The Power of the United States Military
This was posted by one of my writers a few years ago, and recently edited a bit, but it still is a very good read.
Original Article Link : https://area1255.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-power-of-united-states-militar...
The Power of the United States Military by CONFLICT.
There is an ongoing topic of discussion that is littered with innumerable facts and opinions. If we left out the opinions, and counted the facts, we'd indefinitely have our answer. Is The United States the most powerful nation on Earth?
A common debate is whether or not nations like China, Russia, Pakistan, or North Korea could conquer the U.S. Many people even fret about the threat other nations foolishly throw at us. Spending countless hours a week watching the news and wondering if North Korea really will go to war with us. Should we be worried?
Here, we will compare our nations military might to what is commonly known as our most worthy adversary - China. Lets look at the statistics.
For starters, the United States is the highest spender in defense coming in at over $700 billion a year. The next in line? China, whose yearly spending averages at slightly over $140 billion a year, The United States spends more on defense than China, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Japan, India, and Germany combined. For those of you who aren't familiar with the importance finances in defense spending, it is simply the backbone of an able military force.
We haven't scratched the service.
Lets compare capabilities.
We have ten aircraft carriers. The largest warships ever built. Mobile military bases with offensive and defense capabilities. With a range not measured in miles, but in tens of years. Usually escorted by destroyers carrying the worlds most advanced air defense system, and nuclear powered attack submarines, these aircraft carriers hold around 5,000 able bodied personnel and 80-90 fixed wing aircraft. So no, these aircraft carriers are not vulnerable to attack by land, air, or sea, and China does not have the technology to track, lock on, or target a carrier. China also lacks the firepower necessary to significantly damage an aircraft carrier to the point of disabling it. We have ten in service at this very moment. Two in reserve. Three under construction. China has one which we consider an amphibious assault ship due to its small size, and one under construction.
Lets move on to a comparison of land systems.
The M1a2 Abrams with steel encased depleted uranium armor, depleted uranium penetration rounds, and gun turret stabilization technology, offers its usually combat experienced crew NBC protection and separation from fuel tanks in case of an unlikely heat round penetrating the armor. The diverse capabilities of this tank are too many to mention. This is the most advanced tank. During countless engagements involving enemy 125 mm fire, and in all other instances, none were ever destroyed.
The Chinese Type 99 has a 125 mm gun, and efficient weapon stabilization for the secondary gunner only. It fires uranium rounds that are unable to penetrate the armor of an Abrams.
China has around 700 of these tanks, while we have 6,324 Abrams in service.
We have 25,782 armored fighting vehicles most of which are amphibious and can be deployed from air and sea. We can also deploy them from one of our nine amphibious assault ships which double as aircraft carriers. These AFVs can also be brought to land by 10 amphibious transport docks, or 12 dock landing ships. China has 4,788 AFVs and 3 amphibious assault ships.
There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The United States owns 6,400 of the most advanced attack helicopters.
United States air power, 13,683. Fighter jets with stealth technology insure that the enemy aircraft is destroyed without the pilot knowing he was about to be engaged.
The number that accounts for China's air power is 2,700. Their latest fighter jets in service are generations behind ours.
While their average fighter jet does have greater capabilities in travel range and speed, its counter measures, radar, weapon systems, and payloads are significantly far behind.
The Chinese j-15s have hard to low observable characteristics, but the average U.S. fighter jet has air to air refueling capabilities, an electronic warfare system, an extremely advanced radar, very large super cruise range, health monitoring systems, and the most precise guided, lock on weaponry on fighter jets. None of which China's most advanced fighter jet has.
While China does take the lead in available manpower, outnumbering us 5 to 1, they are using not only severely outdated hardware, but less training for their troops. The U.S. government ensures that almost all of our soldiers are deployed within four years to become experienced. Our weapon systems, training, and communications far outdo that of the Chinese. The United States military performs more joint exorcises than any other military in the world to ensure fighting capability in any situation. They are known for winning against the odds.
It is said that with training and technology taken into account, the United States could fight the next five most powerful countries combined and easily procure a victory.
If anyone disagrees feel free to comment with the absence of opinion. Statistics and facts are far more convincing.
As for now, I would highly suggest watching my video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3TJkbARxf4
- Bookmark
- 0
- 0
Fuck it this thread is closed. We are all patriots, we all love our countries and none of us wants war.
RustyhookerBig salute to our soldiers. Ive got 2 of my sons in currently and a third on his way soon.
Thank god shrillary isn't in the lead to turn her back on them anymore.
I am going to kill this whole fucking thread if we are going to get stupid.
Area-1255awesome man! big thanks to them and all of our military for their continuing service!
prayers for them and all.
as far as her and their chronies, i think its safe to say their time has come to a fast end. sure, some puppets are still lingering, but that's all their doing. on heat mode then loafting around with gluttony.
Funny how the know it all juicers are know it all military buffs as well. Ain't that a bitch? They probably know it all about everything. No offense but this site is a refuge for us from this type of bullshit we have to read about in real life.
Aren't there groups established in the group section that you're supposed to write about all this?
Feel free to clog up the space over there no?
You are right Carlos and their is a reason we banned the politics. This forum is hanging by a thread right now.
Area-1255This category clearly says ''Off-Topic". The admins would not have created this sub if they didn't feel it could light up other discussions. If this shit starts evolving into death threats or some nonsense like that, I will make sure it is handled. This post was not intended for anything other than a good read, and perhaps good intellectual discussion.
Good post brother.People from all over the world are on this site so military prowess may not be the best topic,but the iron game we all have in common.Thanks for the reminder of what we are actually here for.
I'm just going to leave this here @giardap this is what they post to be seen what do they keep secret hmm USA military is the McGregor of war lol had to put that in there cause you said your Irish so is my wife and we battle everyday.
https://youtu.be/jCo49YpTiY0
Sure look I well believe it. I bet those Rangers get up to all sorts of craziness in the craziest of places too! We will be reading about it in 30/40 years as OAP's!
As for the Mrs........... well, I feel your pain brother, I feel your pain, LOL
;-P
This post is hilarious!
The US military has a fantastic record of achieving absolutely notjing but stalemate with other global big-spenders yet none of ye can beat a handful of poppy/rice farmers! Pretty fcukin pathetic really
(No reflection on the boots on the ground/air/water just the powers that be)
No I can't say that I'm laughing, this post is out of place. This is a steroid website for gay ass motheruckers who don't care about measuring our war dicks in public. Politics and military shit always turn happy juicers into offended and pissed off juicers. How the fuck old are we that we continue to fail at this observation?
This post was wrong to generalise that the USMF's achieved nothing. WW1/2 participation/victory and Iraq1 victory are to be commended.
I stand by comments re: boasting over military power and prowess whilst such a machine being unable to defeat farmers as being laughable, but also it being the fault of the governing powers/leaders. Servicemen/women are to be commended/respected.
AnonI've been in a hand full of fire fights in my day and I did not see any farmers. Who are these farmers you're speaking of?
You think in Guerilla warfare you are only fighting professional soldiers?
AnonWere you there?
No JB, of course not man, I'm just giving a voice from the outside. But I do reside in a country where a number of guerilla wars were fought. Of course I am exaggerating for effect re: rice and poppy farmers, but still, when an invasion happens, teachers, doctors dentists..... farmers etc all take up arms as happened here in Ireland.
Is it it not pretty well known Stateside that a fair chunk of the Taliban's revenues come from the heroin that hits all of our streets and ends up in our kids' veins, and that general agriculture partly funds the Islamic State? I'd have thought that was well known at this stage? The taliban's biggest area of recruitment is in places in rural afgh and the likes of Pashtun, right?
What the fuck did you just say... better watch your fucking mouth I had respect for you till now go fuck yourself lets see what over 500 billion more will do
Ah don't get upset. Im not trying to insult you. Read my messages to Greg, I am being clear that any generalisation I m,ade is wrong, but also that criticism is directed at the machine (not the individuals). I lived in America at the time of 9/11. The passion the Americans have for their military forces is tangible and impressive. But, if you can sensibly argue that spending 500 billion to kill farmers, people at weddings, blow up hospitals and generally destroy the people you are meant to be protecting is not laughable then I am all ears man.
Look, all im saying is, despite the impressive fancy toys and passion, guerilla wars cannot be won, other than by making the other side not win, and that eventually they all got to get to the table and talk it out. How can we think we are mighty and dominating when we get spanked by farmers? It sure as hell aint the fault of the lads on the ground/water/air. US foreign policy has a hell of a lot to answer for, but again, that is not the fault of the servicemen and women.
Our military has accomplished so much.
You just only know about the bad things because everything that is an amazing achievement is classified.
Our govt on the other hand has sucked really bad for along time at leading our military into cluster fuck situations.
They have truly gone into these situations and done amazing and extremely brave work.
I have the upmost respect for anyone who has worn a uniform and not just a suit.
God bless all our military around the world and members that have served thank you a 1000x over for your service.
I owe my freedom to all of you.
I completely agree with you. Completely.
The problem is, the rest of the world doesn't have same the love for your (non-leadership) members. This just means that outside the US we can see the organisation (most vividly from a policy level of course) for what it is. I know you guys know the suits are the drivers of policy but you must acknowledge what the entire machine is getting up to out there outside of the US (One of my favourite places on earth).
Your comment/argument is contradictory and poorly stated.
Better stated:
Our military is one of the most capable in the world.
Our politicians on the other hand make terrible generals.
AnonGeneral James "Mad dog" Mattis was definatley no politician, his words alone caused the enemy to unoccupy. Greatest man I ever served under. What people from the outside fail to realize, In the moment you're not fighting for your country, you're fighting for your brother next to you. Politics and all that other mumbo jumbo was never present in a fire fight. We make capable country's do our light work, we are the most dangerous fighting force in the world. All the technology in the world wont stop a united states marine with a rifle. Until Valhalla
I just downloaded a TV show that depicts him. Is it accurate/do you know it?
'Generation Kill'
Poorly stated yes, contradictory no.
Your military cannot be considered highly capable if it cannot defeat it's enemies!!!! Peasant farmers, sand dwellers etc. Unless we are talking about friendly fire, killing innocents etc etc. Oh and not to mention the creation of ISIS and what have you.
You do however, have highly capable, well armed and highly trained grassroots folks, who's passion, patriotism and nationalism is to be commended.
That's not a contradicton. It's just a rotten organisation with rotten leadership yet full of good, passionate, well-meaning people.
It's contradictory because at one point you state or acknowledge that "it's just the powers that be". I.e., Nixon, Carter, Obama... So if I misunderstood you, what you were really saying is that our military is poorly trained and unprepared for war. Obviously a reflection on the boots on the ground/air/water.
You completely whitewash and ignore our role in history and the effects it has had on the world stage.
For the most part, there were no democracies in the 1770's. America fought arguably the strongest power at the time to establish a new republic and a constitution emulated and copied throughout the world.
As a fledgling new nation we won the war with Spain, arguably the second or third strongest power at the time.
The Great War was won because of US involvement. That was a giant leap forward for democracies.
The World War was won in both theaters because of the US. It was a death knell for most monarchies. Americans stopped Soviet advancement and saved Berlin. It secured and rebuilt Europe... that didn't happen overnight, that was generational commitment.
It was the threat of US might that kept the cold war cold.
It was the US that toppled the soviet union.
It was the US that stood up to the soviets when they wanted to put missiles in Cuba.
It is US forces keeping North Korea in North Korea.
It was US forces that removed Noriega from power in Panama
It was US forces that killed BIn laden.
It is US forces that protect the shipping lanes off of somalia.
It was a handful of US special forces that defended themselves against overwhelming numbers one night in Benghazi.
You are an ungrateful fool to think that an unpopular proxy war fought against the Russians in Vietnam defines us. (A war we entered when the French bailed out)
So, are you Irish? What impact on the world stage have you done lately other than bomb catholics?
ouch, you spanked me there (no homo)!
"our military is poorly trained and unprepared for war"
No you aren't understanding me, that is not what I am saying, party my fault (generalizations etc.). Let me be clear am not being contradictory; and I say of the USMF's that they are highly trained, extremely well equipped, and very much to prepared to GO TO war - but totally unprepared to achieve a positive outcome in the modern context - Afgh and Iraq2 are rock solid examples of this. Let me explain what I mean; It is currently impossible for the US to win a Guerilla war. If the US govt./military learned anything from Iraq2 it should be that. The US has always thought in terms of military might (per OP's post) and 'winning', whereas those waging the gureilla war dont have those agendas, they just want to stop you winning, and they are very happy to be invisible and abnormal and to take a thousand years to achieve it.
The US military has a fantastic record of achieving absolutely nothing...
Yep that was completely wrong of me to say. You're totally right. It was a completely incorrect generalisation. WW1/2 and Iraq1 - Iraq1 being a US victory based on VERY specific goals (brilliant) and ww1/2 being a part of the victorious team - yep you cannot deny that, ever. (I dont know an awful lot about your history prior to the ww1 era, so couldnt possibly comment).
The US stood up to the soviets @cuba - sorry dude, but the soviets won that piece of cold war nonsense, they secured a US commitment not to invade cuba, simples.
Korean war was a stalemate and the US was pushed back as much as the N.K's
Panama.... OH PLEASE!!!!!!! You allowed him to work away as long as he served US interests. Come one man! Isnt this type of thing, Panama, typical of US foreign policy, with the US military left to clean up the mess? (Yes I acknowledge the US military cleaned it up, but you're cleaning up your own mess!).
Bin Laden - the man was filth. But he was filth that had been supplied arms and training by the US and Pakistani govts. and security forces. Years later when his AL.Q split to form ISIS, it is clear the US (and the world) never learned from past mistakes. The folks who persisted in sorting out BL..... awesome.
Benghazi - a horrible attack. horrible. USSF's - amazing lads, amazing. US govt. involvement in Libya?.... Arms, shameful interference in the Arab spring.... corrupt and failed foreign policy again, resulting in the death of your countrymen.
I have nothing to be grateful to the US military for. If you think the world does, let alone an individual like me, then it sort of highlights a part of the problem and why you could never beat the lads in the poppyfarms - you, culturally speaking, just don't get it. Does that detract from your contributions to WW1/2? God no, no no not at all. But, it wasn't my war, and the US is not a global saviour. Quite the opposite, the US has been waging war and conflict almost non-stop for 60-70 years. Far from a foreign policy based upon peace. It is IMPOSSIBLE to argue that you are fighting for peace whilst DESTROYING the people you are supposedly fighting for.
