Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

militias
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:24 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Really? Defeating the US military? This is clearly true because the Sunni insurgents/Mahdi Army are in control of Baghdad and run the government. Certainly the government of Iraq that still controls much of the country is not the one that was elected through a process supported by the US. And the Taliban flag flies over Kabul as the last Americans leave.

Oh wait, none of that is true. Sadr's Mahdi Army was so battered that he saw the wisdom of joining the political process. The Sunni insurgents continue in the form of ISIS, but historians will blame the government of Nouri Al-Maliki, which ignored counsel from the US, and chose to take a firm sectarian line. Unlike S. Vietnam, the government in Baghdad does not look like it will fall anytime soon as they continue to receive foreign assistance, in this case from Iran.

Afghanistan is a murkier situation, but the US left with a recognized government in place. The Taliban might return, but they'll simply return to a fractured country. The Northern Alliance would be rekindled and the conflict would continue. The only difference is that the Taliban would be much more leery of Al-Qaeda and ISIS and might potentially be open to at least some sort of small US presence and operations against them.

The issue isn't being spoiled, the issue is that the US is taking on much more difficult tasks, with extremely complex political and cultural situations. No longer can you firebomb cities and have the native police/army under your control mow down 1,000 villagers to scare everyone into submission.

1. Is the USA any safer than it was on 9/12/01?
2. Is Iran more or less influential in the region than it was prior to our invasion of Iraq?
3. Do Muslim fundamentalist terrorist groups pose a smaller, larger, or equal danger to the USA as they did on 9/12/01?

In my opinion: no, more, equal. Why? Because of our invasion of Iraq. It is clear that it was a loss for the US. We gained nothing and created a lot more risks and threats for us to deal with. We also accidently helped Iran.

As for Aghanistan, we spent billions (trillions perhaps?) for what gain? Nothing really. We ultimately got Bin Laden, true, and we did significantly damage AQ, but did those benefits justify the cost? I don't think so. We probably could have achieved both those goals using cheaper, more effective methods.

Dress them up all you want, but both were abject failures of American policy.

trueblue

Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:30 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Defeating the US military?

Considering how the U.S. military has fallen to feminization, it would not be hard to do. I don't say that with a smirk, but...it seems to be the reality.

trueblue

Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:32 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Who does or doesn't recognize our puppet government in Afghanistan is far less important than who actually controls the areas in question.

And the USA lost the Vietnam War. Period. Just like Bama lost to Ole Miss in football last season. Period. All of us who cheer for the Tide can point to the SEC Championship the Crimson Tide won last season all we want and say the loss to Ole Miss didn't matter in the scheme of things, but that doesn't change the fact that Ole Miss won the game between the University of Mississippi and the University of Alabama. Even if Bama would've won the national championship, Ole Miss still won that game. As an American from Alabama, I get no pleasure in saying Vietnam and Ole Miss were the winners. But what I wish would've happened doesn't change what actually did happen. The USA lost in Vietnam and the Tide lost in Oxford. Sad but true.

Sad: Your oversimplification.
True: See "Sad"

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:46 pm Post subject:

Quote:

And the USA lost the Vietnam War. Period.

That the North Vietnamese won is not question, whether the US military was defeated and the USA lost is another matter. You need to understand that this was not a zero-sum game and that the war involved different goals that were being fought over. The North Vietnamese were fighting for independence and reunification. The Americans were fighting to contain Communism AND to support the S. Vietnamese government. The North Vietnamese were fighting on a local level, the US on a global one. The Vietnam War for the US was not some event that was isolated and independent of other events. You have to view this conflict from the correct level and understand that the nature of it does not allow us to simply dub "winners" and "losers". This is why I keep mentioning China. The formalization of the Sino-Soviet split, with China seeking greater relations with the United States, as demonstrated by Nixon going to China was a serious strategic coup. No doubt continued large-scale American presence in the Vietnam conflict was an issue for the Chinese. Which is more important? Vietnam or China? If you can accomplish something as grand as what happened with China, what do you care about Vietnam?

Additionally, we have to properly differentiate between "defeat" and "failed to entirely achieve its objectives". Defeat is what the French experienced at Dien Bien Phu. "Failed to entirely achieve its objectives" is what happened in Lebanon or Korea. Defeat involves the destruction or serious degradation of an army such that they are forced to seek terms utterly to their enemies favor. The US was never in danger of experiencing a Dien Bien Phu.

bucheon bum wrote:

First we have to remember what the US's goals were- Preventing Al-Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base of operations, preventing Saddam Hussein from using or developing chemical weapons(a questionable goal, I know), and bringing a democratic regime to the Muslim Middle East and refusing to continue to prop up dictators that did not enjoy the support of their people, simply because they served our interests. This is what Bush outlined. America to some extent has succeeded in part in accomplishing these goals.

As for your view-
1. Well, that's difficult to determine. Certainly we have seen things like the Boston bombing and the Hassan shooting spree, but nothing on the scale of 9/11. Al-Qaeda's capability does appear to have degraded significantly. Multiple terror attacks have been foiled, and security measures are now in place that frankly should have been in place since the 50s and finally people woke up to it.

