Which wars has the United States lost?

[Oozlefinch]

Yeah. I think that it was historian Howard Zinn who argued that the war of 1812 forever changed how the US treated native Americans. For the worse. Not that they were well treated before but after that Indian lands were simply lands to take

Really, you are pulling out Howard Zinn? The same guy that thought the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was justified, and that the US had no business getting involved in an internal affair?

And the relations of the US Government and the Indians was actually pretty good, prior to the War of 1812, when the British convinced many tribes to go to war against the US. And not all tribes did that, and not all suffered in the aftermath. And even after the war was over, not all tribes were treated the same.

In most senses, they were given the status of an independent entity, with their own territorial boundries. Most groups had no problem with that, some took offense at it and went to war to extend or eliminate those borders. But it was not universal, as to be expected the more warlike tribes fought against it more then the more peaceful tribes. And most of the troubles in US-Indian relations I place squarely on the shoulders of one man, Andrew Jackson. More then any other he ultimately is the one responsible for turning formerly friendly tribes hostile against the US.

 

[chromium]

i consider iraq a loss in that it was so protracted and after the military mostly left, just like in vietnam, whole cities were captured by the enemy. Not to mention when the next president vowed to end the war, his opponents urged to 'stay the course,' which is code for 'it will be a defeat.' The US gained nothing but no-bid contracts for select corporations

 

[chromium]

Right, they failed that specific military objective but the bigger picture of stopping the spread of communism isn't as clear cut imo, which is why I don't consider it a total failure. Do you feel like our participation in Vietnam took the wind out of communism's sails at all? See, I consider Vietnam worth it and in a way a victory if we stopped the spread of communism.

dude they were clinging to the choppers as they fled, so were the civilians. The city fell like right away. How many more senseless casualties do the revisionists need before they admit it was neither a stalemate nor does stopping communism matter at all. It's not some terrible evil that's the death for america. Hell, china is our #1 trading partner.

But hey, vietnam is still there all these decades later. It's ripe for the taking! We should stay the course right

 

[Oozlefinch]

i consider iraq a loss in that it was so protracted and after the military mostly left, just like in vietnam

So is this a failure of the US, or tthe government of the nation itself? Or the fact that the other side was willing to lie and cheat to get what it wanted?

So you and a stranger get into a fight, and I step in to help you. I pull the guy off, and then leave and he returns and beats the crap out of you again. Now please explain to me how *I* lost the fight? Because that is basically what you are saying.

dude they were clinging to the choppers as they fled, so were the civilians.

You are aware that those iconic photographs are of the fall of the US Embassy, are you not? The evacuation was not of "US Forces", but of primarily of the embassy and consolate staff. As well they accepted other high ranking US and foreign civilians. Over 50,000 people were evacuated, almost all US civilians in the first weeks (as well as many members of the clergy, and orphans). The most famous day in this evacuation was 29 April 1975, known as "Operation Frequent Wind". The largest part of the evacuation, over 7,000 were evacuated in the final 48 hours, the final groups being the last of the diplomats at the embassy, their staff, and high ranking South Vietnamese officials as well as almost 1,000 third country nationals (French, English, Canadian, West German, etc).

Total number of ground forces on the ground during this phase? Around 300.

So once again, if the country of Iraq could not hold their nation together, who's fault is that? That is like blaming the UK and France for the rise of Nazi Germany. They won the war, and left Germany to govern itself. What Germany decided to do afterwards is entirely their own fault.

 

[Thoreau72]

i consider iraq a loss in that it was so protracted and after the military mostly left, just like in vietnam, whole cities were captured by the enemy. Not to mention when the next president vowed to end the war, his opponents urged to 'stay the course,' which is code for 'it will be a defeat.' The US gained nothing but no-bid contracts for select corporations

It was fraud from the get-go, but the military industrial complex did just fine, thank you very much. :mrgreen:

 

[chromium]

It was fraud from the get-go, but the military industrial complex did just fine, thank you very much. :mrgreen:

i think there's no way GWB lands on that aircraft carrier and declares victory unless he thought it would be a quick plunder and pilfer job. The corporate handouts, and probably reelection, were always the motive, but securing those interests became much harder than expected

 

[Thoreau72]

i think there's no way GWB lands on that aircraft carrier and declares victory unless he thought it would be a quick plunder and pilfer job. The corporate handouts, and probably reelection, were always the motive, but securing those interests became much harder than expected

He did not really declare victory. He and the banner both proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". That is not really the same as victory, depending upon details, but it was an accurate statement as the Mission was to bring the war.

