Beast, you are right that we did have a 10:1 kill ratio over the enemy, the difference was our willingness to continue to fight because of all the anti-American/war propoganded and politions being involed. In my view politions belong in an office pushing papers, leave the wars to the generals. That was one of our mistakes is allowing the suits to say what our forces could and couldnt do for the simple act of looking good with out accomplishing what needed to be done.
Also, we really did not lose the Vietnam war, just that a lot of people did not support it any more and politions only look at their raitings and what the flaver of the day was and then go with that be it right or wrong, and the flaver of the day was anti-American and anti war, which I am sorry to say still exist to this day. Any time a conflict breaks out they use the whole Vietnam card which is out right retarded and a poor exuse. We did not lose, we simply did not want to play any more in a maner of speaking but the enemy did acheive their objective and that was to drive the us out because they knew that they could not beat us. The only way any conflict would look like a Vietnam again is if our politions tell us to pull out our forces before the job is done.
Fact. Politions do not know jack about war and there for should really have no say in what needs to be done and how our forces go about doing it, thats left up to the generals.
Second. about 90% of politions do not know anything about basic buisness either. But thats getting into something else entirly.
Thirdly. A time table for a troop with draw is also a very very very bad idea and the answer is easy to see and that is because all the enemy has to do is wait untill we leave and then they come right back in again which completely undermines everything we have done. Its not about dieng for ones own country and cause, its about making your enemy die for theirs.
On the other hand, because of my experience, I have to agree on some points as well. The governments control over the war while its going on should be limited. Its not their job. The worst mistake ever made in the war on Iraq was declaring the end of the combat phase of the war. Like I said, we fight enemy's of the state. Keeping the peace is the job of police officers. If they can't handle that job then merely keeping the peace is no longer possible. By deciding that the war was still on but the combat part was over then leaving the soldiers in country you put the soldiers on a leash. They can no longer do their job. In that case you should either pull them out and replace them with a group better suited to the job at hand or, if that can't work, remove that leash and let the military do its job.
There is never a good excuse for expecting any military to act as peacekeepers, police officers, soldiers, trainers and a government at the same time.
I think the thread has sort of taken on a life of its own. It is not about the governmnet it is about the military. The military's job is to end lives of those the president tells them to. Well the fact that maybe we (myself and other member of the military) have been ordered to do some unsavory things the military does them very well.
Well I just thought I would throw this out there. One of my best friends just started going into the service. He is trying to become an airforce pilot and is in boot camp as we speak. I wish him the best of luck in gaining entrance into the airforce as well as to stay safe from harm if and when he gets his spiffy new ride. He says that he looks forward to working with me if he gets to pilot either a Predator, Reaper, Sky Warrior, hell even our new Avenger UAVs as thats what my job is, an engineer who helps make these things.
So I thought that was really cool. I build the toys that my friend gets to play with.
When I meant about politions I meant the vast magority, rarely has any polition ever had to serve the military in any shape or forme and there for really should not make accusations or try to undermine the military in a time of war for political use as this hurts moral greatly and then it makes people forget/confused as to why we were there in the first place by twisting the information. An example of this is when Democrats say that the war on terror is going badly when in fact it is doing very well at finding and killing the enemy even though our military were put on a leash, which was a mistake as you said and I completely agree.
Now I am not saying that they should stay completely out of it, but deffenetly take a back seat and not try to run it.
So we are on the same page.
Well, like I said. The government should pick the wars. The military fights the wars.
I just hope you understand that while we are doing very well considering the situation, the war is not winnable. Terror is an emotion, terrorism is an idea. While in some cases you can fight emotions with an M-4 you can't fight an idea with one. Even if we kill every terrorist on earth more will just show up. Even if they don't, someone will just come up with the idea again latter.
Now don't get me wrong. This war has done a lot of good for a lot of people. I still remember being happily welcomed into Iraq by people on the street and I worked along side former Iraqi military who didn't want Saddam in charge any more then we did. But the war, as far as the name and goals are concerned, is not winnable.
Winning as in continueing our objective, which was to hunt down and kill terror operatives and their supporters which we have been doing very well for the most part. Yes, it is an idea and an emotion and can not be destroyed by conventional means, how ever it can be suppresed to the point that people in the area get sick of the terrorist and there for cut them off much like in areas of Pakastain where tribes and villiges are now taking a stand against Terrorist on their own and being supported. Now there will be those that harber them with out a doubt, but hopefully they will no longer be welcomed in most areas and thus relativly issolated. Yes they can blend into the crouds which makes it difficult physicly issolate them, but the concept, idea, and fealings for terror is issolatable (<- I have no idea if thats even a word).
Anyway, I don't think that the Vietnam war (or conflict as some call it) proves anything about the U.S. Military. It does say a lot about past leaders though. It's the one war we were in where the soldiers came home and their fellow citizens just shrugged their shoulders, because nobody knows who "won". *My own opinion there* A quarterback only leads the team on the field--the coach is who ultimately wins or loses games. Our coach, in this case, would've been Nixon; if I'm not mistaken. *Feel free to correct me* It was like the soccer or hockey of war. Who goes to war and nobody wins or loses? LOL! :laugh: