And now for something completely different:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Namely the not-so-minor question of why the USA has such a reputation for military badassery. I realize the real answer is "Hollywood" but that's not entirely germane to this post as it is set up.
The USA has under all Presidents since Truman laid the claim that it can interfere in whatever countries it wants to on the grounds of protecting them from any number of a variety of evil ideologies run by people who, while often unpleasant nasty sonsobitches are sometimes greatly exaggerated from what they actually are as opposed to what US propaganda wants them to be. In the course of all this the USA has picked up a reputation for being a ferociously effective military power, once since its War of Independence. Well.......

In reality the USA lost all but two of the big battles in the War of Independence. Under President Washington we had two of our biggest defeats in our military history at the hands of the Natives. Jefferson almost self-destructed the USA by wiping out what the Federalists had built in terms of a professional military and the USA owed its survival to Napoleon more than to anything it actually did from a military viewpoint. The only US general who'd qualify as a capable strategist and tactician by military standards made his mark on a bunch of rebels who were incompetent backstabbing lazy motherfuckers who could teach Starscream lessons in how to efficiently backstab one's superiors. The USA established its modern badass reputation on....the Spanish Empire. Hardly a distinguished opponent. The US Army in WWI began actual fighting in the summer of 1918 when it could have done so a lot sooner had it behaved like a normal ally would.

The US military has developed a long-standing pattern of going into poor backwards small countries, kicking ass, staying for a while, leaving, rinse wash repeat. And frankly defeating the military juggernauts of Haiti, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, as well as in more modern times Panama and the Dominican Republic is.......uh.....yeah, the less said about such use of "superpower" military might the better. The USA in WWII did very well on the sea and on the air. On the ground I sincerely doubt strongly that the US Army would have been capable of a sustained operation, much less anything strategic on the scale of the Nazis, let alone the Soviets. The conduct of US generals, MacArthur, Eisenhower, and all the rest indicates a blinkered approach aimed at straightforward attacks using firepower. That is not really military "genius" so much as a technologically upgraded version of Luigi Cadorna War. Then in Korea a bunch of Chinese infantrymen with light rifles and Soviet jets stalemates the superpower army, and in Vietnam a bunch of even less-well armed Vietnamese with no native air power and very limited artillery smashed the hell out of the US Army and Marine Corps when it was incapable of thinking in any level above "here's the enemy, go smash him. Don't ask what the smashing supposed to do, just smash him." And then in the modern US Army it bases its reputation for skilled use of firepower to defeat the overwhelming, invincible military juggernauts of a disgruntled ex-Commie and a regime that had to use mustard gas to save itself from teenagers running over minefields and even then was within a whisker of being smashed by teenagers. running. through. minefields.


The USA has never at any point fought a sustained war against any enemy its equal. It has never in fact had generals that have shown the least hint of ability or concept of facing such enemies. And again, to put it bluntly if defeating Saddam Hussein is all it takes to earn the record of invincible supermen, I'd rather have the Israeli Army fight for the West as they at least have shown abilities to fight enemies with quality to match and superior quantity in straightforward slugfests of the sort the USA has always avoided. So with all this, where the fuck does the US reputation for being military Wunderkinder come from? In my opinion the USA is a military version of Brian Griffin: it can talk the talk but if asked to walk the walk it would find all those million-dollar missiles would be shot off, the enemy's still there, the shit hits the fan thereafter.

Why do you think the USA is considered good at fighting wars?

