7 at 2016 10:28 AM

2016-06-07T10:28:14-04:00

No. We should have learned from Vietnam that llimiting the military's ability to wage war is a sure way to get people killed without being allowed to reach the objective. Overwhelming defeat is the only thing today's enemies understand. They will not stop until their objective is no longer achievable. If they are crushed their objective won't matter.

Response by SGT Josh Suchoski made Jun 7 at 2016 10:29 AM

2016-06-07T10:29:37-04:00

Nope. Look at Sgermans march to the sea, and the atomic bombs that were dropped in Japan. It is only after the foe is so demoralized and destroyed that they realize, they CAN'T win, and they give up. If we hit them, and then help them to their feet and give them a glass of water, time to feel better, and a hug, before we hit them again, the war will never end. War is ugly, but the more brutal and violent on the front end, the quicker it will be over.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Jun 7 at 2016 10:43 AM

2016-06-07T10:43:40-04:00

Limited war to me can be total war minus targeting civilians.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 7 at 2016 10:50 AM

2016-06-07T10:50:03-04:00

War is only a tool to achieve your goal. So, in the end, whether it is effective or not depends on your end-state goals.

Response by SrA Chris Hunt made Jun 7 at 2016 11:43 AM

2016-06-07T11:43:29-04:00

I personally don't think so. Until we as a nation prove that we are committed to an end goal at any cost, our enemies will never take us seriously. We are only wasting lives and resources as it is now. We owe it to our troops to show them they mean more to us than just political pawns

Response by MSgt Fred Gottshalk made Jun 7 at 2016 11:44 AM

2016-06-07T11:44:28-04:00

If you are not there to kill the enemy: GO HOME. Politics, and winning minds is the job for the suits. When that fails, they send the warrior, using the same articles that they were using. If it did not work for the suits, why do they think that it will work for the warrior???

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 12:00 PM

2016-06-07T12:00:55-04:00

NO.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 12:04 PM

2016-06-07T12:04:15-04:00

Limited War is an attempt to fight war on the cheap. As we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, it just prolongs a war and ends up making it more expensive and does nothing to successfully end the war.

Response by LTC Mark Beattie made Jun 7 at 2016 12:05 PM

2016-06-07T12:05:57-04:00

No; best case in "Limited War" is status quo. Defeating your enemy requires a nation's total commitment!!

Response by SGT Eliyahu Rooff made Jun 7 at 2016 12:58 PM

2016-06-07T12:58:37-04:00

As most students of military history will tell you, this doesn't have a yes or no answer. The answer is, it depends. Not all situations will call for a commitment of our entire military resources and strength. And let's be honest here. Our "entire military resources" include our nuclear arsenal. Can anyone think of a recent situation in which it would have been a good idea to start lobbing nukes at the enemy?

Part of the difficulty we've had in the past has to do with the lack of clearcut goals and objectives; not the method used to attain them. In the case of Korea, we entered the war with a goal, but the entry of China into the war made that goal unobtainable. In Vietnam, we failed to understand either the side we were supporting or the enemy we were fighting when we entered the conflict. That is, we sided with people who were pretty much guaranteed to lose in the long run without a permanent US presence. We entered Iraq with the notion that all we had to do was get rid of Hussain and the people would welcome us as liberators, turn their country into a representative democracy, and we could sell their oil to pay for it all. The one thing that is clear from all this is that if we're not directly attacked, we need vigorous debate before entering any conflict, and if we are directly attacked, we need to decide what we want to do, what it will take to do it, and whether we're ready to pay the price.

Our current debate is how to deal with Daesh. They're, for the most part, "true believers", which means that the only way to victory is to exterminate them all. The difficult part is deciding the best way to accomplish that goal, but most will agree that it should be done by a coalition that includes a heck of a lot of forces from the countries in that region; those who have the most to lose from a Daesh victory. It should not include ground forces from Western nations, for very good strategic reasons: Part of the eschatology espoused by Daesh is the idea that their scriptures predict an end-times war with the West in which they win. Without Western troops in the fight, it doesn't fit their theology and their troops will find it much harder to maintain a religious frenzy in the conflict. Our place is to provide air support and bombardments, tech support, intelligence and training. I realize that for many of us in the ground combat branches, it just feels wrong to sit it out, but it's much better if we don't let the enemy decide how the war should proceed. Without Western ground troops, their leaders can't rally them into a war for "the end times".