It was accomplished in spades, as he and his friends did very well. We are still there 13 years later. Most certainly the fraud was accomplished.

 

[joG]

He did not really declare victory. He and the banner both proclaimed "Mission Accomplished". That is not really the same as victory, depending upon details, but it was an accurate statement as the Mission was to bring the war.

It was accomplished in spades, as he and his friends did very well. We are still there 13 years later. Most certainly the fraud was accomplished.

Naw. The invasion was over like ww2 in '45. Funny you should miss that. You don't win international security. You just gain breathing space for the next round.

 

[Thoreau72]

Naw. The invasion was over like ww2 in '45. Funny you should miss that. You don't win international security. You just gain breathing space for the next round.

You lost me on that one joG. Can't see any similarities to WWII

 

[Oozlefinch]

Naw. The invasion was over like ww2 in '45.

And how long did we remain in Germany after WWII? Something like 40 years if memory serves me correctly. And we are still in Japan over 70 years later, even taking much of their defense duties so they will not rearm again like they had before.

So what exactly is your point? That you would have supported us remaining in Iraq another 40 years to ensure they continue with a stable government?

 

[joG]

And how long did we remain in Germany after WWII? Something like 40 years if memory serves me correctly. And we are still in Japan over 70 years later, even taking much of their defense duties so they will not rearm again like they had before.

So what exactly is your point? That you would have supported us remaining in Iraq another 40 years to ensure they continue with a stable government?

Exactly. The war might be won and the dictator deposed, but the second leg takes more time. That does not have to be the job of the liberating force, however.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Exactly. The war might be won and the dictator deposed, but the second leg takes more time. That does not have to be the job of the liberating force, however.

It is also less of a military issue, then it is a political one.

Once the diplomats have failed, a government sends in it's military to break heads and destroy things. Then after they have finished raping and pillaging (in a metaphorical sense), it is time for the diplomats to try and put things right.

Myself, I do not have much faith in the diplomats. History is full of examples where the diplomats screwed up, the military tries to fix things, then the diplomats screw it up all over again. To me, one of the biggest diplomatic fubars was the appeasement of NAZI Germany prior to the invasion of Poland. The Diplomats gave der Paper Hanger almost everything he wanted, but it did no good in stopping the war, only holding it back a bit. And it is now known that Hitler was prepared to pull back if any resistance was met.

 

[Sweden]

War of 1812 was a draw? the British burned the white house down...

After the Americans burnt the then Canadian capital, Toronto. It's very strange, US history books seem to always omit the Toronto arson episode.

The War of 1812 was all about the infant US trying to grab Canada while Britain was engaged fighting the tyrant Napoleon. I'm surprised they did not try again in 1939 when Britain - and Canada - was fighting another tyrant , Hitler. If the Yanks did not actually lose the War of 1812 they bloody well deserved to.

 

[joG]

It is also less of a military issue, then it is a political one.

Once the diplomats have failed, a government sends in it's military to break heads and destroy things. Then after they have finished raping and pillaging (in a metaphorical sense), it is time for the diplomats to try and put things right.

Myself, I do not have much faith in the diplomats. History is full of examples where the diplomats screwed up, the military tries to fix things, then the diplomats screw it up all over again. To me, one of the biggest diplomatic fubars was the appeasement of NAZI Germany prior to the invasion of Poland. The Diplomats gave der Paper Hanger almost everything he wanted, but it did no good in stopping the war, only holding it back a bit. And it is now known that Hitler was prepared to pull back if any resistance was met.

To pacify a population you need to persuade it that it must behave. We do not have the stomach for that.

 

[Oozlefinch]

After the Americans burnt the then Canadian capital, Toronto. It's very strange, US history books seem to always omit the Toronto arson episode.

The War of 1812 was all about the infant US trying to grab Canada while Britain was engaged fighting the tyrant Napoleon. I'm surprised they did not try again in 1939 when Britain - and Canada - was fighting another tyrant , Hitler. If the Yanks did not actually lose the War of 1812 they bloody well deserved to.

Actually, it was a great many things. But the capture of Canada was more for strategic reasons then anything else.

It has to be remembered that in 1812, ports, staging grounds, and hard supply lines were much more important then they are today. And while the US did not have the capability to invade England, it could invade British territory, and that happened to be Canada.

But the main reason was the impressment of US sailors into the British Navy, as well as active British involvement in arming Indian tribes in attacking American territory along the US-Canada border. In fact, it was the active British goal to create an independent "Indian Nation" in the US territories of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio.

And yea, while US books do omit the sacking of Toronto, they do normally discuss the Battle of York. In much the same way that during the Sack of Washington they talk about the "US Forces" running away from battle, they never mention the Navy and Marines remaining and fighting a rearguard action which allowed much of the government to withdraw before the British arrived.

But for most students, this is taught in Junior High level history classes, where the entire war is covered in only 15 pages or so (with pictures). To get any kind of real details in most of history, you have to look at an AP or College level class on the subject.

 

[Oozlefinch]

To pacify a population you need to persuade it that it must behave. We do not have the stomach for that.

The population, or the leadership?

The vast majority of people anywhere are sheep. And like sheep, they will follow their leader, wherever they may lead them. It may be into a genocide like Germany or Cambodia, or into following radical religies beliefs like ISIS. But in almost all of these cases, only a minority are actually involved. The vast majority simply wants to live their lives and want little to do with politics.

And we do have the stomach, the problem seems to be more of internal politics then anything else. Our political parties have become so divided in the last half century, that every time one administration gets our nation involved in a conflict, the opposing party will do anything they can to make it bad for political purposes. This is when you start to hear meaningless political phrases like "Exit Strategy" being kicked around.

Every time I hear that being said, I just want to groin punch the person who said it. It is nothing less then trying to play politics with peoples lives.

 

[joG]

The population, or the leadership?

The vast majority of people anywhere are sheep. And like sheep, they will follow their leader, wherever they may lead them. It may be into a genocide like Germany or Cambodia, or into following radical religies beliefs like ISIS. But in almost all of these cases, only a minority are actually involved. The vast majority simply wants to live their lives and want little to do with politics.

And we do have the stomach, the problem seems to be more of internal politics then anything else. Our political parties have become so divided in the last half century, that every time one administration gets our nation involved in a conflict, the opposing party will do anything they can to make it bad for political purposes. This is when you start to hear meaningless political phrases like "Exit Strategy" being kicked around.

Every time I hear that being said, I just want to groin punch the person who said it. It is nothing less then trying to play politics with peoples lives.

That is quite true to a point. The question is how far down the line the population is violent and unruly and so must be persuaded.

 

[Oozlefinch]

That is quite true to a point. The question is how far down the line the population is violent and unruly and so must be persuaded.

This is where things like "Groupthink" come into play. And the more radical a belief system the more likely that individuals will fall into radical behaviors.

And we have many examples of this in the last century. Look at what happened in Germany before and after WWII. Or the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Or the many purges of the Soviet Union. Or the multiple "Revolutions" in the PRC.

People will follow along with even the most radical of behaviors, if that is what has become acceptable by the population. And they will engage in them, from either wanting to be part of the group, or fear of looking like you are not participating.

And then you have the danger. And once somebody starts down that "darker path", they may either come to believe in it themselves, or continue because they fear the results if the side they are now following looses. Almost everybody knows the results now of participating in things that are later identified as "Genocide" or "Crimes against humanity". If you were a private that was involved in rounding up a religious minority, then a sergeant in charge of liquidating said minority, then odds are you will fight to keep your faction in power, if you agree with it or not. Because the alternative may result in them failing, and you yourself then facing a firing squad.

 

[joG]

This is where things like "Groupthink" come into play. And the more radical a belief system the more likely that individuals will fall into radical behaviors.

And we have many examples of this in the last century. Look at what happened in Germany before and after WWII. Or the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Or the many purges of the Soviet Union. Or the multiple "Revolutions" in the PRC.

People will follow along with even the most radical of behaviors, if that is what has become acceptable by the population. And they will engage in them, from either wanting to be part of the group, or fear of looking like you are not participating.

And then you have the danger. And once somebody starts down that "darker path", they may either come to believe in it themselves, or continue because they fear the results if the side they are now following looses. Almost everybody knows the results now of participating in things that are later identified as "Genocide" or "Crimes against humanity". If you were a private that was involved in rounding up a religious minority, then a sergeant in charge of liquidating said minority, then odds are you will fight to keep your faction in power, if you agree with it or not. Because the alternative may result in them failing, and you yourself then facing a firing squad.

That a giod part of the reason that dealing with societies with a recent history of mass murder and other crimes against humanity is difficult.

 

[radcen]

Let's have a discussion about which wars we should consider the US to have lost.
We are going to simply exclude the Civil War from the debate since it's not worth getting into the semantics. Also exclude silly "the war on xxx" things like the war on terror.


In my opinion, it is completely obvious that the US lost the Vietnam War. That one goes without question.