2. Iran's level of influence right now is about average, maybe slightly below since its existence as Persia 2,500 years ago. It may wax or wane, but it will always be there, same as the Turks. It has grown nominally, but then again, so has Saudi influence and Kurdish influence. The great declines have been in Egyptian influence. You could point out Iran's gains in Iraq, but their key ally in the Assad regime has no doubt seen its influence decline as it struggles to maintain control. Shia challenges in Bahrain have petered out, and it appears unlikely that Iran will intervene on the part of the Houthis in Yemen.

3. Well, that's hard to say. The fact is that some groups have declined- Al-Qaeda or Palestinian groups. The nature of the conflict has shifted, from organizations that could carry out large-scale attacks like 9/11 and had a grand vision of a caliphate, to a more localized conflict in ISIS that seems to export its terror overseas through inspiring "lone wolves" or very small groups of returning fighters to carry out attacks in Western nations that are generally unsophisticated. I think there has been a real, and significant reduction in the potential for flashy Al-qaeda style attacks that could kill 1000s. I also think there has been a slightly increased risk for some disaffected Muslim in England or the US to grab a gun and start shooting or drive a car through a crowd of people.

One mistake you are making is assuming that the situation would have remained static had the US not invaded Iraq. It might have, for a time, but this whole thing has been a long time coming. Sooner or later this was going to erupt and Muslim resentment had long been building.

Quote:

Because of our invasion of Iraq. It is clear that it was a loss for the US. We gained nothing and created a lot more risks and threats for us to deal with.

That may be so, but we really were in a bind. If you recall at the time, it had become clear that our policy of propping up dictators and giving a pass to other dictators had been deemed as part of the reason for the attacks of 9/11. A change was necessary. W. Bush thought this might be accomplished best through invading Iraq and bringing democracy to the Middle East. Certainly we have seen a radical change in the Muslim Middle East since then. From Tunisia to Libya to Egypt to Yemen to Syria to reforms in Jordan, riots in Bahrain, and so on, things have changed.

Quote:

As for Aghanistan, we spent billions (trillions perhaps?) for what gain? Nothing really. We ultimately got Bin Laden, true, and we did significantly damage AQ, but did those benefits justify the cost? I don't think so. We probably could have achieved both those goals using cheaper, more effective methods.

Dress them up all you want, but both were abject failures of American policy.

That there were better ways to accomplish things, which I agree with, does not mean that America was defeated. There's a big gap between imperfect success, stalemate, ongoing chaos, and defeat. When people say "America lost" or "America was defeated" they are overstating things as much as any "Mission Accomplished" right-winger says.

I do question individual moves that were made, but those were largely political and not a question of the US military. Iraq specifically may have been a mistake, but as was said, things had to be changed and I understand the instinct to stir the pot in the region. For a moment at least, we stopped kicking the can down the road on this.

trueblue wrote:

Considering how the U.S. military has fallen to feminization, it would not be hard to do. I don't say that with a smirk, but...it seems to be the reality

Masculinity is no substitute for training, quality, equipment, logistics, and morale. If you want masculinity, go make a Light Brigade banzai charge against the high ground.

Elan comes from military success and military training, not from banzai charges or warrior spirit or French "fighting spirit" or the Ghost Dance or any other dumb thing an army in history has overrelied upon to the detriment of tactics and training.

thrylos

Joined: 10 Jun 2008

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:15 pm Post subject:

A real good discussion/lecture about the topic by Robert Kaplan. Here he talks about everything and everywhere, his ideas on the current events in the ME/NA is from about 12 minutes on. Iran from 34 mins on. Turkey/ME again from 47 on. The whole thing (geography) rocks! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr4BLvv9PRQ

EZE

Joined: 05 May 2012

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:35 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

And the USA lost the Vietnam War. Period.

That the North Vietnamese won is not question, whether the US military was defeated and the USA lost is another matter.

I doubt the US military objective was for the communist forces to completely take over Vietnam at the cost of 58,000 American lives. Refusing to admit that our military lost isn't going to somehow turn the defeat into a victory. Refusing to admit we lost is one reason we continue to lose. We never learn from our mistakes because we're too proud to admit we ever make mistakes.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:08 am Post subject:

EZE wrote:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

And the USA lost the Vietnam War. Period.

That the North Vietnamese won is not question, whether the US military was defeated and the USA lost is another matter.

Again, you are making the mistake of assuming that the War in Vietnam was the highest level of conflict. That is a mistake. The highest level of the conflict for the U.S. was the Cold War. The U.S. didn't get involved in South Vietnam with the intent of intensifying the Sino-Soviet split and having Nixon go to China to normalize relations, but this was also one of the outcomes of the Vietnam War.

This isn't some stubborn refusal to admit American mistakes, this is analyzing the war through proper focus and at the proper level. People who say "we lost" almost universally leave out the higher level struggle that was or is taking place and understanding the true nature of things.