Response by A1C Charles D Wilson made Jun 7 at 2016 1:22 PM

2016-06-07T13:22:12-04:00

Yes and no! Yes we can win a limited war here at home because the enemy will not have the resources to fight us on our own ground and no it will not work in other countries..because the infrastructure of the country we are fighting does not have the support of its own people. Iraq is a prime choice. We fought ..we won. Yet the government handed the country over with out support or a proper government in place to control the country. I see all these countries doing through what they and wonder..."Why are all the men running from Syria when the should be fighting for home family country ?".....They have no loyalty because of education and being controlled by dictators for years. We as Americans have each other and with the love and hate (As of late) we know that no one better come mess with us even if we do not like each other...You are and American and we will fight to protect you! I can smack you but they better not touch you lol

Chuck D

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 2:22 PM

2016-06-07T14:22:10-04:00

Your question requires a bit of clarification of terms, because the objective of military force isn't necessarily to "defeat" adversaries, but to achieve political goals established by the government. Sometimes defeat of the enemy is necessary, sometimes it is not. As an example, during the War of 1812, the United States certainly did not defeat Great Britain, but we certainly achieved our political objectives.

Now, can limited war achieve political objectives. In U.S. military history, that was certainly the case in the Indian Wars, the Philippine Insurrection, Grenada, Panama, and the First Gulf War. It worked for the British in a whole mess of colonial wars in Africa, the Malay Contingency, and the Falklands.

The key is understanding what, politically, the nation is trying to achieve, and the degree of effort required to obtain it. To quote Clausewitz, “No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”
The most recent Israeli actions in Gaza are an excellent example of this: They did not seek the overthrow of Hamas, or to re-establish Israeli control of the territory. They merely sought to reduce, for a period of time, Hamas' ability to attack Israeli to a tolerable level. Mowing the grass, so to speak. They know they'll have to do it again at some point.

The problem often comes when the effort required exceeds initial expectations. Often this is because, while the war may be limited for one side, it may be total, a war for survival, on the other. Vietnam was an excellent example of this. It was a limited war for the United States, but a total war for North Vietnam. A similar dynamic is in place with the Taliban in Afghanistan. (Also critical in both cases is that our opponents are receiving sanctuary and support from outside.)

Clauswitz also speaks to this problem, when he asks "But what constitutes defeat? The conquest of his whole territory is not always necessary, and total occupation of his territory may not be enough." War, limited or total, means imposing your will on the enemy. Which, to make matters messy, means he's not "defeated" until he accepts you imposing your political objectives. If he refuses to submit, you have to be willing to continue paying costs, in blood and treasure, to keep your desired conditions in place.

Which means you have to decide how much you're willing to pay for the object you're trying to achieve. At some point, you may run up against the credit card limit, so to speak.

Response by SGT Rosi Teresi made Jun 7 at 2016 4:34 PM

2016-06-07T16:34:41-04:00

If you get in a fight, are you gonna bust his ass so that he knows he's been defeated or just give him a couple light swats and hope he will go sit down and shut up? Did you ever see Mohammed Ali go into a fight saying that he would smack the guy every couple rounds and hope he would just give up?

Response by Sgt John Utpadel made Jun 7 at 2016 4:40 PM

2016-06-07T16:40:02-04:00

No, it is never smart to go into a fight with your hands tied. If we do not intend on winning the war keep Americans out of it.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 6:23 PM

2016-06-07T18:23:38-04:00

If an engagement is unimportant enough that we can afford to limit it, we shouldn't be sending our forces there in the first place. War should ALWAYS be all-or-nothing.

Response by Capt Christian D. Orr made Jun 7 at 2016 6:35 PM

2016-06-07T18:35:34-04:00

No. Our enemies don't fight "limited wars." all we do is screw our own troops over by forcing them to fight with one hand tied behind the back.

Response by SGT Steve Adams made Jun 7 at 2016 8:03 PM

2016-06-07T20:03:42-04:00

All of the questions raised in the Wineberger and Powell Doctrines must be answered affirmatively before committing American troops. Congress must not abrogate its duty in this and allow one fool like W to make such a heavy decision.