Korea ended in more of a stalemate so I don't think that should be considered a loss, rather a draw if anything.

The less obvious ones are Iraq and Afghanistan. We definitely succeeded in the initial goal of defeating Saddam in Iraq, but the attempt to replace the regime with a stable democracy was obviously a failure. So I am undecided on my verdict for Iraq right now. In the case of Afghanistan, we might just have to say that the war is still ongoing. At this point, though, I think it's extremely unlikely the US will win.

So my tally is:
1 loss (Vietnam)
2 draw (Korea, War of 1812)
1 ongoing (Afghanistan)
1 currently undecided (Iraq)

Everything else was a win.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

1812 wasn't a draw, IMO. We prevented them from their aims. That's a win.

 

[jbi]

1812 wasn't a draw, IMO. We prevented them from their aims. That's a win.

It's actually the other way around... The Canadians/British prevented the US from a land grab.

 

[Grand Mal]

There are historians who believe that the real War of 1812 was regarding the Indian Tribes of the Northwest Territories (Think Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc.) They were aligned with Britain and the US wanted them. And the US got them.

Those people are wrong. The War of 1812 happened because the US invaded Canada, three times. They were beaten back all three, by lesser forces.

 

[pinqy]

1812 wasn't a draw, IMO. We prevented them from their aims. That's a win.

Their aims were to keep Canada. I'd say they succeeded. The British didn't start the war...the U.S. was pissed off at the UK and the French Empire for blockading each other during the Napoleonic Wars. The British had the better Navy and pissed off the Americans more. So the Americans looked to use the excuse of British high-handedness to make a grab for Canada. I'm not saying the U.S. didn't have legitimate grievances, but the real goal was Canada.

 

[Eric7216]

Those people are wrong. The War of 1812 happened because the US invaded Canada, three times. They were beaten back all three, by lesser forces.

Canadian bias.
Timeline. June 18, 1812, US declared war on Britain.
July 12, 1812, small "invasion" into Canada from Detroit. Led by a Brigadier General. Easily defeated by Tecumseh and others.
January 22, 1813, another small "invasion" into Canada from Detroit. Led by a Colonel. Easily defeated.
April 27, 1813 a more significant attack into present day York not for invasion but an attempt to cut supply lines. And defeated by superior forces. After Americans burned York.

US ended up with all that territory in present day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois Michigan, and Wisconsin. The real gain in the war. The tribes there supported the British prior to the war. The attempts into Canada were feeble and insignificant. And happened after the war started.

 

[Grand Mal]

American bias.

Canadian bias.
Timeline. June 18, 1812, US declared war on Britain.
July 12, 1812, small "invasion" into Canada from Detroit. Led by a Brigadier General. Easily defeated by Tecumseh and others.

From Wikipedia...
"By August, Hull and his troops (numbering 2,500 with the addition of 500 Canadians) retreated to Detroit, where they surrendered to a significantly smaller force of British regulars, Canadian militia and Native Americans, led by British Major General Isaac Brock and Shawnee leader Tecumseh."

January 22, 1813, another small "invasion" into Canada from Detroit. Led by a Colonel. Easily defeated.

"Several months later, the U.S. launched a second invasion of Canada, this time at the Niagara peninsula. On October 13, United States forces were again defeated at the Battle of Queenston Heights, where General Brock was killed."

April 27, 1813 a more significant attack into present day York not for invasion but an attempt to cut supply lines. And defeated by superior forces. After Americans burned York.

" The early disasters brought about chiefly by American unpreparedness and lack of leadership drove United States Secretary of War William Eustis from office. His successor, John Armstrong, Jr., attempted a coordinated strategy late in 1813 (with 10,000 men) aimed at the capture of Montreal, but he was thwarted by logistical difficulties, uncooperative and quarrelsome commanders and ill-trained troops. After losing several battles to inferior forces, the Americans retreated in disarray in October 1813."

US ended up with all that territory in present day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois Michigan, and Wisconsin. The real gain in the war. The tribes there supported the British prior to the war. The attempts into Canada were feeble and insignificant. And happened after the war started.

The exercise was a disgrace. From Wikipedia again... "Contractors were relied upon to supply American forces and often delivered rotting meat and similar short cuts. If unable to bring the supplies American contractors were liable to declare bankruptcy leaving troops to starve."
The US thought that, with Britain's hands full in Europe and only garrison troops in Canada, they could easily grab land. They learned different.
I don't know what Ohio and Indiana et al have to do with it. This was the US and related territory in 1812