Trust in U.S. Military soars

[guttboy]

Manedew,

If YOU would read your post as I quoted and will do so again...

They don't deserve trust...dateing back to and before Tuskegee-Syphilis "testing", to the modren denials of the effects and use of depleated uranium.... These aholes don't deserve our trust..... maybe our respect .. but not our trust....

Now if you would take the time to READ what I said to you in MY post then we would be on the same sheet of music.....

"These aholes don't deserve our trust....maybe our respect....but not our trust....."

If you took the time to READ the response I sent to you...not once did I argue about "trust" or "respect".  

What I took offense to was the "Ahole" comment.  Like I stated in my post...... you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that...every American has that right.

So when you say......

you people never bother to read anythign do you..... I said in my first post "respect, but not trust" you just assume..... you don't read

I get a bit peeved....

I read AND I did NOT assume......If you had taken the time to READ my post which was meant earnestly then we could discuss things.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Syzygyone
But your apparent insinuation that the U.S. military could not win the war in Vietnam is just plain wrong.  While I will grant you that the Vietnam war was MOSTLY not a war of attrition, that is not the fault of the military, and neither is the defeat.  The US didn't win that war, not because it couldn't, but because Johnson, et al., micromanaged the combat and would not let it be a war of attrition.

I have a few objections to some of the points you've made here (and not just you, but some of the others in this thread).

First of all, Vietnam was absolutely a war of attrition.  The North Vietnamese knew that merely surviving and giving the appearance of solvency and military competency would, over time, turn the tide of American opinion against the war.  That's a strategy not unlike the one employed by Washington et al. during the American Revolution.  In that context, the Tet Offensive was a disastrous tactical blunder for them and a huge strategic success.  

In addition, Johnson's micromanagement certainly played a major roll in America's defeat (though if you consider the political climate, his micromanagement makes slightly more sense even if it remains unforgiveable).  However, you seem to ignore the incompetence of military leadership at the time as well.  Military leaders pleaded with civilian leadership to provide them with the troops necessary to "win the war" -- and without fail despite grudging reluctance, civilian leaders did this.  The number of troops in Vietnam steadily increased as per the stated requirements of the military leadership.  The problem was that military leaders kept increasing their estimates of the troops necessary to secure victory until the numbers approached politically unsustainable levels.  How could competent military leadership have been so wrong about the troops needed time and again?

-- Todd/Leviathn

[blue1]

Of course there's respect for the military these days given recent successes.  In fact this situation resembles the state of mind jsut before the Vietnam war.  Even then it took years of pointless casualties for the  general opinion to change.

The tragic truth is that the military were found wanting in Vietnam and I don't mean the ordinary fighting men. I mean their commanders.  They simply failed to defeat the Vietnamese. Sure they beat them every time. They threw all sorts of technology at the NVA and the VC when what was needed were dedicated men on the ground. But you can win every battle and still lose the war as actually happened.  Politicians played their part in the failure too but ultimately the Generals must take some of the blame.

Since then the junior leaders in Vietnam rose to senior rank and the lessons were learned. They were not going to make the same mistakes as their predecessors and on the whole they have not.

The danger is that this new found confidence could lead to another quagmire. If the Iraqis were more militant it would have been Vietnam in desert fatigues.  An attack on Iran. although unlikely would be a quagmire. They know how to fight.

I think the current respect is justified but it's a fragile thing.

[Suave]

I disagree, If the Iranian military was as good as the Iraqi military was, then Iran would've done better in the Iran Iraq war. A US war with Iran would be much like Operation desert storm, except with less civilian casualties .

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Suave
I disagree, If the Iranian military was as good as the Iraqi military was, then Iran would've done better in the Iran Iraq war. A US war with Iran would be much like Operation desert storm, except with less civilian casualties .

I don't honestly believe that any conventional military on this planet could defeat the United States at this point.  That doesn't mean that America would necessarily win quick wars with minimal loss of civilian and military life, but it would win nonetheless with sufficient political and public support.

Pakistan observed it best after the first Gulf War when it reflected upon the American war machine.  Either obtain a nuclear deterrent, or die.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I have a few objections to some of the points you've made here (and not just you, but some of the others in this thread).

First of all, Vietnam was absolutely a war of attrition.  The North Vietnamese knew that merely surviving and giving the appearance of solvency and military competency would, over time, turn the tide of American opinion against the war.  That's a strategy not unlike the one employed by Washington et al. during the American Revolution.  In that context, the Tet Offensive was a disastrous tactical blunder for them and a huge strategic success.  

In addition, Johnson's micromanagement certainly played a major roll in America's defeat (though if you consider the political climate, his micromanagement makes slightly more sense even if it remains unforgiveable).  However, you seem to ignore the incompetence of military leadership at the time as well.  Military leaders pleaded with civilian leadership to provide them with the troops necessary to "win the war" -- and without fail despite grudging reluctance, civilian leaders did this.  The number of troops in Vietnam steadily increased as per the stated requirements of the military leadership.  The problem was that military leaders kept increasing their estimates of the troops necessary to secure victory until the numbers approached politically unsustainable levels.  How could competent military leadership have been so wrong about the troops needed time and again?

-- Todd/Leviathn

Todd:
I clearly included the incompetent Pentagon Military leadership in the cause for the loss.  My beef was with the insinuation that the military on the ground, if left to run the battle, could not have won.  That's all.   The problem wasn't just the number of troops, as much as it was how they were employed.  It was the targeting, the objectives identification and planning, etc etc.  All of that control failed.  About Tet, the failing there was that the leaderhsip allowed the media to portray it as a massive defeat for the US, instead of the blunder it was for NVM.  The media just said, see, after all the poiunding by US troops, the NVM just mounted this terribly huge offensive and that means that we can't beat them.

[straffo]

// hijack warning

Syzygyone I still didn't have been able to take a photo of the "fourchette à huitres" but I've found a pict on the net
http://www.meilleurduchef.com/cgi/mdc/l/fr/boutique/produits/cout_huitre/ess-fourchette_huitre.html

Just to let you know I didn't forgot

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by straffo
// hijack warning

Syzygyone I still didn't have been able to take a photo of the "fourchette à huitres" but I've found a pict on the net
http://www.meilleurduchef.com/cgi/mdc/l/fr/boutique/produits/cout_huitre/ess-fourchette_huitre.html

Just to let you know I didn't forgot

ROFL
Thanks for that but since I've forgotten everything I learned in the two years of french I took in college, (during the Vietnam war) I can't read that site.  But, the fork looks formiddable.

[GrimCO]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
<---- This liberal is a veteran that currently works for the U.S. Navy.

Don't ask don't tell?

Sorry Sandy, couldn't resist...