General Discussion

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts) Mon Mar 11, 2013, 03:39 PM Mar 2013

How does one evaluate the effectiveness of a military?

WWII was an obvious "success", but it seems to me that it may also be the ONLY real success.

We took on a real foe (two of them at once, actually) and we prevailed.

The true success though, was the absolute unloading of MONEY into the ruined nations after the war.

The wars we have participated in since then have been stalemates, ended with whimpers and loads of debt..(for US)

If one accepts the purist definition of a defense department (we no longer have a war department), we have failed miserably, since the hub of military might (The Pentagon) was hit on Sep 11,2001, apparently by total surprise.

Our other military adventures have had very little to do with defense..OUR defense. We meddle, we gin up jingoistic fervor, we invade (on credit) and then we linger long enough to plant the seeds of future conflict by killing/maiming civilians, and inflicting corrupt leadership on the country which we will eventually leave.

It's a template we cannot seem to scrap.

We have spent TWELVE YEARS (and shitloads of money) trying to "train" a military to carry on after we leave, and apparently this most-warlike-country cannot seem to get a military together.

We don;t hear that much about Iraq these days, but I'd venture a guess that it's pretty much as it was before, except with more of a taste of Iranian "guidance" than before we arrived.

We have the "best" military gadgets/gizmos/equipment that money can buy (more than even the military seems to need/want) ..we have the baddest-of-the-bad military sub-contract killers..we have the most educated generals, and we have a bottomless piggybank to pay for the wars/incursions/whatever we are calling them these days, and yet we cannot prevail.

We fight the wrong wars for the wrong reasons , and we seem to be endlessly surprised when things do not turn out the way we expect.

Afghanistan will be the same with or without us. The only difference is that there will be less killing once we leave. There will still be tribal killing/political killing/Islamic killing, but those have always happened and are happening while we are there. We have changed nothing.

We spent a lot of money, wasted a lot of matériel got a lot of people killed, made a lot of new enemies, and in the end we will have accomplished nothing but perhaps making Bush's toady Karzai a very rich man.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How does one evaluate the effectiveness of a military? (Original Post) SoCalDem Mar 2013 OP

It is a largely irrelevant question sarisataka Mar 2013 #1

We've had to adapt for assymetrical warfare. Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #2

Good post, guerilla warfare is generally considered low intensity conflict, and assymetrical warfare Nika Mar 2013 #6

The only thing I have ever agreed with Rush Limbaugh on: TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #3

Our biggest problem is the real enemy is our own policy elites. leveymg Mar 2013 #4

Our military's goals is to serve politicians who erect bogeymen and perpetuate itself. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #5

Hard to say Lurker Deluxe Mar 2013 #7

sarisataka

(18,755 posts)

1. It is a largely irrelevant question

Reply to SoCalDem (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2013, 03:44 PM

Mar 2013

Every time a military is used for war, there already has been a failure.

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
Sun Tzu

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)

2. We've had to adapt for assymetrical warfare.

Reply to SoCalDem (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2013, 03:44 PM

Mar 2013

We were a powerhouse, and continue to be a powerhouse, when it comes to conventional means of fighting. No other country can compete with us in that respect.

But we've always had trouble with guerrilla tactics. That's been obvious for half a century.

Nika

(546 posts)

6. Good post, guerilla warfare is generally considered low intensity conflict, and assymetrical warfare

Reply to Gravitycollapse (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 11, 2013, 04:00 PM

Mar 2013

is what terrorism is usually labelled. Just thought I would clarify for some who might never have been in the military or read about the variations of conflict.

You sound like you have a handle on this.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)

3. The only thing I have ever agreed with Rush Limbaugh on:

Reply to SoCalDem (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2013, 03:47 PM

Mar 2013

The military is to kill people and break things. That's it. He said that, of course, during the Clinton era, before the neocons took over the GOP. Judging by those terms, we still have a great military. We have zero problem leveling a country and/or shutting it down. Nation-building, regime changes, civil war interference, counterinsurgency...not so hot.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

4. Our biggest problem is the real enemy is our own policy elites.

Reply to SoCalDem (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2013, 03:50 PM

Mar 2013

Just what we can do about that is not entirely evident. Any ideas?

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)

5. Our military's goals is to serve politicians who erect bogeymen and perpetuate itself.

Reply to SoCalDem (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2013, 03:53 PM

Mar 2013

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

Lurker Deluxe

(1,038 posts)

7. Hard to say

Reply to SoCalDem (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2013, 04:18 PM

Mar 2013

War had been escalating for centuries, each major conflict getting bigger and bigger leading to WWI, and just shortly after WWII. Since then there has been no "major" conflict in the world. Is that because of the dominance of the US military? If the success of a military is the level of peace established than one would have to say that the US has been successful as since it has become the most dominant force on the planet there has not been another conflict large enough to compare to the last two major engagement.

This is, assuming, that you would credit the US dominance as the force that prevents major conflict. If WWII had gone different and Italy, Japan, or Germany were left intact would there be any doubt they would have attempted to dominate central europe? Although it can be said that Germany is doing that now, without military force.

It's a hard question ... and no really good way to answer. IMHO.

Reply to this discussion