NavyDave Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 What is the purpose of the US Military? Is War fought for Victory or Peace? Political Correctness and Beuracrats getting in the way is the only way we can lose in Iraq T/F? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyG3 Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 OK, I'll bite. Although this has the feeling of a trap... 1. The purpose of the US Military is to protect our government's and its citizen's property and interests when deadly force is necessary. 2. War is fought for peace. 3. Almost a trick question. You'd have to define victory and defeat. Defeat could be seen as not acheiving the objectives set when we started the war, whether it's not finding any WMDs, or by leaving too soon because of public opinion. But you could see the latter as political correctness being the cause of defeat. Is political correctness the cause of not dedicating enough resources due to public opinion? It could be argued either way. You could also argue that it is an unwinable situation, so we lose even in victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 1. To win our nation's wars. 2. Wars should be fought with victory as the goal or should not be started in the first place. Peace can be had at any point for any party given the right price. Consequently, victory must be determined before the onset of hostilities if you wish to wage a "just" war. 3. True. We have already "won" in Iraq militarily - Saddam is gone and Iraq, as a sovereign nation, is no longer a threat. The only way we can lose this situation is if we leave Iraq before it has a rock solid government which is friendly to the US. I believe this is where PC and bureaucrats have come in and muddied the waters. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 IMO, the military is there to protect the country and it's people. Determining what constitutes a threat is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 The purpose of our military is to defend the life and property of the citizens of the US against external threats using the most efficient and effective means available to them. In a just war, true peace can only come from victory. If there is no victory, there is no peace. In a free nation, political correctness (usually used to label any view you do not agree with), will always put any war engaged in at risk. There is always room to argue about whether a war is just while (or before) war is engaged. It is also valid to argue how best to achieve the goal of the military (eg, power projection strategies versus legalistic strategies or isolationist strategies) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 Originally, the purpose of the US Military was to protect the people, government, and lands of this country from agressers. They added in the protector of the little guy around the world a little later on. Now it seems it's more of the protecting the little guy, and our financial stakes around the world. We fight for peace. We should fight for victory, but you knew that Dave:laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 Here's the military response to your question. No Politics involved. Originally posted by NavyDave What is the purpose of the US Military? To Protect America from enemies foreign and domestic. Is War fought for Victory or Peace? War is fought to Kill the enemy.. Victory comes after that and then theres peace... Political Correctness and Beuracrats getting in the way is the only way we can lose in Iraq T/F? It's not ours to lose now, We won the war and gave the gov't to Iraq... Now its up to them to keep or not... (minimal political influence is necessary for future relations with both allies and enemies. Military overall influence is necessary for the destruction of the enemy.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear [ War is fought to Kill the enemy.. Victory comes after that and then theres peace... -------------------------------------------- I'm not sure this is universally the case any more. I think it was before WWII and the widespread use of total war. Rightly or wrongly, I think most wars are now fought to submission. The irony is that fighting for submission probably leads to more overall deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 20, 2004 Author Share Posted August 20, 2004 1. close decent answers. 2. Victory is the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Who defines victory though. Millitarily, the Iraq war was a huge victory, but the war didn't end with the conquering of Iraq and Sadam. Now victory is redefined as bringing stability and democracy to the area, plus eliminating the threat of terrorism that stems from that region. Which is really a more political definition of victory versus a military one. Sort of like what is the ultimate purpsose of having a nuclear weapon... Answer: to never have to use one. Is that answer peace or victory? If we maintain a state of peace the nuclear weapon isn't deployed, if we negotiate a peace then the nuclear weapon isn't deployed, if we can attain victory through conventional means than it isn't deployed. In all cases, the objective is victory- defined as maintaining this weapon as deterent only. The goal though is peace... because as long as you don't have peace the possibility exists that you will never be victorious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Originally posted by gbear Originally posted by Thiebear [ War is fought to Kill the enemy.. Victory comes after that and then theres peace... -------------------------------------------- I'm not sure this is universally the case any more. I think it was before WWII and the widespread use of total war. Rightly or wrongly, I think most wars are now fought to submission. The irony is that fighting for submission probably leads to more overall deaths. War is fought to submission? And how do you get them to submit? Kill the enemy with either bombs/tanks/troops until they give up... then theres victory and then theres peace. Then you turn it over to the Politicians.. Its a fustercluck from that point on and then you can say the military is out of their league.. I would agree.. They may be really really good at it, but standing in the middle of the street and (reacting) is not war! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.