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Because there isn't anybody who is an equal.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

OK, but if the USA has never actually *fought* a conventional war since Korea, isn't that basically a statement based on a lot of nothing? The only conventional wars the USA has fought since WWII are Korea and Desert Storm, the former when China nearly shitcanned MacArthur, the latter against the guy who used mustard gas on teenagers and was still almost run over repeatedly by teenagers. Maybe it's just me but I hardly see how defeating Saddam Hussein qualifies the USA as anything very impressive in anything.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

"Genius" has nothing to do with it. As Napoleon said, "Look at Caesar, he fought every battle the same, from his first to his last, win or lose." It's a historian's fantasy that there is some kind of "genius" about war, when it's all logistical and technological engineering. War is a system, it isn't a skill. And that system, as presently enduring, is a system of technology and capability. The idea of a "real war" is an intellectually dishonest no-true scotsman game.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

When I say real war I'm defining it as a conventional war between two powers which use conventional weapons and armies against armies. The USA has fought only two such wars, it's fought a good number of irregular wars and has evidently been learning the kind of basic counterinsurgency stuff it should have learned a long, long time ago and doggedly refused to do so.

But you're right that genius in warfare is more of a propaganda point than something that ever actually existed.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Which is why Eisenhower was a "good general", because Eisenhower understood and developed the logistical mindset necessary to fight wars on that scale. War isn't like some Call of Duty player spamming about "tactics" and crowing about his "tactical l33tness" or some nonsense. War is engineering a system of supply and power which simply goes about its business like a sledgehammer goes about its proper use.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why do you think the USA is considered good at fighting wars?

Because we win them.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

How do you say "Ha ha ha" in Vietnamese?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, I see the overwhelming military power the USA has used to crush that world-conquering despot Saddam Hussein and the USA bought victory over Hitler in Russian blood and paid with Spam.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

This. We rarely agree but this time you nailed it.

How and why the US wins is almost beside the point. We have the reputation for being a military power because we held half the world against Communism until it withered away, saved western Europe's ass twice in 50 years, overran a good bit of the NA continent plus assorted islands, and beat the greatest empire every known twice in our infancy.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

The USA has never at any point fought a sustained war against any enemy its equal.

I would disagree only with regards to the Japanese Empire: the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy as of the Pearl Harbor attack were at least equal, and in some ways superior, to the United States armed forces at the time. Japan had a similarly huge manpower base to call upon, and rapidly entrenched its forces across the ocean; the United States was superior really only in industrial capacity, which tipped the balance in the end. 1942 was basically a series of stalemates, and it wasn't really until late in 1943 that, through attrition and the introduction of new advanced equipment (the Essex carriers, F6F Hellcat, etc.), we even achieved parity with the forces of Imperial Japan, and when Japan began to fall behind. Even so, winning the Pacific in late '43 - 45 was as grueling and nasty a process as industrialized war had ever seen. Had the Japanese planned better strategically (i.e. had sufficient aircrew training to replace those lost, had better logistics, had better protected their SLOCs, etc.) we might have called it quits because the cost proved too high.

Now, Europe was of course different. By the time D-Day rolled around the Germans had basically already lost, it was only a question of how long the Soviets would take to smash through the rest of the Reich and how far west we'd permit them to go. WWI of course was a black farce.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Eh, Japan was as deeply flawed for modern war as Germany was. It had mechanized and air power forces that were formidable.....against the incompetent GMD and CCP leaderships, neither of whom ever won a battle except in that Japanese plans miscarried and the Chinese factions claimed that for victories. It's worth noting that the degree of Chinese fecklessness was ludicrous, as is indicated by what the IJA did to Mao the one single time he fought them in the war and then with Ichi-Go. Against the USA Japan only did well so long as it was against Dugout Doug who was good only at PR and competent at best at anything else. Japan also had the same level of logistics as Germany did: hope for the best but in terms of actually creating what's needed for it, fuggedaboutit, their boys wanted to *fight* like a real Ubermensch.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

Also, we cracked the codes used by Japan and Germany very early on. That gave a huge advantage.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Industrial capacity will pretty consistently win in a protracted conflict. That's why I am anticipating the US losing a war against China sometime in the next 25 years.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Because practice makes perfect?

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Israel? With unlimited funding and a 9:1 military personnel advantage, they've stretched a conflict out to nearly half a century with a quasi-country they have surrounded.

