Why does our leadership not finish the current war(s) rather than leaving them for our children to fight?

CPO Joseph Grant — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:18:36 -0500

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 9:39 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:39:34 -0500

There comes a point where the effort needed to take the next step gets harder and harder with less return. Ask the Russians. The most casualties they took in a single battle wasn't at Kursk, or Stalingrad, or Moscow, or Viazma. It was the Battle of Berlin... and it wasn't close.
Taking a conflict to final conclusion takes political will that just is not present anymore. But when you are fighting non-state actors, it is also very difficult to find, fix, and destroy them utterly.
Current conflicts are also ones of ideas, not political. The way to win is to put the lie to their ideas, and prove yours are better. But if you don't believe that your ideas are better, and blame America for the foibles of the world, then your ideas' position is critically weakened at the outset.
So here we are.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 30 at 2015 9:47 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:47:48 -0500

How does one do that without nuclear weapons? This isn't a "TEAM A vs TEAM B" kinda war. The enemy is numerous, doesn't wear a uniform, and likely located on every continent in every country in the world. Shy of a zombie apocalypse, the current situation can only be fixed with education and economic improvement.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 9:57 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:57:25 -0500

What leadership?

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 30 at 2015 10:05 AM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:05:51 -0500

Because we had a current administration that has no plan and then lies to the American people

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 10:11 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:11:48 -0500

Why do you believe that dropping more bombs and killing more extremists is going to reduce extremism over the long term? It's an effective short term solution to near term threats... however over time it only strengthens our enemies as more and more innocents are inadvertently killed and resentment against the US and our interests grows.

This is a hearts and mind struggle that may never end. If it does ever end, it will have ended because trust in secular states and the democratic process has been restored and religious fundamentalism has been thoroughly discredited.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 10:31 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:31:04 -0500

how do you know that is not they original plan anyway. Kick the can down the road?

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Dec 30 at 2015 11:03 AM

CPT Pedro Meza — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:03:00 -0500

Our leadership can not end the current wars because they do not understand the dynamics of tribal wars based on honor and the influences imposed by a religion that we manipulated to help us fight the Soviets and until we recognize how we helped created this mess our children will suffer from the sins of their fathers and grandfathers.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 11:17 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:17:57 -0500

I think the problem is most simply expressed this way...We don't have a clearly defined "enemy" any longer that can be "beaten"; at least not by any "civilized" standard. Sure, we could raze the Middle East to the ground, let the Iranians, Chinese and North Koreans know we had ballistic missiles on hair triggers aimed at their capital cities, and put a few Airborne and Armor divisions back in Europe...

...but it would be pretty hard to do that and "sell" the notion it was "moral" to an American public that's been brought up to "think too much" for about fifty years. (watching "Crimson Tide" is an entirely new experience for me these days)

Worse still, if the USA went total "empire"...we might have to back it up in places where relying on strategic weapons wouldn't do-like say, the entire Northeast.

The only other option is to commit to a semi-total, all conventional war...one in which thousands, if not millions of ground troops entered "hot spots", destroyed any resistance, and established occupations to control any potential insurgency. That would bankrupt us, require a draft...and probably lead to a revolution at home.

I don't think the "hearts and minds" bit works because we fundamentally refuse to accept that not everyone thinks "total freedom" is such a good thing...even when they're living in poverty and under the heel of despots.

Sadly, I think...though I hope I'm wrong...that we're replaying the history of the British before us, and the Spanish, French, Dutch and Romans earlier. We'll end up a smaller, less globally effective power, with "someone" filling in the gaps. My money is on Russia. Maybe we'll fight them too...maybe we won't. Still, I guess that in a century or less , we'll be fighting our version of the Battle of Britain (or more likely the Norman conquest), and we'll need Ivan to come to our aide.

Maybe someone in power between now and then will be wise enough to make sure we have at least one friend left when the proverbial excrement hits the fan.

