Europe vs. US

[Che Guava]

...since the 'fifties, then...

 

[MobBoss]

Face it, the US only attacks weak enemies.

Two things. Sun Tzu preferred attacking enemies where they are weakest. Its just smart. If our enemies are weak, thats their problem, not ours. Secondly...everyone compared to the USA is a 'weak enemy'.

War isnt a playground game where you try to keep the teams even.

 

[Che Guava]

NOthing wrong with doing it, it's just a fact!

 

[innonimatu]

For once I agree with you, it's smart to pick enemies and prepare before war.

But I still dislike current american methods, you resort to war too much. I also dislike seeing people fall for and spread propaganda about how evil the current chosen enemies are supposed to be.

 

[sonorakitch]

False. The Soviet Union easily occupied urban areas and easily repelled all Mujahadeen efforts to dislodge them from urban areas throughout the entire war. It was rural areas that the rebels held on to. Even after the Soviet Union withdrew completely, the democratic government there repeatedly held Kabul against Islamist attacks for three years. The Soviet Union went in with a sympathetic government controlling Kabul.

The Soviet Union left because mounting economic troubles at home made it impossible to maintain a costly Afghani effort.

The Taliban, on the other hand, still control almost half the country. The idea that the war has been won in Afghanistan is completely false.

You have a very simple view on how the Afghan war played out. The Red Army only held consistent control of Kabul; the environs of the capital, all the countryside, and essentially all territory to the south and west of Kabul remained in the Mujahadeen's hands. The Red Army would deliver troops to, say, Kandahar, mop up the enemies, establish fortifications, and withdraw all but a token defense force which went to put out the next fire. Weeks later, Kandahar would be back under Mujahadeen's control. This is how the Red Army lost: it played ball with a continental flatground mindset. To correct you, the Soviet control was in no way similar to American [coalition] control today. On the contrary, most of Afghanistan is well under control aside from the south and the border with Pakistan. All major urban areas have been held by American forces since January 2002. We have not lost a single city. The Taliban forces migrate around and stir trouble along the Helmand River and and extreme southeast. Over 3/4 of the entire country are considered safe and stable, hence the lifting of all non-essential travel in this large part of the country. See the attachment for the security situation in February 2004 (source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/maps.htm . For a good source regarding the Soviet Afghan War, pick up The Soviet-Afghan War: How A Superpower Fought and Lost, written by the Russian General Staff in 2002. Excellent book that illustrates the "cat and mouse" game played with the Mujahadeen. It is also a far stretch to include reasons for the Soviet withdrawal to be entirely political: in fact losses were quite staggering (15,000 versus our own 300 or so) and the continuing losses of helicopters also forced the Red Army to admit defeat and leave. The withdrawal was not simply a political decision my friend.

And you conveniently forget that Afghanistan has been invaded by many countries, every incident unsuccessful. The British tried twice.

The aim is to hold down a country with a hostile population whilst not destroying that population. The US hasn't the numbers to do this effectively.

You are missing my point. You state that the problems in Iraq are military compentency related, I emphatically state that is incorrect. If the US military fought the war in Iraq with the same parameters as the US, Britain, or any other participating country fought WWII the insurgency would be unable to succeed. I simply argue that our failures in Iraq today are in no part a fault of poor military planning or execution. To see the results of the military planning and execution, just look at the first three weeks. That is it. It is not an issue with "numbers". It is an issue of restraint.

What, you still believe that outdated propaganda? I guess Grenada was also a threat to the United States and Panama a mighty enemy governed by a demon worshiper...

Face it, the US only attacks weak enemies.

Please consider expanding your equation of Panama and Iraq. Frankly, your post is pretty bad.

Just an FYI: The US mostly outsourced that invasion to the Northern Alliance. The US just bombed the Taliban. The Northern Alliance did the ground work. Mostly.

You are right. The opening months in the war consisted of Special Forces troops training and leading brigades of Northern Alliance. Trust me---I know of this very very well bud.

Around March, 2002 however, the 10th Mountain, 101st, elements of the 82nd, and large battalions of Marines joined the fray...boots on the ground...and reinforced the urban areas and proceeded to set up large perimeters. These perimeters slowly grew into each other, thus effectively eliminating the rural threat Pasi incorrectly alludes too. The NA did indeed open up Kabul, Mazar-e Sharif, and the northern half to us, which we should be grateful. Anyways, by the Summer of 2002 we had roughly 20,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Of course, your contention that air power played an enormous role is absolutely correct; it is what the US military relies on the most.

Regards to all the "weak enemy" connotations: please show me a conflict post WWII that didn't include a more powerful country attacking a "weak" country. The days of the grand wars between mega powers across the globe have been gone since 1945. But to exclaim the US military has not proven itself because if faces enemies of less capable means is absolutely ridiculous. Please also show me a war (without the involvement of the US...or the US equipped Israel I guess) that included a successful invasion and defeat of an entire country in a few weeks. The Gulf War of 1991 woke up the world, and the result today is China's fastly growing military spending program. No military on eath today can match the training, global reach, and sophistication of America's. Hell, we spend the money for it...it should be.

~Chris

 

[innonimatu]

In the context of this thread it is not ridiculous at all.

Iraq in 1991 did not have the “world's 4th largest army”, as the propaganda of the time announced. Not even in number of soldiers, much less in overall quality. Yet the 1991 war was the only one the US has recently fought with a modern state. Excluding Serbia, where bombing civilian targets became a tactic after the second week, with the US and its allies too fearful of facing a modern army in rough terrain to actually invade, and was sufficient to win that war.