Regarding Vietnam - I make no comment on the defeat itself, and I sure as hell don't snigger or gloat and I firmly feel the US soldiers were treated disgracefully upon their return. What I would say to you, or anyone else, is this (and I suggest bearing the Arab Spring and NKorea etc. in mind ); What happened after the war? Were there atrocities and was all of S.Vietnam imprisoned and killed, or was there a new political force in town? - Politics changed, but the end result wasn't rape/murder/pillage/terror etc. as some suggested it absolutely would be. Look at vietnam now, a shining light in globalisation! What do I mean when I point that fact out - well, I dunno really, maybe that when we dont get it, how the hell can we ever win??? But dont mistake that for me slagging off/absuing/belittling the brave men and women of the USMF's, just the leadership and government (all of which makes a machine, and guess what...?, outside of the USA all that is visible is the entire machine as 1 unit. not the honourable individuals but the machine and it's victims which include Americans)
Yes sir, I am Irish. Ireland doesn't bomb catholics, not sure what you mean, can you be more specific? Maybe you are referring to Catholic deaths due to bombings carried out during the struggles in Ireland? It is tru there were many attrocities on all sides. In fact one of the worst, Blood Sunday 2, led to the greatest recruitment drive for the IRA. But, we are predominantly Roman Catholic here in Ireland.
By world stage, do you mean militarily or otherwise (literature, achievements by our diaspora, art, humanitarian, science, sports etc?
The list is long for both to be honest.
Actually, you know, Ireland has a similar story to the US in a certain respect. Our Republic was founded out of war as was yours. We overthrew our colonial masters as did you guys, we are experienced in proxy warfare (you are the masters of it). The differences though might be how we have come from a Guerilla warfare background. Our agenda was pretty much always, deep down that is, to bring the 'Brits' to the table.
The day the US and lunatics like the Israeli's realise that military might is always trumped by talks in the end, will be a good day.
Pls accept my apology for making light of the US's positive contributions to WW1/2 (it was ridiculous to generalise like that) and it's success in Iraq1, and pls know I sure as hell only have respect for the service men and women of the various USMF's.
Area-1255I would say that was a stupid (bizarre) statement on his (Greg's) behalf. To say that any one race or culture has their primary achievement for bombing a particular group is most ridiculous assumption and generalization I have ever heard (nearly). The IRA actually has a legit cause, and the difference between them and other ''extremist'' groups is they don't go around killing or uprooting OTHER peoples governments or their citizens because of their beliefs. The IRA and that includes the factions that are currently operating have an ideology that relates to the relationship between Ireland and the U.K. Hence the split between the people's republic of Ireland and the north Ireland state power.
In a way, IRA is like Irish Patriotism but with warriors full of disgust due to the non-change and ignorance of Politicians. So its easy to see how politicians and governments are the creation of many feuds and much chaos.
As far as I can tell, they aren't bothering anyone else and as long as they operate in a ''controlled'' manner then I ain't worried about 'em. Of course, they aren't people you wanna piss off either.
Good post though giardap!
Do you remember the 70's and 80's? No? Then you've got no say in the matter. Pick up a book.
Area-1255I'm in my late 30's, so I guess that answers the question huh? What about you?
Don't spout off about stuff you don't understand. Sure, the IRA has been violent, but their violence is to serve a political (but really anti-modernist) point, in that the current role of the union has overstepped itself and that the Irish have ''forgotten who they are''. That point was said time and time again. You also have to make the distinction between EACH IRA group, the PIRA as giardap says, has very different methods than the old IRA after the ceasefire and before that timeline were more aligned, then in recent news you mostly hear about the RIRA; or real Irish republican army. Hell of a lot more ferocious but many claim that their leaders may be rogue. Also, there is question as to their methodological changes and whether some of their people or even the leadership are simply pseudo-anarchists.
I lived in Ireland for 10 years, I know how stuff works over there.
This discussion clearly is moving in two different directions, because you, Greg, are taking an approach which is to some extent, biased. On the other hand your debating strategy is less generalized in terms of facts, but Giardiap is using more logical arguments based on equivalents.
It should also be noted that although I am not a history buff, I've studied this stuff and have relatives and in-laws who are full Irish (even though I am about half).
So you should look into this from a less biased view, IMHO.
No offense but just because you study shit and got family in this shit doesn't make your opinion the end all be all.
And asking someone to be objective about loving their country is just dumb. Patriotic men and women don't take kindly to degrading their countries. That statement works on both sides of the argument friend. If you're in your thirties life lessons should have taught you that long ago. If you want to talk military and politics there are much better blogs and forums out there to satisfy your whims.