Response by CSM William Payne made Dec 30 at 2015 11:30 AM

CSM William Payne — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:30:52 -0500

Because our leadership always fails to remember the lessons learned from Vietnam instead of those of Desert Storm. We are not fighting countries, we are fighting people that can easily hide within the very populations that they victimize. The very thought the we can carpet bomb them out of existence is ludicrous. Our policies have already killed far many more noncombatants in Iraq that Saddam had ever done and exponentially more than died in 9/11, something that Iraq had nothing to do with . . . . And we wonder why so many people over there hate us? If we had followed the lessons of the Powell Doctrine, crafted specifically to keep us out of situations like this, we wouldn't be in this mess. Saddam was not a threat to the US, nor our interests in that region. He kept his neighbor, Iran in check. ISIS would not exist today. We should have gone into Afghanistan full force, take out bin Laden, al Quida and any Taliban that got in the way and then got the hell out. Our military excels in braking things, nation building . . . Not so much. We as a nation have been around a short, by history's standards 240 years. The longest a democracy has survived and our goverment is a dysfunctional as any 1st World Country on the planet. We had to fight a Civil War 150 years ago to get back on track. And we expect people that have never experience that kind of government in thousands of years of existence to adapt our policies and succeed in a little over a decade. The hight of arrogance on our part. You break it, you bought it, and we have paid for it tenfold, experiencing two of the longest wars in our history. LTG Daniel Bolger, who spent considerable time in both Iraq and Afghanistan wrote a book as to why we failed in both and there is more than enough blame to go around for everybody, Republicans, Democrats, our Military leaders and the governments in both countries that we tried to install and support. Starting this mess was easy, ending it, not so much.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Dec 30 at 2015 11:55 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:55:36 -0500

Lack of vision, determination, and courage.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 30 at 2015 12:11 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:11:19 -0500

Our leaders seem to respond to polls more readily than to sound judgement. Since a significant part of the population are more focused on what the government will provide to them than what is best for the nation, it is no wonder that the leaders waffle and there is little to no staying power in our commitment to our allies and those who have laid their lives on the line in other nations.
Since the Civil War, the USA has been primarily focused on the last war and drawn down force levels in the expectation of a peace dividend which never really materializes. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam each started out disastrously for us but because of significant manufacturing capability and a people who cared about others less fortunate than ourselves [not a majority but much more than today] we achieved a measure of success.
Since 1992 we have been relying increasingly on air power to fight our wars including an increased use of cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and we have backed away from winning conflicts to managing objectives.
I am hopeful the next POTUS will be much wiser than the current POTUS in foreign affairs including the the design and application of the military. Increased use of spiral development of equipment and support including software will help materially.
Rightsizing our force including ample training of individual and units/air wings/naval squadrons. etc. is essential to prepare us for the next fight.
Developing the tactics, training and techniques for military service and joint service requirements is a continual need.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Dec 30 at 2015 12:31 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:31:57 -0500

Thank you RallyPoint. I have just finished reading the accumulated responses to this question and will feel better for the rest of the day. I have spent far too many days under a dark cloud inspired by the antics occurring in Washington, so much so that I have frequently despaired for my country. It is so good to learn that I am not alone and there are still those with common sense and allegiance to the ethical principles that made this nation exceptional. And what a great time for it to happen inasmuch as we are about to celebrate the hope for a new year in which a new batch of scoundrels will be elected...

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 30 at 2015 1:37 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:37:20 -0500

Somewhere with the POTUS and Generals, we have lost our desire to win wars, we don't know how to win wars, or wars are being badly mismanaged.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Dec 30 at 2015 3:26 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:26:43 -0500

Depends on what you mean by "finish" -- do you mean finish hostilities, finish nation-building? Getting 100% of the Plan To Win The Peace accomplished? (snicker)

What is the definition of "is" again?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 30 at 2015 3:57 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:57:54 -0500

Our paradigm for war is set up a democratic government, set up the military, civil services. This bites us on the butt because we do not add kill all the insurgents as an objective.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 6:10 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:10:39 -0500

Simple answer is that Public Opinion has a lot to do with it. Rally-around-the-flag syndrome usually sparks the support needed to start the War, then the American public loses interest in the War, then eventually they oppose it. I think they say the cycle takes about 10 years.

