The whole is worth attentive reading.
Announcement
Collapse
World History 201 Guidelines
Welcome to World History 201.
Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.
This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.
Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.
The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
Find out if Caesar crossed the Rubicon or threw a dollar across it.
This is the forum where world history, in general, can be discussed. Since the WH201, like the other fora in the World History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here.
Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is.
The Tweb rules are in force . . . we're watching you.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
van Creveld on Western armies
Collapse
X
-
That seems to be a rather skewed view of the facts, to be polite."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
-
Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View PostThat seems to be a rather skewed view of the facts, to be polite.
If you disagree with his views, you are free to explain why.
Comment
-
Libya - Why is this example even here seeing how there was no ground fighting and the intent of the mission was just to provide support for the rebels?
Iraq - The US military demolished the Iraqi military in record time.
Afghanistan - The Taliban controlled nearly the entire country. The US pushed them out of most of it and left because there wasn't much left to do. Complete defeat of the Taliban by Western standards would require genocide, which is an entirely different matter from lacking military competence.
The author appears to be one of those nutjobs who thinks that you don't "really" win a war unless the other guy formally surrenders and submits or you erase him from the face of the earth (IE: follow western cultural protocols, which a lot of countries, especially in the middle east, obviously don't). I can guarantee that the Taliban or the Baathists don't see themselves as the winners, no matter what propaganda they might spew to tickle the ears of the Van Crevelds of the world."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostLibya - Why is this example even here seeing how there was no ground fighting and the intent of the mission was just to provide support for the rebels?
Iraq - The US military demolished the Iraqi military in record time.
Afghanistan - The Taliban controlled nearly the entire country. The US pushed them out of most of it and left because there wasn't much left to do. Complete defeat of the Taliban by Western standards would require genocide, which is an entirely different matter from lacking military competence.
The author appears to be one of those nutjobs who thinks that you don't "really" win a war unless the other guy formally surrenders and submits or you erase him from the face of the earth (IE: follow western cultural protocols, which a lot of countries, especially in the middle east, obviously don't).
I can guarantee that the Taliban or the Baathists don't see themselves as the winners, no matter what propaganda they might spew to tickle the ears of the Van Crevelds of the world.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostAfghanistan - The Taliban controlled nearly the entire country. The US pushed them out of most of it and left because the Commander in Chief wanted to get out ASAP, regardless of conditions.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostBecause the war ended right then, as Bush declared.
They lost: they failed to stabilise the government they installed and couldn't or wouldn't do what was necessary to do it. So they retreated.
The author is one of those people who thinks that war is not won merely by defeating the conventional forces and gaining formal control of the state. Given that strategic objectives included stabilisation of the occupied areas it is very clear that they were not only massively misguided but failed.
Pray tell."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostYeah, it did. Saddam was replaced with a democratic government. That insurgents kept fighting is immaterial. It's no different from Vicky France. Germany beat France even if the French Resistance kept fighting and the existence of the French Resistance does not change that, nor does anybody seriously claim France "won" that fight just because they didn't all give up.
What are you talking about? The government of Afghanistan is still the one they installed.
You don't need to meet every strategic objective to win a war. The primary objective was to replace Saddam with a democratic government which they succeeded.
What is there to tell? They had empires and ruled over other peoples. After the US was done with them they barely control their homelands. The author has to twist himself into a pretzel to pretend they "won". Imagine if Canada invaded the US and conquered everything except DC. Would anyone in the right mind think the US government "won"?
And given that the puppet Afghan government is very unlikely to survive on its own (cf. Iraq's) it may be a little early to declare a victory from the Taliban merely on the basis of the retreat of US and NATO after attrition but I don't see how they'll lose. They've won because as they've managed to get the occupiers to leave, achieving their own strategic objectives, leaving the rest of the land ripe for recapture, which would completely prevent the ex-occupiers of achieving their objective of a stable puppet government..
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostRight, they won many battles but not the war. Did Germany win WWII?
For now. It's only been what - 4 months?
A government that would rule the land stably, which it hasn't managed to. I'm really noticing a pattern of short-term evaluation here.
If there was sufficient attrition of Canadian forces so that the Canadians gave up trying to occupy the land, it's not a loss for the US at the very least. Suppose the Canadians had installed a puppet government in the meantime, and therefore it takes time to retake the land lost. Would it be too early to conclude that the US haven't won? Yes.
And given that the puppet Afghan government is very unlikely to survive on its own (cf. Iraq's) it may be a little early to declare a victory from the Taliban merely on the basis of the retreat of US and NATO after attrition but I don't see how they'll lose. They've won because as they've managed to get the occupiers to leave, achieving their own strategic objectives, leaving the rest of the land ripe for recapture, which would completely prevent the ex-occupiers of achieving their objective of a stable puppet government..Last edited by Darth Executor; 04-01-2015, 04:18 PM."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostNo but they beat France, which is the analogy being made. The rest of the war is irrelevant for the purpose of the analogy.
And? If they lose it the loss won't belong to the US, who won't even be involved, it would be the loss of the Afghani government. The US won the war.
You don't need eternal dominion to win a war.
If the Canadians achieved their objectives and left then no, it wouldn't be too early to conclude that the US haven't won. Claiming "victory" after your enemy beats you into a bloody pulp and then leaves is not victory.
There is zero evidence the US wants anything more than a government that doesn't give them trouble and it's unlikely the Taliban will be stupid enough to cause them trouble again anytime soon
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostThe point of the analogy is that the long-term evaluation matters especially regarding opposing long-term strategic goals.
Given that one major US strategic goal was to establish a stable alternative government to the Taliban, if it falls it would be a failure of the long-term military strategic objective.
You need long-term dominion to win a war when the major strategic objectives after the first ousting of power are respectively the stabilisation of the land under a new government and the thwarting of such efforts.
So, leaving aside all the logistical issues, the US should be willing to reinstate the Taliban because they're unlikely to give trouble?"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostFrance was saved by foreign powers. It didn't save itself. There's no USSR or USA equivalent that will save the Taliban. The point of the analogy (which I made, so I think I get to decide its point)
when the enemy overruns your country and turns you into kebab, you lost.
I disagree that it was a major strategic goal, and furthermore it's not a goal of war at all. I don't see what diplomatic or political failures (which, I should note, haven't actually happened) have to do with military failures (which is what the OP was about). The author's thesis simply doesn't pass the laugh test since the US military can and does mop the floor with third world armies, both formal and informal. To make matters worse, even under your view the author's claim is frivolous as it's based on what might happen
rather than what has happened so far (the Taliban's crushing military defeat)
Of course not. They already have a friendlier government, why reinstate the Taliban?
Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment