A Republican Conservative Says U.S. Military Can Be Defeated

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
May 12, 2005

The Myth of US Invincibility
The Reality Gap
By WILLIAM S. LIND

William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation

----------------------------------------------------------------

The idea that the U.S. military cannot be defeated is disconnected from reality. Let me put it plainly: the U.S. military can be beaten. Any military in history could be beaten, including the Spanish army of Olivares's day, which had not lost a battle in a century until it met the French at Rocroi. Sooner or later, we will march to our Rocroi, and probably sooner the way things are going.

Why? Because war is the province of chance. You cannot predict the outcome of a war just by counting up the stuff on either side and seeing who has more. Such "metrics" leave out strategy and stratagem, pre-emption and trickery, generalship and luck. They leave out John Boyd's all-important mental and moral levels. What better example could we have than the war in Iraq, which the Pentagon was sure was over the day we took Baghdad? Can these people learn nothing?

Why do our senior military leaders put out this "we can't be beaten" bilge? Because they are chosen for their willingness to tell the politicians whatever they want to hear. A larger question is, why do the American press and public buy it? The answer, I fear, is "American exceptionalism" ­ the belief that history's laws do not apply to America. Unfortunately, American exceptionalism follows Spanish exceptionalism, French exceptionalism, Austrian exceptionalism, German exceptionalism and Soviet exceptionalism.

Reality tells us that the same rules apply to all. When a country adopts a wildly adventuristic military policy, as we have done since the Cold War ended, it gets beaten. The U.S. military will eventually get beaten, too. If, as seems more and more likely, we expand the war in Iraq by attacking Iran, our Rocroi may be found somewhere between the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lind05122005.html

[ck4829]

1. That Nazi loving Bigoted Idiot probably just mailed that to terrorists...

in the Middle East.

William Lind is just another Pat Buchanan.

[NorthernSpy]

14. Huh? Why exactly are you calling Lind "Nazi-loving"?

Also, suggesting that he mails his commentaries to terrorists seems pretty uncalled for, to put it mildly.

Lind is anti-war. I do appreciate that, in spite of his conservatism.

[demgurl]

23. I *think* that was sarcasm.

I am not sure since he did not reply but I am pretty sure that was sarrcasm, that is how I first read it.

[ck4829]

25. I did go a little overboard, but...

"Lind gave a well-received speech before some 120 "historical revisionists," conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis and other anti-Semites, in which he identified a small group of people who he said had poisoned American culture. On this point, Lind made a powerful connection with his listeners."

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=40

That is one of the things that I hate most about him.

[Boomer]

16. Our vulnerability isn't a state secret

Regardless of the author's other politic beliefs (with which I'm unfamiliar), I can't say I disagree with anything in this article. In fact, he sums up observations I've seen in numerous other essays and commentaries about the hubris of our empire-building efforts.

Wish I could remember the reference, but I've read a harsher criticism from one commentator who said the war in Iraq has made the entire world aware of our military limitations and seriously dented the myth of superior American war technology. Given the poor conditions and resources of the Iraq army, the surprise was not that the Americans won but that it was so difficult for them to win. And now, of course, we're not winning, even though we are still possessed of our "superior" fighting toys.

Terrorists already know we can be defeated (they saw the ouster of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, after all), so the only people to be surprised, shocked or offended by this essay will be deluded Americans who continue to insist we are invincible.

[erichzann]

18. Great attitude.

If I wanted that, I'd go to a repuke website where I can get all the blind hate I want.

[freedom_to_read]

2. omfg never thought i would say it

But this right winger has expressed exactly what I've been thinking lately. Particularly this line:

"The answer, I fear, is American exceptionalism ­ the belief that history's laws do not apply to America. Unfortunately, American exceptionalism follows Spanish exceptionalism, French exceptionalism, Austrian exceptionalism, German exceptionalism and Soviet exceptionalism."

Our naive belief that "it couldn't happen to us" is dangerous on so many levels.

[napi21]

3. He's right. All supreme armies in history have failed.

When they get that belief of inviciblity, they're doomed.

[kliljedahl]

4. WOW!!!

Copied & printing as I type.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[wallwriter]

5. Then there's morale...

Let's see. Are we fighting a just, necessary and legal war? Or are we fighting a war based on trumped up intelligence by demagogues, fundamentalists and corproate profiteers?

[iamjoy]

6. Of Course We Could Be Defeated

excuse me if this sound unpatriotic or like I don't support our troops or believe they kick some serious ass but if we were to go to full-blown war with North Korea...we would be lucky if we didn't know how Japan felt after WWII.

[PKG]

13. So you think that North Korea is going to firebomb our cities,

invade our territory, depose our leadership, and occupy our country?

...right.

[iamjoy]

24. About North Korea

Invade Our Territory: not the mainland U.S. but certainly some of our Asian/Pacific allies and possibly our territories in the area

But really, I was referring more to the fact that North Korea could very well use tactical nuclear weapons.

[liberal N proud]

7. That's not very patriotic!

How dare he.

[Imagine My Surprise]

8. and frankly.

The sooner, the better.

[Itsthetruth]

9. Remember The Vietnam War?

That was another war in which the United States had far superior military power on the land, in the air and on the seas.

The only problem was the Vietnamese people. They supported the independence fighters. In fact, they were the independence fighters!

[malmapus]

10. If our military was used properly I really feel that we can't be defeated

I'm talking about when given a REAL objective.

The reason shit is breaking down now is because our guys / gals over there haven't been given a real objective to fullfill. Sure at first it was "toppling Saddam" which they did. But then what, rebuild the country? Thats not a military matter. Providing security yes, but not being an occupational force (there is a big different between those two).

Right now our military is just wallowing in mud, it has no direction and I feel its to the point where folks over there are just trying to make it the day to day staying alive and keeping their buddies alive. When your military reaches that point, its not a good sign. They seem to be given these stupid missions to put down "insurgent strongholds" but its the whole hydra thing. You go in a take out one and five more will pop up just for the simple fact that the locals don't want us there.

If our leaders have any ounce of honor or intergrity left, they should pull us out. Let the other Arab states help Iraq back on its feet (I say Arab states because I feel those are the only people that Iraqi citizens will trust at this point). They can help rebuild the country and provide security (which I feel alot of the problems with bombings and what not will disappear when we leave).


EDIT trying to rethink the subject line, don't want to sound like a war monger by it. But when I was in not too long ago, we have a very professional fighting force that could just about handle any situation that was thrown at it. But what we have today, is just a shade of that it seems thanks to Rummy.

[XemaSab]

21. I think we're at our "best"

when the enemy is clearly defined. The quagmires have been when the common people of a country are "the enemy." In Vietnam, and in Iraq, anyone can be an attacker... not just young men but young women, old women, old men, kids... when our tropps are unable to distinguish civilians from attackers, the battle is lost and the Iraqi "insurgents" know this well.

[malmapus]

22. Exactly

But with a defined enemy and proper leadership, I really feel that our military was a power to be reconned with. But nowadays *shrug*.

Bush should be proud of himself, he's pulled off something that I never thought I would see, the US military starting to breakdown.

[Tinoire]

11. 1000 US Marines at the Syrian border. 5 killed. ? wounded.

in this week's 5 day old "Operation Matador", one of the largest post-Saddaam US military operations in Iraq. Let's not even count the number of Iraqis slaughtered in this dastardly fight against manufactured terrorism.

Amy Goodman was talking about this this morning on Democracy Now. Things are not going well for us.

Quote Einstein: I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. Albert Einstein

Operation Matador in today's news:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050512/w051224.html

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/05/c208a4ba-3d8e-4fef-b230-1252e9e7986c.html

http://www.occupationwatch.org/analysis/archives/2005/05/iraq_is_moving.html

[Goldmund]

12. It's a sad thing that this is a headline.

It's like "A Republican Conservative Says Bush Is Actually Mortal".

[erichzann]

20. LOL (nt)

[dogday]

15. Lets us not forget why Russia went broke.............

[XemaSab]

17. Duh.... Nam????

'nuff said.

[Ripley]

19. He must be one of those "Blame America Firsters."

Shouldn't he be imprisoned along with the other commie pinko terrorists?