I think it's basic human nature for patriotism to cause bias. Why is that so fucking hard for people to grasp that. It's why these type of posts are just always going to end bad.
And hey guess what I just made that up and didn't have to study that or have my family tell me that. Common sense told me that.
Area-1255Common sense would tell you that nothing I've said is anti-patriot, I love the USA and I have not said anything that has said otherwise, and nothing I've written as a rebuttal has slammed the military or those who serve it. So whatever you are babbling about is nonsense, because you, like theflash, didn't read my post in its entirety.
I'm posting and commenting here for the same reason that anyone would, and if I were to post it elsewhere then the same type of comments would occur there, too.
So hop off. Get back in your seat and enjoy the scenery. This little chat is done.
Should I stand up and salute you captain commando? Oh no wait you already told me to enjoy my seat. Get the fuck outta here with your condescending grandour. Quit copy and pasting while you're at it post the fucking link and be done with it.
I dont appreciate your tone or the way you are speaking with greg.
If you dont agree or are going to act like a whiny little bitch, simply dont comment.
Who the fuck do you think you are?
Type up a few shitty posts and think you are a somebody. Pfft .
Show some respect, moderators donate there own time keeping this site flowing and safe.
Greg is very humble and is being nice, im not, the way i read it shows disrespect.
Get too fuck.
Area-1255Then you can let him speak up for himself, what are you his fucking bodyguard?
Greg knows this is a peaceful, analytical debate, his first comment was hasty so I returned with necessary force. Debating force. YOU, who do you think YOU are? The only person whining is you little guy.
Also, if you haven't noticed already that I am friends with staff on here, and there has never been a point in hell on here that I have deliberately disrespected any of the mods. Pay attention to what's being said or all that EXP ain't gonna mean shit.
You are taking the comments out of context and you are only applying your opinion of the IRA during your lifetime. I'm pointing out the 30 years prior, when I was growing up. Out of their nearly 100 year history, I'm only pointing out 20 - 25 years of it.
If someone from southern Ireland wants to tell a US vet that US forces can't accomplish anything well except to kill women and kids. They should be prepared to acknowledge the old IRA and their wanton killings of civilians in and out of Ireland. And then they should take a trip to France and visit the 170 acre cemetery overlooking omaha beach. They should take in the sight of 9,500 graves of those who destroyed the French landscape in their effort to kill Nazi culture. And yes, they probably killed a few French civilians to boot.
The whole IRA discussion is a distraction and a rebuttal to an attempt at winning a concession from me. If giardap can't support his claim that the US Armed Forces are inept and incapable of winning, his hope is that I'd concede to them as being baby killers. That concession is moot if you compare it with other forces; using Ireland in particular to drive the point home.
Your comment prior to this was reactionary and without full consideration to the evolution and contexts of the debate we've been having.
What equivalents? he made an observation that the US Armed Forces can't win a war. He did not equate that with anything. He made a comment that the US had killed civilians. I made the point that it was equivalent to the IRA (unfairly so, as it is not the US goal to kill civilians).
Area-1255I wasn't arguing about the military part on our end, I'm a US citizen right now and have been for a while, I have vets and current serving family members in the military. I was ONLY debating some of the facts about the IRA. I'm not taking anyones side here, but I don't think giardap is deliberately trying to distract from the conversation.
As far as the rest of the comments go, I think giardap covered the IRA timeline pretty well.
...civilan attacks are an indirect consequence, they aren't intentional. Except in cases where individuals let their emotions get the best of them. And that's the same point he is making. The deaths of those who weren't directly involved were not intentional but they either got in the way or were caught in the crossfire.
This happens in our military too. This happens in any war or perceived war. That's the point giardap is making in some of his latter statements. That you could argue similar things could happen not necessarily as a matter of intention but because of the undue consequences of any war.
When passion lights up the room there are always unintended victims, either in thought, or in the flesh.
As far as most of everything else you said Greg, I understand your points and I think they are sensible.
Ah cmon Greg,
a rebuttal to an attempt at winning a concession from me.
I honestly don't want to win a concession from you. You have your opinions and that's fine by me, including those on Ireland/the Irish troubles etc. I am just pointing out where I disagree. I try to acknowledge the truths in what you say, but also the untruths.
I seem to keep reiterating that I am not saying the USMF's are completely incapable, sure how could they be, with all those shiny guns?! I am merely saying that the US cannot win a guerilla war. that's all.
Sure what the heck do I know anyway, nothing... but I should have known better than to discuss politics and war in the first place!!!!
Greg, the IRA's goal was never to kill civilians. Take a look at a simple log of let's say; the PIRA's bombing campaign versus the Unionists and indeed the British Forces (via murder, military force and collusion with the unionist Para's). The record is as clear as glass. You will note that there was a very clear focus from the IRA on military targets, primarily, versus the atrocities committed by the likes of the Shankill Butchers. (should be easy to access such logs/records). But yes, 100%, there were atrocities committed on both sides. When the IRA bombed infrastructure and military social haunts (pubs) in particular, there were many civilian casualties which is unforgivable. Birmingham and Guilford are forever present, sadly.