As for the US military proving itself while facing much weaker enemies… Panama might have proven harder than Iraq in 2003, I guess. From one marine amphibious landing on Panama City where they got mired by the shore (perfect targets had there been any defenders waiting there) to the casualties taken by the SEALs at the airport, against a group of… thugs, really, that decided to fight, to an air assault on a former US army base in the jungle where many of the troops jumping from helicopters broke legs and ankles (lucky for them that the base was deserted), to paratroopers in another site having to be pulled out of mud flats by civilians. Unexpected difficulties in an invasion are to be expected, of course, but it wasn’t as it the US military didn’t know Panama… I guess all that didn’t make it into the american military hall of glory.

In a thing as inconceivable as a war between the US and Europe the US wouldn’t be capable of winning. Neither would Europe. The rest of the world might, though.

Sorry, I can’t show you any war without the involvement of the US that includes quick invasions and defeats of entire countries… the last good examples of that kind of behavior before the US age were carried out by Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Union, back in WW2… the US must be a member of a select club!

 

[Bast]

Europe and US shouldn't be fighting. The enemy is someone else.

 

[sonorakitch]

In the context of this thread it is not ridiculous at all.

Iraq in 1991 did not have the “world's 4th largest army”, as the propaganda of the time announced. Not even in number of soldiers, much less in overall quality. Yet the 1991 war was the only one the US has recently fought with a modern state. Excluding Serbia, where bombing civilian targets became a tactic after the second week, with the US and its allies too fearful of facing a modern army in rough terrain to actually invade, and was sufficient to win that war.

Sorry man, but indeed Iraq in 1991 did have the fourth largest army, in terms of manpower, in the world. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/army.htm

During the late 1970s and the mid-1980s, the Iraqi armed forces underwent many changes in size, structure, arms supplies, hierarchy, deployment, and political character. Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world.

Global Security, in case you have never heard of it, is the world's foremost resource on international military strength, weaponry, and deployment figures. It is widely used within governments around the world.

Caution that the word largest does not directly assume to be the most technologically advanced. This data is much more difficult to analyze. To argue however that Iraq did not have the 4th largest army in the world is foolhardy.

As for the US military proving itself while facing much weaker enemies… Panama might have proven harder than Iraq in 2003, I guess. From one marine amphibious landing on Panama City where they got mired by the shore (perfect targets had there been any defenders waiting there) to the casualties taken by the SEALs at the airport, against a group of… thugs, really, that decided to fight, to an air assault on a former US army base in the jungle where many of the troops jumping from helicopters broke legs and ankles (lucky for them that the base was deserted), to paratroopers in another site having to be pulled out of mud flats by civilians. Unexpected difficulties in an invasion are to be expected, of course, but it wasn’t as it the US military didn’t know Panama… I guess all that didn’t make it into the american military hall of glory.

I think we have come to a point in this exchange where references are needed. Please advise.

In a thing as inconceivable as a war between the US and Europe the US wouldn’t be capable of winning. Neither would Europe. The rest of the world might, though.

Do you distinguish an invasion of one party or another and a conflict of a third territory? Because if it is the former, I have already agreed with that in great earnest. If it is the latter, you stand with few here or anywhere else in the world with this position.

Sorry, I can’t show you any war without the involvement of the US that includes quick invasions and defeats of entire countries… the last good examples of that kind of behavior before the US age were carried out by Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Union, back in WW2… the US must be a member of a select club!

If you select to equate our struggle with the struggle of the Nazis, then you have indeed produced another bad post.

~Chris

 

[innonimatu]

Sorry man, but indeed Iraq in 1991 did have the fourth largest army, in terms of manpower, in the world. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/army.htm

That article you link to is pretty bad. Able to mobilize 75% of all iraqi men between ages 18 and 34?! How, if some 40% could not be relied upon to support the regime, in the first place? The kurds were actually fighting against the iraqui army most of the time. Those numbers do not make sense. They might originally have been iraqui propaganda, later exploited to make the iraqis seem stronger enemies than they really were.

Further on, you can read this:

The regular Army in mid-1990 consisted of more than 50 divisions, additional special forces brigades, and specialized forces commands composed of maneuver and artillery units. Although most divisions were infantry, the Army had several armored and mechanized divisions. Some armored units had a small amount of modern Western and Soviet equipment, but most of the Army had 1960s-vintage Soviet and Chinese equipment. Training and equipment readiness of Army units varied greatly, ranging from good in the divisions that existed before the Iran-Iraq war, to poor in the largely conscript infantry formations.

Clearly there is a mistake in the article, they meant mid-1980s. Just how reliable are the contents of that site?

I think we have come to a point in this exchange where references are needed. Please advise.

My source is a book from a reporter who covered the invasion and was on Panama City at the time. Unavailable on the Internet. But a quick search in google shows that at least the problems with the paratroopers and at the airport are well covered in articles on-line. Including globalsecurity.

If it is the latter, you stand with few here or anywhere else in the world with this position.

Serious (big) wars are no longer won in battles restricted in space, we have been in the age of total war for nearly a century now. Any serious US-Europe war in a third territory would leave it so devastated that it would be of no use for the winner... but the scenario is absurd anyway.

If you select to equate our struggle with the struggle of the Nazis, then you have indeed produced another bad post.

Hey, you asked for examples of countries invading and taking over others in days or weeks… Are they taht different? All invasions are justified with fine excuses. Sometimes they may be understandable. Other times are just as false (iraqi WMD) as Hitler’s one for invading Poland. But the purpose of the “struggle”… power and influence, that’s still the same, as it always was.

 

[Xanikk999]

But the purpose of the “struggle”… power and influence, that’s still the same, as it always was.

Very wrong. Wars are not always caused because of a desire for power and influence despite what you might think.

 

[ArneHD]

Very wrong. Wars are not always caused because of a desire for power and influence despite what you might think.

Name one that wasn't