America’s Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Trip_Wire, Jun 19, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    Here's a url to an interesting article: America’s Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror. (The books Title.)

    Its a review with the book's author, on his opinions and views.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQwYmYzNDY2ZjdkYzliYWY3MjdmNThlODJlNmUxYmU=


    Note: As I said above I thought it was an interesting article. It is this authors point of view and his opinions. He doesn't speak for me, nor do I agree with all of his opinioms and/or views that are addressed in this article article. He doesn't speak for or form/dicate foreign policy for the USA either. Try to keep this in mind, when starting to rant and/or rave about America and/or Americans!

    (Revised edition) :lol:
     
  2. Quote, "Our military has generally represented our society almost perfectly."

    Hmmmm

    I think it also has something to do with them throwing mountains of money and people into something. Best trained forces in the world my arrse.
     
  3. Guess they just forgot to mention Korea and Vietnam. Would want to bring those two in to spoil the record. :roll:
     
  4. those great US victories in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia and of course its current winning ways in Iraq and Afghanistan!
     
  5. and the total victory of the war of 1812!
     
  6. korea was a draw of course and Nam didnt count as they left a sinking ship before the final whistle.... another reason to hate septics!!!
     
  7. Fcuk it! I forgot they beat those world powers of Panamar and granada! Lets not forget the bay of pigs - invasion by the back door!
     
  8. Technically Korea does not count as it is still going on, it is a ceasefire. That’s why the US still has lots and lots of troops there.

    As for the comment that the US accepts failure, have a chat to some captains, mess up in your coy post and it’s all over.
     
  9. Interesting view point.

    Dont want to seem critical, but what is war on terror ?

    I mean it is not one force, that can be grouped together.

    Terrorism has been around ever since the worlds been turning
    and always will be.

    Certain groups will be destroyed or dissappear in Iraq or Afghastan,
    but yet others will take their place. Its not just as clear cut as winning

    As for
    'and we are successful because above all we subscribe to concepts of sanctity of life'

    Is this why American Forces open up on Iraqi vehicles, if they get within 50 meters
    of a convoy, civilians would be in those vehicles, and civilians would die.
    If most towns in Iraq are like mine you would by accident drive by plenty of
    police/army patrols,
    I certainly wouldnt like it if they were to open fire on me.

    Maybe that was the case of terrorism flaring up in American controlled area's.
     
  10. 1. It's a URL

    2. It's not "sort of a book review". It's an interview with the author. You are not likely to find someone critiquing his own work when he's trying to flog copies. Moreover, it's a softball interview from the National Review. I've been looking around and I have yet to find a reputable source that has reviewed this book- including all the significant History and International Relations academic journals. In fact, the only other reviews I've found in 6 pages of a Google search have had hot topic links to Ann Coulter, Intelligent Design, Ronald Reagan, Radical Islam and The Clintons. I'll leave it to Arrsers with two brain cells to rub together to figure out the likely implications are regarding the quality of the scholarship and the intended purpose and audience of this book.

    3. I have yet to read the book, but from what I have seen so far in this interview, prima facie it appears to be more of that self-congratulatory claptrap you're so fond of. I'll reserve real judgement for when I have read it (courtesy of the university library- if they consider it worth having) and I would suggest you do the same, rather than rely on talking points and Cliffs Notes.

    4. For a discussion about history and historiography in the United States, I suggest you take a look at the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/books/review/05GEWE01.html?ex=1150862400&en=e77be5a294a5c211&ei=5070
     
  11. & the Lethal Blast radius of a VBIED is what?, ever had an Kia Bongo truck filled with 130mm shells pull up on your patrol and detonate?
     
  12. Ever had a kiddie come over to you and in a Northern Irish accent say, 'Hey Mister, give us a sweetie before you get shot'

    More apple pie anyone?
     
  13. Yanks are Ok.
    At least they've got the botttle to stand up for what they believe in. And as Churchill said, you can always count on the US todo the right thing - after they've exhausted all possible alternatives...
     

  14. When ever you mention the war of 1812 i always think of this song

    http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/battleof.htm


    the Johny Horton version is much better and remember this all happened a long time ago.
     
  15. And, of course, the American public's reaction would have been 'fair enough' would it, if we'd have done the same in Northern Ireland?

    As for the original post, I don't treat any work that states 'we have the best trained soldiers in the world' as in any way serious - whatever nationality of squaddie the author happens to be refering. It's a sure-fire way of spotting that someone is either coming at things from a nationalistic (and thus emotional angle) or else that they are basing at least part of their arguement on something that cannot be realistically tested against every other nation on earth (short of a sort of 'war olympics' being introduced). It also ignores the fact that diffrenet armies, at different times, have different main efforts and thus primarily train for different things.

    The 'spiritual' angle of his book also seems somewhat suspect i.e the fact that US Forces are motivated by the fact that they are protecting a free society and are an army that reflects the make up of that society (with all that entails). Utter balls. Some of the most successful armies in history were extremely mercenary (or at least blase) about what kind of society they were fighting for.

    Having said all that, the US does have very good armed forces IMHO, undoubtedly amongst the best in the world.