There is a fatal flaw in what you are trying to say Greg. You are pointing out a time of an armed struggle where the Irish rose up against a foreign invader that was murdering the Irish, had taken away the indigenous language (is é Gaeilge an teanga ceart na nGael), in the past removed Irish people's religion and all basic civil rights. Specifically Greg, the time you point to was a period where some of the worst human right atrocities were committed by the British Military/Govt. in Ireland, directly driving IRA recruitment and igniting a massive conflict once more.
Also I made an observation that the USMF couldnt win a geurilla war - not anything else. I think it is a fair observation, but if you disagree, that's fair enough.
There are two parts that make this an unfair observation. "couldn't win", and calling out the USMF "only".
My very first post acknowledges that in spite of all the weaponry and size, it is extremely difficult to win a guerilla war on someone else's turf. That applies to ALL military forces. England v America, England v Ireland, Soviets v Afghanistan, US v vietnam, etc.
"Couldn't win" is unfounded. We could win if we had the fortitude to stick it out for 30 years. We would need to secure the borders, build and run the schools, control the governance and news etc. And allow the local people to keep their cultural identity.
Our goal wouldn't be colonialism as Britain [or Briton? ;-) ] had with India, Hong Kong, and the US, etc. Look at those countries now. Even where the split was by war, passive protest, or a peaceful handover there remained a pro west attitude, peaceful and stable democracies, and cultural take aways (both parties) that unite us. If our goal was to create a stable democracy, we would need to be there generationally, and slowly back out of the room unnoticed decades later.
Your interjection of the US killing woman and kids was an unnecessary dig that started this whole IRA discussion. (as are your "shiny gun" comments are digs). How that factored into your original comments is unclear and unnecessary in this debate unless it was meant as a distraction and a dig. I get it, USMF bad, poor little Ireland, good.
When I say USMF's I am referring to the entire machine, and is the US president not the bossman? So, politics/military are the combined machine along with other govt. agencies, CIA etc. - the machine - im not sure, being honest, which terminology to use so as not to alienate or fingerpoint at any one group. You know the old adage of the lowest paid, lowly, customer service guy or girl, being the most important to any organisation being that they are in fact contact point 1 and the very face of the organisation?. I mean to say that it doesnt actually really matter from an external perspective who I refer to, because the rest of the world views you as a single collective. But I absolutely respect that is not how it is from within the military forces necessarily and that you can be a member of say the USMC and dispute the political leadership's abilities, whilst still remaining faithful, loyal and a staunch advocate of what you stand for.
This is why I try to stress that despite the digs as you say, or banter as we say in Ireland (dont dish it if you cant take it etc. - so fire away - no pun intended!), I do not have anything negative to say about the individuals and level (as you would in the private professional world) criticism at the leadership. Banter yes, but not in a condescending sense, honestly, quite the opposite in fact. Irish people have always looked to America as a shining beacon of light, from an opportunity perspective and not a poor me perspective.
Didn't Bush Jnr. say mission acomplished and then that he was securing the country and so on? Never happened! Civil war happened as it did in Ireland and India and Vietnam etc.. But still the US is ilitarily an occupying force in Iraq, So I dont think what I am saying is unfounded. I know you dispute it, but surely you can see that maybe, GWB got you into something he could not complete and for all of the (now well documented) wrong reasons?
Is it not reasonable to assume, that if the US invasion of Iraq2 and Afghan was a success, there would be no ISIS, no AlQ, no Taliban? No war? etc. or at least that they would be at the table? I dont think that it is totally unreasonable to say that the invasion and subsequent occupation was a failure. It directly led to the creation of ISIS.
Greg, there is no pro west attitude in Pakistan (formerly part of British India). There absolutely is not. Pakistani's view America as a warmonger and the country itself as a basketcase. You might not like to hear that, I know I wouldnt, and no I don't speak for all Pakistani's (I dont know them all!) but I do know many and have worked with them, socialised with some, been friends with others etc. - The usual theme is not one of hate, I dont mean that, just the opposite of your pro west comment.
You might actually find this fact interesting!.... The chap who created modern India and Pakistan (drew the borders/division) was the same Lord Mountbatten I mentioned earlier as being killed by/being a bombing casualty of the IRA.