Also, people who use "lost" as I've said, are confusing "lost" with "failing to complete all objectives". As I've said, the French lost at Dien Bien Phu and in French Indochina. The Americans failed to complete all of their objectives in the Vietnam War (and happened to complete other, more significant objectives in the process). In Vietnam, the US traded a tactical victory, which is what Vietnam would have represented at most, for a decisive strategic victory in normalizing relations with the PRC and intensifying the Sino-Soviet split. That doesn't sound like a loss to me.

Quote:

Refusing to admit that our military lost isn't going to somehow turn the defeat into a victory. Refusing to admit we lost is one reason we continue to lose. We never learn from our mistakes because we're too proud to admit we ever make mistakes.

There were mistakes made in Vietnam, just the same as in WWII or WWI or the Indian Wars or the Civil War, etc. Our military studies those and tries to learn from them. But saying "we lost" in Vietnam is no more true than saying "we lost" in WWI. However, incorrectly understanding history and the historical context of the conflict will lead to more mistakes because people will learn the wrong lessons.

No one is saying the US military is perfect or hasn't made mistakes, its just that the "We lost in Vietnam" and "A bunch of Afghanis with AKs are beating the US military" talk is just inaccurate oversimplification. The situation and the circumstances defining victory and defeat are much more complicated. Also, one has to be careful to differentiate between military failures and political failures of the civilian government.

EZE

Joined: 05 May 2012

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:29 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

This isn't some stubborn refusal to admit American mistakes.

It's a stubborn refusal to admit defeat.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:18 pm Post subject:

EZE wrote:

Steelrails wrote:

This isn't some stubborn refusal to admit American mistakes.

It's a stubborn refusal to admit defeat.

It's a stubborn refusal to look beyond the scope of the Vietnam War and place it within the larger context of the Cold War. And its some people having an imperfect understanding of the nature of the conflict, and with it the terms of victory and defeat. It is also failing to recognize that there are different levels of victory, stalemate, and defeat. For example, take the Battle of Dunkirk. Tactically, it was a British defeat, strategically it was a British success. Or the Battle of Antietam, a tactical draw, but a decisive strategic Union victory. Same here, Vietnam may have been tactically indecisive as far as US forces were concerned (most were out by 1972, long before the fall of Saigon), while being a decisive victory where the North Vietnamese were concerned, but it should be noted that coupled to that was the deepening of the Sino-Soviet split and the normalization of relations with the PRC, a decisive strategic victory.

You used a sports analogy earlier- I'll give you one. Saying the US lost in Vietnam and therefore the US military has been "defeated", is like saying the New England Patriots, in an effort to get a #1 seed in the AFC over the Colts, played really hard in the next to last game of the season against the 4-10 New York Jets, but the Jets win because after the 3rd quarter, with the score 24-24, and the Colts are up 55-17. Bellichek decides he doesn't want to risk anymore injuries and sits his guys. No big injuries and the Patriots go on to win the Super Bowl. Now some idiot Jets fan might claim how his team "beat the Patriots" and is better than them, but everyone else knows better. The Patriots might have lost the game, but to say they were "defeated" is grossly oversimplifying the situation. They had bigger fish to fry and were playing a completely different game. And no, the Patriots don't suck. They won the whole darn league.

Let's think about this. Which scenario is better for America's strategic goals-

A) The United States bitterly holds onto South Vietnam and expends considerable resources, but achieves a Korea-like division. China decides not to normalize relations, given the continued presence of US troops in large numbers to both its north and south, and more importantly, the utter unwillingness of the US to negotiate a settlement involving China. China continues down the path of Maoism and the Cold War likely lurches on for another 30+ years.

B) The United States expends considerable lives and resources in Vietnam, but achieves a Peace accord and withdraws its military forces while the S. Vietnam remains independent. At the same time, the PRC drifts further away from the USSR and normalizes relations with the U.S. S. Vietnam falls two years later. Three years after that, China begins a serious of market reforms that lead to its current status today. 16 years after S. Vietnam falls, the Cold War ends.

Doesn't take a genius to figure which is better. Only a fool would choose Vietnam over China. The U.S. fulfilled its commitment to its ally, confronted Communism, and left with a peace accord. Its troops withdrew in good order. In the process, the US normalized relations with one of the two great Communist powers and permanently weakened Communism.

That is what happened. That is not a defeat. It is not a total victory, but total victory in the Vietnam War would have likely meant a strategic defeat in the Cold War.

young_clinton

Joined: 09 Sep 2009

Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:20 pm Post subject:

jvalmer wrote:

That is why I hate it when I'm back home and hear Americans (Canadians included) say that they should attack NK. Sure, it sounds great when you're a Pacific ocean away. But how about the 25 million people in the Seoul metro area that would have to bare the brunt of a war?

The South Koreans would have to bear the brunt of the first artillery barrages from North Korea before being quickly taken out by precision weapons. That in of itself could be too much. After that the war consists of North Korea weaponry and soldiers being picked off essentially by western weapons. North Koreans storming across the DMZ or onto the shores of Korea, forget it. At some point however the US has to do something about Pyongyang before it gets nuclear weapons on more powerful and better missiles.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe