Re:Remote war is bad war
by Consultant32452 on Thursday October 10, 2019 @03:48PM
(#21218491)
It doesn't help that the political leadership keeps telling the population that these wars will take a couple weeks and cost a pittance.
Re:Remote war is bad war
by goodcanadian on Thursday October 10, 2019 @04:35PM
(#21218882)
When George W. Bush did his infamous "Mission Accomplished" stunt,[1] he was sort of right. The "war" had been won. The trouble was that there was no plan for what to do next. The occupation was managed poorly and the insurgency had a chance to grow turning what really was a quick victory into a protracted "war."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished_speech
Of course, the real root cause of many subsequent troubles and years of war is that there was no reason to attack, even less invade, either Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11. GWB just had to do something to show that he protects Americans and retaliates against enemies. So, he did that. And it was a big mistake on many levels.
Re:Remote war is bad war
by AnimalMuppet on Thursday October 10, 2019 @05:10PM
(#21219209)
Iraq? Perhaps not. But Afghanistan was sheltering Osama Bin Laden, and would not hand him over (or even expel him). Leaving him free to operate after 9/11 did not look like a good option.
Re:Remote war is bad war
by austincheney on Thursday October 10, 2019 @06:07PM
(#21219670)
You can argue the supposed need of invasion either way. That had no bearing on why it took long though.
America won the war, but lost the peace
Re:Remote war is bad war
by austincheney on Thursday October 10, 2019 @06:05PM
(#21219656)
They were telling people that at the beginning of the civil war. Houston and Sherman were laughed at for thinking otherwise. This was also the thinking before each of the world wars and Vietnam.
You would think people would be educated enough to see through that bullshit on its face regardless of what politicians say. I don’t have any sympathy for people lacking this ultra basic level of education.
Re:Remote war is bad war
by Consultant32452 on Thursday October 10, 2019 @07:34PM
(#21220284)
To be fair, the people lying about how long war takes are the same people in control of the education.
In this current age of instant communications, global logistics, and rapid deployment people are again failing to accept how strategy must change in response to these technologies.
Ever since Vietnam the world has entered the age of long war. War can be won, but not when people lack the necessary patience, persistence, and drive to win. For the home team to win all they have to do is remain vigilant. They don't have to win a single battle. They just have to remain militant longer than the opposing force has patience. Game over.
For an invading force to win they must be able to have a quick and decisive invasion that results in a clear military victory and then must hold the ground, in cooperation with supporting elements, as long as it takes for the defending forces to cease military action. COIN (counter-insurgency) is rarely taken seriously, but is so incredibly essential. All of this could take decades.
That is a hard win since most people in a first-world country understand warfare about as well as they understand poverty or astrophysics. Everyone seems to think they are an expert in these matters despite all evidence to the contrary and their clearly never working with or in proximity to the field of study.