But to my comments about why the US cannot win a guerrilla war, even if you double your current 15 years to 30: Guerrilla wars against locals are simply un-win'able. They melt away go back to their job in the post office, rice paddy or poppy farm, Guinness factory and maybe a sense of apathy will develop over time as did in Ireland (more so Dublin, shamefully), but eventually someone launches a strike. For every counter strike the apathy disappears, for every civilian casualty, local support for resistance grows. Even when an invader is 'on paper' winning (individual battles etc.) you are always losing because the enemy cannot be identified/changes/evolves for previous reasons and due to the ability to melt away and then choose when where and how to strike - this makes it's every strike a success - so even when the local forces are on the brink of defeat/crippled/arms-poor - all they need to do is melt away and at a later stage plant a bomb and be seen to be winning by the locals and to gain a level of support that will guarantee the invader is never respect, seen as a winner or as a creator of stability.
Sure, on paper you can win by sticking around generationally , to identify the enemy, win the hearts and minds of the locals etc. - but this was not done in Afgh, nor Iraq etc. It was not done in India either by the British who created Pakistan which is an unstable country as is India.
Recent Afgh is a good example - the British failed twice, the soviets, the US too. The Taliban was created by combined failure of the British the Soviets and the US. It came from a vacuum as did Al Quaeda and recently ISIS in Iraq. You cannot beat Salafism, only from within the Islamist movement can change come about there which is why there have always been Islamic states. The Taliban is stronger now than at any time within the past 10-15 years.
No poor little Ireland. Not at all. We, despite a bloody history and a shameful legacy of war, have a good success story in peace, and are moving towards an eventual United Ireland. We also have had aid from the US politicians along the way and greatly appreciate that believe it or not. The Clintons were good to us and are respected here in Ireland. The former U.S. Senator George J. Mitchell was massively helpful as a chair to the parties in the North,Republic and UK in securing the Good Friday Agreement and the partial decommissioning of weapons. That was no mean feat for the American, Kudos to Mitchell - wont ever be forgotten.
Re: Unnecessary Digs/Banter - Fair enough.... I will be more careful in future!
There is a separation of power that you do not seem to grasp. I am in part agreement with you if you look at my first post on this thread, then restated as a reply to you. I am not in agreement where you put any of the failures on our military.
We stepped into vietnam as a advisers and over the decade got sucked deeper into it. It was unpopular at home. Congress never declared war against Vietnam (nor Iraq and Afghanistan). They were fought via political policy, experienced troops were rotated out every few years, inexperienced officers sent over to put a notch in the belt of their military careers and rotated out.. As a conflict, (not a war), there were politically motivated rules of engagement. We were fighting with our hands tied behind our backs.
That is NOT a reflection on our military capability. That is a reflection of our political leaders.
All you mention above is politics, not a reflection of our military.
Afghanistan held off the Soviets for decades. it was their veitnam. We did not go to war with afghanistan, we went after al-qaeda. And for the most part we decimated them.
It was politicians that pulled out of Iraq and afghanistan too soon creating power vacuums.
It was politicians who drew a red line in Syria and failed to follow through.
It was politicians who overthrew an impotent libyan dictator with no clear plan for what happens next.
As for us being at war for 70 years destroying the people we are protecting. We have created smart weapons . that minimize civilian casualties. Gone are the days of carpet bombing. Less have died in all of our post WWII conflicts than they did in one battle at Normandy.
We do not want to be the world's policeman. Finally we have someone calling you out. The EU NATO members need to pony up and pay their fair share and get involved more. They have been given notice we will not be involving ourselves with things that don't involve us. Yet in spite of all of your misgivings, all we hear on this side of the pond are complaints about a new american isolationism. It's time NATO (US forces included) becomes the face of the world's peace keeper and not the US.
I'm a 3rd generation Irish American. My Great Grandmother (who was still alive until I was 5) has her name on the immigrant wall on Ellis Island. I visited Ireland a while back and visited the little town she was from. Relatives I've never met still remember her and still run a butchershop where she grew up. Ireland felt "freer" than the US and was fascinated how JFK has been enshrined.
That's really awesome re: your grandmother, respect. You are lucky to have had her. My little ladies have 2 of their GGP's and we are trying to soak that up, they have gotten to know them really well. The joys of having a younger Mrs!
Greg I think notwithstanding my initial unintended insult to the USMF's, we would agree on more than we would disagree upon. And again I do agree with the majority of what you said just now, but an observation and also to take it away from the political idiots we agree about; Yes your development of smart weapons is very much so visible (yep American business is part of the machine). However, despite the smart weapons and systems, the USMF keeps killing women and children. The 2 snipers in March were worth the 100+ civilians? Maybe they were, I dont see how, but maybe its ok to kill loads of innocents? Cannot help but feel that one ranger could have dealt with those lads without killing innocents.
You might be familiar with this site: https://airwars.org - I think it's an eye opener.
War is messy. No one likes it. No one wants to harm innocents. No one wants to destroy culturally significant assets.
I will hazard to guess the US, more than any other nation goes out of their way not to have collateral damage. Often to our detriment, we choose not to take out a target because of it.
But you are now pulling in other arguments not related to your original comment which basically was that the US Armed Forces couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag.
