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

#1
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.
 
#4
Trip_Wire said:
Why the U.S. Wins Wars
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!
 
#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
Trip_Wire said:
Here's a ual to an interesting article: America’s Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror. Its sort of a book review.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQwYmYzNDY2ZjdkYzliYWY3MjdmNThlODJlNmUxYmU=
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/b...tml?ex=1150862400&en=e77be5a294a5c211&ei=5070
 
#11
Roadless said:
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.
& 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
LineDoggie said:
Roadless said:
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.
& 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?
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...
 
#15
LineDoggie said:
& 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?
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.
 

chrisg46

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
[quote="wedge35]

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.

....................................

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

I would say that they are without doubt the best equipped, but agree that best trained is impossible to tell. Best at conventional war fighting without doubt, but that is down to equipment. I think they are now evolving into a much better all round force. A few more years in iraq and they might start getting their act together ("we dont do nation building" is one quote i remember..) re peace keeping/COIN stuff...
 
#17
That the US is good at conventional warfare but relatively poor at counter-insurgency is a statement that is often made and maybe has an element of truth to it. But, by the same token, you could argue that our (the British Army's) long experience of counter-insurgency type ops has made us world leaders in that field but has caused problems in the early stages of conventional campaigns. Like I say, you are good at what you train for and have to make the rest up as you go along ;)
 
#18
The contention is that the American Military are the 'best trained force in human history'

It is am impirical statement devoid of authority with which to support it.

Schwerkart purports to be an academic, yet, much of what he he states is subjective assertion that does not bear the weight of objective evidence.

I would have expected a much more critical analysis than that which he expects to be taken seriously!
 
#19
Exactly. Though it must be said that a lot of criticism of US troops is subjective in the extreme as well. Or, to put it bluntly, ill-informed and often US-hating commentators talking shite.
 
#20

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top