The Weinberger Doctrine was an outgrowth of the collective lessons learned from the Vietnam War & the desire of the U.S. government to avoid such quagmires in the future.[1]
The Weinberger Doctrine:
1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have risks & costs been fully & frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?[2]

As I recall the 9-11 dead victims' families received $1,000,000 each (less any life insurance held!). How much did dead rescue workers' families receive? Dead cleanup workers' families? Dead military personnel's families?

I recall that my family would have received $10,000, if I had been killed in combat in Vietnam in 1968. How much is the current amount? $40,000 or $50,000?

Bush didn't listen to General Shinseki or General White. He retired Shinseki and fired General White. He didn't consult his father either (when asked, he said that he consulted a "Higher Father"). In other words, Bush had a conversation with God - sounds too much like Bin Laden's modus operandi.

Hopefully, we will elect better presidents and Members of Congress in the future. In the original 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) only 1 of 535 Members of Congress had the guts to vote "No," Barbara Lee of CA. A number of others joined her in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, but to no avail as the stage had already been set by the first Resolution.

One might also review Ron Paul's "35 Questions" that he delivered to Congress in 2002 before the 2003 US invasion of Iraq:
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

QUESTIONS THAT WON'T BE ASKED ABOUT IRAQ
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?
7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"?
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US, and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?
22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

Congressman Paul's only real error was in his $200 Billion cost estimate - the actual cost is in the $Trillions and still rising.

Our actions in Iraq have instigated the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the abandonment of one or two million Iraqi homes, essentially destroyed a country (including the loss of 7,000 years of antiquity in the National Museum), and finally created a failed state and haven for Al-Qaeda and ISIS. We can't even keep our own borders - how did we think we could keep Iraq's borders, six or seven thousand miles away?

Bush even disallowed giving troops in Afghanistan what they asked for in their quest to get Bin Laden and decimate Al-Qaeda, and then pulled troops out of Afghanistan to attack Iraq! The positive death knell for any slim hope of a possibility in Iraq came when Bush replaced General Garner with Jerry Bremer. General Garner was given charge as things were falling apart in the weeks following the taking of Baghdad.

The CIA had dropped thousands of leaflets to the Iraqi military telling them to go home and stand down to wait for further instructions. The Iraqi military did as instructed, and the US suffered relatively few casualties in taking Baghdad. However, Saddam had more policemen in Baghdad alone than the entire US force, which was woefully undermanned for and not of a mind for such tasks as policing and stabilization. Combat troops are only a portion of a force and they are not policemen. Understandably the situation soon deteriorated, just as it does in the US or almost anywhere else without law enforcement.

Retired Marine General Jay Garner took charge, and for a few weeks he desperately tried to reorganize the dispersed Iraqi Army to provide a stabilization force to maintain Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush replaced him Jerry Bremer who undid all that General Garner had tried to do. In parting, General Garner told Bremer, "Jerry, you can disband an army overnight, but it takes years to build one." The rebuilding of the Iraqi army from scratch was like trying to rebuild the US Army with recruits from labor pick up points and starting to teach them to march. Thirteen years later we still see the repercussions of one more atrocious Bush decision.

The situation was one in which Iraq was without electricity, running water, jobs or paychecks, but weapons had been maintained. Soon local militias formed for neighborhood protection, and eventually the country was more or less in a state of civil war. Thank you Bush, et al.

Obama got elected, promising to get us out of this war that he inherited from Bush. It reminds me of Nixon getting elected, promising to get us out of Vietnam. Vietnam Peace talks started in May 1968, and Nixon took office January 1969. We had lost 28,000 of our own troops at that time and killed upwards of 1 million Vietnamese (many of whom were those we were purportedly these to help). Kissinger (working for Johnson at the this time) secretly got word to the South Vietnamese to go slow at the bargaining table, because if the Republicans got elected they would get a better deal! The South Vietnamese went slow, Nixon got elected, Kissinger went to work for Nixon, and Nixon decided that he needed to get reelected before he started to wind down combat operations.

Well, we stayed another seven years, lost 30,000 more troops, killed upwards of 1 million more Vietnamese, and thanks to Kissinger's secret bombings and assaults we also killed upwards of 1 Cambodians and Laotians. Our bombing so destabilized Cambodia as to allow the Khmer Rouge which began as a marginal revolutionary movement, to gain power and cause the deaths of upwards of 2 million more with another 2 million made into refugees (in a country of 7 million!!!). 2 million tons of bombs on Laos created much death and destruction there, including perhaps 2 million refugees. Please read more elsewhere about Kissinger, our greatest war criminal (Chile, Bangladesh, Timor, Cyprus, Washington, etc.).