Is the US armed Forces perfect? No. Are we worse than most? No. Are we worse than some? Probably, I don't think Andorra, Singapore, or the Vatican City have had collateral damage attributed to them.
Ah c'mon Greg! Isn't the stereotype that all US service people are itching for a little conflict time? No truth in that whatsoever? Get some etc?! Let's get real for a minute, the most culturally significant assets a nation will ever have are it's people. The people of these regions are collateral damage left right and center. 15/16 years or so now of collateral damage across that region.
Well back to that original point then, yep for sure, the US absolutely cannot win a guerilla war in asia/mid-east. No chance. Not on your Nelly. The US military is in no way shape or form capable of doing that and has consistently proven that over the more recent years. However, drop a bomb on Johnny Jihad sitting in a public school or busy hospital from afar, absolutely. Famous for it, along with the rest of the lads that like to take part in the current efforts. Not to be saluted though. It's shameful. I just don't sere how anyone can boast about that type of military prowess, it is a celebration of failure.
Vatican city is directly responsible for .... hmmmm... totally different conversation for another day!
Any one from a country which in modern times has committed the atrocities that the IRA has committed has no right to point fingers. Even if we discount the time from 1922 all the way up to the 1960's the IRA bombed their own innocents, and made terror attacks in Britain and central europe killing over 2000 non combative people.
It's not because we can't, it's because we won't.
Don't discount any time at all. To do that is to ignore the causation of the armed struggle(s) in Ireland.
I presume you are referring to the PIRA in more recent years. No atrocities can be condoned, they are all equally disgusting. Even now this year, we are still recovering bodies of the disappeared, the most recent was in France iirc. It's a sad and shameful legacy, however, peace has endured via the table where they all end up in the end.
Now you raise an interesting point re: the IRA and terror attacks. This point in itself is the crux of why the US will never be able to win a guerilla war, as it is the crux of why the British Govt. were unable to defeat Irish republicans. You/they define the opposition, or the IRA in this case, as the terrorists! What makes you think they are the terrorists and that you/they are not? To quote an Irish folk song; "and you dare to call me a terrorist, while you look down your gun".
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
It's not about whose side you're on. There are domestic terrorists as well. It's the wanton killing of civilians that made them so.
The IRA was a liberation army in the 1920's. I discounted that part of their history even though there is plenty of mud to dig up during those years. I'm also discounting the period past the mid late 90's
Between 1970 and the early 1990's the IRA acted more like a terrorist group. Not soldiers.
I think the only reason they stopped is because Islamic terrorists were giving the Irish terrorists a bad name. They were losing support from rich Irish Americans so the coffers were drying up, global public opinion was turning against them, and, didn't one of their leaders die?
ISIS is an army that commits terrorist acts.
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. - Is that not applicable to every single conflict the US has been involved in in recent years, particularly where you were subversives? I mean Iraq - come on!!!!
So who defines the law? The indigenous people or the foreign military invader? The question still stands.
Between 1970 and the early 1990's the IRA acted more like a terrorist group. Not soldiers.
That's just ridiculous! IUt is nonsensical and completely disregards ALL of the history of the troubles ion Ireland. In the 70's the OIRA and PIRA focused on military/govt. targets but yes there were many civilian casualties in some attacks.
Some of the military targets for bombings 70-90'sas an example; The bombing of the Old Bailey courthouse in London - British soldiers attacked via shootings, bombs carbombs mortar attacks and mines etc. - Bomb attack on the home of former Prime Minister - Bombing of the British Ambassador to Ireland - Bomb attack on the RAF airfield in Derry - Killing of the Queen’s cousin Lord Louis Mountbatten - Bombing of Navy Aux Ship and so on. You might also find the story of the early 1990's South Armagh Snipers interesting from a historical perspective at least. Absolutely a military campaign. What about the military hunger strikes?
I am not justifying anything, just pointing out facts. You might also be interested to know a key differentiator between the Irish Para's and the Unionist Para's - During the times of internment etc. IRA activists went into internment and left jail with the equivalent of a PhD in Arts and the fluency of their native tongue. Whereas the Unionists did not and were essentially far more primitive and uneducated.
The Irish never really lost support from the Irish Americans, funding there was always both overt and covert. We also received funding and weaponry from Gadaffi at one stage. You might also find that the last successful Islamic State prior to the current, the Ottomon Empire was a fantastic beacon of light and help to the people of Ireland during the Great Famine.
ISIS is an army that commits terrorist attacks, of course. But that over-simplification of who/what they are will lead to never actually defeating them. They will just vanish into the ether, send servicemen back to Europe etc. and continue in a new form, as AlQ did. New problems, same story. You cannot beat ISIS if you don't understand them, you cannot beat an idealist with suppression. The idea is to them, that the US is the bad guy, most of that region firmly believe that. To quote Michael Douglas; "I'm the bad guy? How'd that happen?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4x_PxdYEk8