Response by Olivier Souan made Dec 30 at 2015 7:55 PM

Olivier Souan — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:55:35 -0500

The leadership has a one-size-fits-all approach in nation building. It dates back to the postwar era when the US military successfully invaded and reorganized (politically and economicalli) Germany and Japan. Eisenhower, based in Frankfurt, was in charge of the American military zone in Germany, and Douglas MacArthur (1945-1952) . Eisenhower and the other powers drafted the "Frankfurter Dokumente" (July 1948), the working basis for the FRG's 1948 Grundgesetz (Fundamental (constitutional) Law). Hence an optimistic view of the US military, considered as being able to win major conflicts and work as nation builder according to the Western values of democracy, human rights, market economy and due process of law. This was a success for Japan and Germany as both countries had known, if not democracy, the concept of a modern state. Further, they had very low morale and offered not much resistance during the transition, Germany because of its own guilt and Japan because of the atom bombings.

But this approach does not work in the Middle East for various reasons. The notion of modern state is foreign to the Muslims, enmeshed in bitter tribal and sectarian rivalries. They keep seeing the West as an intruding, invading force reminiscent of the Crusades of old. They do despise the western way of life, even if most of them envy America at the same time. They stick to a literal reading of the Quran which is not compatible with modern democracy. And, last but not least, they have a strong national and religious pride which forbids them to take as granted the various state building attempts operated by America and its affiliates in the region. Meanwhile, the leadership sticks to old techniques and foster the development of automated intelligence and weaponry while the situation requires a differentiated and human-based approach.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 30 at 2015 9:28 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:28:02 -0500

General Eisenhower told the Army to show the Germans there was no doubt who won.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Dec 30 at 2015 10:45 PM

LTC John Shaw — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:45:26 -0500

CPO Joseph Grant I have four kids and dread the fact that even though I have been in the service for now my 30th year, one of them will likely be fighting the same enemy.
Our civilian leadership soft pedals the threat. We need total war and that means the everybody, not this limited engagement.
Extremist need to have NO HOPE, they need to live in fear that if they breath a plan that pursues violence they will be dead or on the way to it. Someone looking at Germany and Japan in 1940 would have thought decades to defeat the Nazis and Japanese.
We don't have to accept that defeating extremist will take generations but the first step is not allowing the moderate support to exist in Western societies and calling out the extremist, no tolerance view of extremists or any group that pursues violence.

Response by Capt Michael Halpin made Jan 1 at 2016 12:02 AM

Capt Michael Halpin — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:02:43 -0500

Because they are politicians who care only for their own political future. They think short term, no further than the next election. They will actually lose wars and sacrifice lives if they can blame the other party and win elections. Winning wars is actually a low priority. We are living thru one of the most corrupt times of American history!

Response by CW2 Fred Baker made Jul 30 at 2017 1:07 PM

CW2 Fred Baker — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 13:07:23 -0400

Good battle plans rarely survive the first shot. How can anyone fight, with predictable success, the types of wars that have supplanted the all out conflicts prior to and including WW II.

Response by CPO Jerry Lawrence made Jul 30 at 2017 1:22 PM

CPO Jerry Lawrence — Sun, 30 Jul 2017 13:22:01 -0400

We don't fight wars to win anymore. The last time we fought to annihilate the enemy was in WWII. ROE's change according to the direction of the political winds. We currently have a 4 star Marine as the SecDef and a POTUS who gave him a clear direction and is staying out of the way of the generals to win. There is a caveat to the current situation of our military, the previous administration's political experimentation. We fight wars in areas that serve an interest to the US, an example would be oil.