How much better of a deal did we get after 7 more years (after start of Peace Talks) in Vietnam (and the loss of 30,000 more troops)??? Do you remember all of the people trying to jump onto helicopters from the top of the US Embassy before the NVA tanks rolled into Saigon???

Sadly, Powell fell on his sword for Bush. Would Wineberger have done better? Hopefully, we will get better than the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and Bremer. I will never forget watching Rice still holding the party line, six months after Bush had left office - she was arguing with media about the necessity of attacking Iraq compared to the necessity of attacking Nazi Germany: she stated, "It was certainly necessary to attack Iraq. After all, Saddam Hussein presented a greater threat to the United States of America than did Nazi Germany!"

Response by LTC Jesse Edwards made Jun 7 at 2016 10:03 PM

2016-06-07T22:03:58-04:00

I don't think limited war is an effective strategy against a truly committed opponent. They won't quit and our nation doesn't have the attention span or resources for a drawn out slog.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Jun 7 at 2016 10:20 PM

2016-06-07T22:20:12-04:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner…I won't get into the tactical or political reasons for :Limited War" what is important is the effect that the military/industrial sector of the economy has became. The US has been at war since 2001. In that time and industry that was splinted up into a lot of small companies has through mergers, buyouts become an economic giant. For political reasons the Mega Defense industry has established a strong economic presence in all 50 states. The economic foot print of defense and military is about a trillion dollars a year and growing, that is roughly about 5% of the US's GDP. Most of the impact is in hourly employment or in active or reserve military. Any disruption now in this sector will not ripple throughout the economy but blow through it. The majority of the civilian and senior military have mortgages, children, and consume a lot of groceries, children clothing and nearly everything else. In short we have created a beast that needs feeding. Not feed it will eat us.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 7 at 2016 11:07 PM

2016-06-07T23:07:15-04:00

The US military philosophy, until recently, is to overwhelm the enemy with enough force, technology, and miltary equipment to destroy the enemy.

Response by PO2 David Allender made Jun 8 at 2016 12:39 AM

2016-06-08T00:39:57-04:00

In 1909, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was tasked to answer the following question posted by the U.S. Government:
If it is desirable to alter the lives of an entire nation, is there any means more efficient than war?
After a year of studying and trying to find another way:
Answer:
There is no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire nation.

Response by LtCol Dennis Ivan made Jun 8 at 2016 12:46 AM

2016-06-08T00:46:23-04:00

I think people need to take a step back from political bias and populist beliefs.

Historically speaking, limited wars are far more common and far more effective at sustaining nations. The problem is not the type of war but the execution of it.

For example, for almost the entirety of Queen Victorias rule, the UK was involved in constant limited war. It wasn't those limited wars that hurt it, but WW1.

Likewise, if people here had read their history they would know the US similarly engaged in limited wars in Central America for 4 decades after the Spanish American war. Those didn't break us.

Rome, Soviet Union, France, Spain, Ottomans, Arabs, every single nation and empire has fought extensive limited wars to their benefit.

Small wars / limited wars maintain peace ultimately. It keeps small states from becoming hotbeds of instability that spread to their neighbors and can help keep large states sure of boundaries each are willing to fight for.

Response by SGT Michael Cardin made Jun 8 at 2016 3:05 AM

2016-06-08T03:05:41-04:00

No I don't. If we fight against a sovereign nation, we fight until we achieve our goals. But if we against a terrorist group/ organization then we fight a Total War. As described in Sun Tzu'so Art of War, like Sherman did in our Civil War.

Response by CPT Dennis Stevenson made Jun 8 at 2016 8:56 AM

2016-06-08T08:56:16-04:00

I skimmed the replies and they all seem to echo the same thing. But let's look at some of the winners of limited war: Yugoslavians in WWII, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh (twice), Che Guevara (couple of times), ... Why did they win in "limited wars"?

Mao hit the nail on the head: "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea."
( https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/maozedong138236.html)
So what do the losers (us) do? We bomb the shit out of everything; shoot the joint up; push the civilians around; rape, pillage, and burn; make sure nobody cares or understands the locals.