Back to your point though - I think not having to fight on your own land is a huge advantage - giving you the control over when to enter and when to leave - making it easier for those keeping track of wins and losses to lean them in our favor.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Israel hasn't the balls or the stomach to do what it takes to follow through with genocide.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Eh, they owe that to Arafat having been a man who was extremely brutal and murderous but in resorting to vicious violence proved extremely ineffectual at it. He's a prime example of why force should only be used if there is the capability to use it well.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

And here I thought Republican revisionism on Civil Rights was a hoot. That's nothing on what you've suggested here.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Eh, what I'm suggesting here is a bit closer to the truth than otherwise. Even in WWII the USA was really good at air and sea war. The WWII army's performance on land was.....mediocre, and this is in France. The Italian Theater of Operations is neglected for a very real reason. Korea? The Chinese army with no heavy firepower to speak of smashed Dugout Doug all the way past Seoul despite an overwhelming UN firepower advantage. Desert Storm? The USA beat an enemy almost run over by teenagers despite using mustard gas on said teenagers.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

The US Army in WWI began actual fighting in the summer of 1918 when it could have done so a lot sooner had it behaved like a normal ally would.
The if and when of going to war rests with the government, not the army, and respecting the authority of the civilian government says nothing about an army's military effectiveness. As for behaving like a "normal ally", you might want to look more closely into the treaties and alliances that existed during World War I. The extent of the United States' obligation to entangle itself in the squabbling of the Great Power isn't as clear cut as you might think.

I sincerely doubt strongly that the US Army would have been capable of a sustained operation
Doubt no longer. The US Army fought a ground war during WWII.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah, no. The US Army fought a series of amphibious landings of which one (Italy) was horribly mismanaged from start to finish, the other (France) was really two landings and the degree to which the Germans bounced back and the USA ran out of supplies extremely quickly indicates which of the Big 3 Allies could fight a war, and it was not either of the democracies whose state names began with U.

As to the WWI bit, what I'm referring to is General Pershing's idiotic refusal in the situation of clear-cut chaos and even as the USA is clearly able to field at least divisions under other command that would have drastically enhanced Allied punching power on the Western Front in order to have one single US force. He had no problem putting USCT forces under other command, and if blacks did well under French leadership, why wouldn't whites have done equally well other than Pershing's egotism?

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

I would argue that it's a fair statement that the reason both that the US military is considered "bab-ass" and that it's never fought a "protracted conflict against an equal" is that it *has* no equal. It is capable of *curb-stomping* the militaries of any military on the planet other than the Chinese and the Russian, and it would win handily the early conflicts with either of those, it's only in the longer-term that the US military would falter.

We've had mixed successes using the military in vietnam, Iraq, korea and places like that, because frankly, a powerful military is not much use when so heavily restrained by the current Rules of Engagement.


More in keeping with your commentary, yeah, the full-blown war of 2 equally matched armies duking it out *is* rare. Historically, wars are entered into because the stronger party feels that they can gain something by fighting it. Whether that be territory, resources, or whatever. There is rarely advantage to be gained in fighting equals, the cost of the war overwhelms the gains of it.


As for "genius" generals, It doesn't hoit! But a lot of them are simply massively over-rated. Napoleon can't have been that brilliant, or he'd have declined combat at waterloo, Lee can't have been that clever, because picketts charge was an infantile strategy. Now Alexander and Hannibal, Those guys were *good*.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Hanson's full of shit and his thesis relies on things not remotely backed by the evidence, including the claim that only dirty, nasty Oriental savages use such things as deception warfare and using the whole "sweeping cultural generalizations for war-culture" things. Despite that military history worldwide in other cultures hardly lacks for what he calls Western long before the influence of Islam or Christianity.

No, I would argue rather that the Roman Republic won its wars over a bridge of corpses and had nothing else to offer while the Empire had civil wars at the drop of a hat.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Winning doesn't necessarily occur on the battlefield. Germany/Japan "lost" WW2, but succeeded regardless. USA might have lost Vietnam, Korea and Iraq... but what did it really loose?

That war we commemorate 200 years ago never saw a clear victor or looser, and this result was good for both sides. There's a lesson there somewhere.