So it's pretty obvious that doesn't work. What would? The Co-Mao Doctrine: The counter-guerilla force has to drain the sea and leave the fish flopping on the shore. If the people get fair treatment and redress of their grievances, the sea dries up. When I worked at Bell Labs we had a sad saying "We don't have time to do it right but we have enough time to do it over." BTW, the chances of convincing an Islamic country to have a Jeffersonian democracy are zip.

How do I know it works? I just got back from two weeks in Vietnam (Thanks, Bill and Gene of VietnamBattleFieldTours.com and my companions). Happily, it looks like the people are getting somewhere: though called "socialist", they have a thriving stock market and all kinds of banks (both public and private). One of our tour guides' father was VC. Seemed to me that capitalism is alive and well. Wasn't that what the Vietnam War was about?

Error - BrainyQuote Mobile

Response by 1SG Robert Rush made Jun 8 at 2016 9:06 AM

2016-06-08T09:06:51-04:00

No, if we get into a war time situation, it should be to win, period. VietNam we fought the war from a defensive posture. We won battles but lost the war. You have to take the battles to the enemy. I was in on the move into Cambodia, then we stopped. We set the VC back 6 months. They regrouped and came back as strong as ever. When you have you enemy retreating you finish the job. The only thing a limited war gets you in more of you soldiers killed with no results. You can say the same thing happened in Iraq. I was in BIAP, we set the enemy back 6 months and they came back stronger than ever. I question where we have the people at the highest level that knows how to fight and win a war. I was in the military for 40 years and I believe that I know what I am talking about.

Response by SFC Timothy Reynolds made Jun 8 at 2016 11:26 AM

2016-06-08T11:26:59-04:00

No!

Response by PVT Andrew Jordan made Jun 8 at 2016 4:50 PM

2016-06-08T16:50:25-04:00

Any war can and will have casualties limited war may be able to defeat a nations enemies however each war is different and bring with it different challenges geography being one of them, and these challenges ultimately determine how we would fight.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 8 at 2016 5:46 PM

2016-06-08T17:46:53-04:00

A limited war can be effective provided all the leadership is working towards defeating the enemy, when you analyze past non political wars they were all limited wars. Our modern conflicts are guerrilla wars which are hard to fight because our leadership has poor experience fighting guerrilla warfare, this is because all the Vietnam Veteran in leadership retired or passed away and the young guys were not willing to see the facts. Read the book "Why we lost" A high-ranking general’s gripping insider account of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how it all went wrong.Over a thirty-five-year career, Daniel Bolger rose through the army infantry.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2016 8:10 PM

2016-06-08T20:10:47-04:00

Not when the enemy is engaged in total war via guerilla war tactics. We tend to lose limited wars. But, I usually assume that our leadership wants to win. Might be a wrong assumption.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2016 10:52 PM

2016-06-08T22:52:46-04:00

Never again! it just drags things out. I speak of all limitations, not just those on the quantity of forces mobilized. The past several conflicts should be considered warnings from history. Once an enemy rears its head, take it off and keep working on the rest of the body until there is no more.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2016 10:15 AM

2016-06-09T10:15:55-04:00

No.
"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
~William Tecumseh Sherman

Response by LTC Craig Peddicord made Jun 9 at 2016 6:44 PM

2016-06-09T18:44:55-04:00

No. Must have a declaration of war by congress and the support of the American people with a clearly defined mission. Must involve our national security not some other nation's.

Response by SGT Scott Banks made Jun 10 at 2016 10:14 AM

2016-06-10T10:14:36-04:00

as far as im concerned, when politicians limit a war or limit the abilities of its military force against a enemy thus tieing the hands of the war fighter, it effects not only the outcome but also effects moral as a war fighter. a big example of this is Iraq. it is not an effective strategy. if we are sent to war, we should be granted every means and and whatever it takes to win it.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Jun 11 at 2016 11:38 PM

2016-06-11T23:38:34-04:00

No. When one nation even attempts to "limit" how far they are willing to go to win, they invariably signal to the adversary how easy it will be to defeat them.

I've often asked the rhetorical question: Why does every Terrorist and tin-horned Tyrant want to pick a fight with the only superpower that has nuclear weapons in anger?

War is a battle between human wills. If you're not as willing to go further than your enemy, then you have already lost before the first shot is fired...and every drop of national blood and every penny of national treasure you ARE willing to devote is already wasted the moment you deploy it.