JT's post in another thread got me to wondering about something. Polls show America tired of war in Iraq and that it's the main issue. It makes me wonder if we could ever fight WWII in this day and age. Specifically against Germany since Japan actually attacked us.

The US lost over 500,000 troops over 4 years in WWII. 700 in training for D-Day alone.

In Iraq there have been over 2,800 US military deaths in a little less of the same time period. (Let me make clear I'm not marginalizing these deaths as every last one is tragic and horrible)

During WWII the nature of war was to bomb a country into submission. We bombed most everything.

In Iraq we do surgical strikes and take great pains not hurt civilians.

In WWII the media reported the news in a way that was supportive of our efforts.

In Iraq, it's just the opposite. Can you imagine ABC airing footage of a German or Japanese sniper in WWII killing one of our soldiers? Can you imagine the public standing for it?

I will say this, the WWII generation is, without a doubt, the greatest generation. Cause one thing is for sure, there is no way we could fight WWII today and win. Not because we aren't capable, but because we wouldn't be allowed to.

Are you really trying to equate the war in Iraq to WWII? WWII is a completely different beast. Iraq is not marching across continents conquering other nations, in fact it was being contained pretty well. Iraq did not directly attack the US, and I am unaware of Iraqi cooperation with Al-Queda as we saw in WWII between Germany and Japan.

Fanatical Wrote:Are you really trying to equate the war in Iraq to WWII?

Yes and no.

Iraq is not the same as WWII in most respects. I'm looking at it more in general terms. They are not mirror images of one another, nor am I arguing that they are.

But Germany never attacked us and their alliance with Japan was largely symbolic in nature. Hitler's only interest in Japan was the hope that they would keep us out of the war. Their declaration of war against us meant very little seeing as they had no way to get at us at the time. The ocean kept them from us.

I'll also point out that, until Pearl Harbor, no one had any interest in going after Germany, no matter how many nations they marched across. It's a fact of history that FDR wanted us involved much earlier than we were but America was an isolationist country at the time.

I'm looking at the discussion in general terms. Could the American public stomach a 4 year, 500,000 lives lost war in this day and age, especially against a country that never attacked us? Would the press cover it the same way they did during WWII?

You're right, Niner. I think the big difference is the perception by the public of who the bad guys are. In WW II, it was them. Now, thanks to the media and the not-so-loyal opposition, it is us.

I thought maybe you were going to look at it from a financial viewpoint. I just saw the Eastwood movie about Iwo Jima. Powerful movie. One of the points made in the movie was that by the end of the war, America was near bankruptcy and war bond sales were of utmost importance. I don't know if this is factually correct, but the rest of the movie seems so.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I thought maybe you were going to look at it from a financial viewpoint. I just saw the Eastwood movie about Iwo Jima. Powerful movie. One of the points made in the movie was that by the end of the war, America was near bankruptcy and war bond sales were of utmost importance. I don't know if this is factually correct, but the rest of the movie seems so.

I think that's a big part of it as well. I think financially we're in a much better position than we were back then (still in the depression) but the cost would be so much greater to fight that big of a conflict this day and age. Also our army is volunteer and conscription wouldn't be part of it, at least not intially but probably would have to come back if a war the size of WWII happend again.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I thought maybe you were going to look at it from a financial viewpoint. I just saw the Eastwood movie about Iwo Jima. Powerful movie. One of the points made in the movie was that by the end of the war, America was near bankruptcy and war bond sales were of utmost importance. I don't know if this is factually correct, but the rest of the movie seems so.

I think that's a big part of it as well. I think financially we're in a much better position than we were back then (still in the depression) but the cost would be so much greater to fight that big of a conflict this day and age. Also our army is volunteer and conscription wouldn't be part of it, at least not intially but probably would have to come back if a war the size of WWII happend again.

It was a two front war, much as if we were to take on N. Korea in addition to Iraq today.

I will oppose a draft 100% forever. Been there, done that.

If you get a chance to see the movie, do it.

No. The liberals plan for pussification is already in full force.

I understand what you are saying. We have lost more men in a couple hours then we have in three years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars have never been popular in American history and normally are the downfall of American Presidents..See Polk and the Mexican War, LBJ Vietnam
WWII was the exception and the American public although not wanting to get involved initially, once involved rallied around it.

I have often thought if the modern day press would of been around during the Civil War that the North would of sued for peace during the first 2 1/2 years with over 150k dead 300k wounded and nothing to show for it. If they had images at home every night of the destruction and the carnage instead of just reading the names in the paper it might of been different.

I think America still has it in us to fight a war like WWII if the issue is powerful enough. Let the Islamic wackos drop a few suitcase bombs around America and I think you would see the entire nation rally to totally obliterate Radical Islam and parts of the Middle East. I think in that extreme instance we would not care if we saw the wholesale destruction of entire Middle Eastern City's and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

Hopefully that will never happen. Iraq is a case of the U.S. growing impatient. We like to win and we like to win fast. If it lingers the U.S. loses it patience fast. Happened with the Mexican War, Vietnam and now Iraq. When you start losing that support you never get it back.

With all the hullabaloo over warantless wiretaps, I was surprised to be told that FDR ordered EVERY overseas call monitored. Of course there were a lot less of them back then.

ShoreBuc Wrote:I understand what you are saying. We have lost more men in a couple hours then we have in three years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars have never been popular in American history and normally are the downfall of American Presidents..See Polk and the Mexican War, LBJ Vietnam
WWII was the exception and the American public although not wanting to get involved initially, once involved rallied around it.

I have often thought if the modern day press would of been around during the Civil War that the North would of sued for peace during the first 2 1/2 years with over 150k dead 300k wounded and nothing to show for it. If they had images at home every night of the destruction and the carnage instead of just reading the names in the paper it might of been different.

I think America still has it in us to fight a war like WWII if the issue is powerful enough. Let the Islamic wackos drop a few suitcase bombs around America and I think you would see the entire nation rally to totally obliterate Radical Islam and parts of the Middle East. I think in that extreme instance we would not care if we saw the wholesale destruction of entire Middle Eastern City's and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

Hopefully that will never happen. Iraq is a case of the U.S. growing impatient. We like to win and we like to win fast. If it lingers the U.S. loses it patience fast. Happened with the Mexican War, Vietnam and now Iraq. When you start losing that support you never get it back.

Very well put.

I think America has it in us to fight a WWII conflict under the scenerio you just mentioned.

I think my concern is the prospect of us allowing it to get to a point where terrorists could drop suitcase bombs on us.

ShoreBuc Wrote:I understand what you are saying. We have lost more men in a couple hours then we have in three years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars have never been popular in American history and normally are the downfall of American Presidents..See Polk and the Mexican War, LBJ Vietnam
WWII was the exception and the American public although not wanting to get involved initially, once involved rallied around it.

I have often thought if the modern day press would of been around during the Civil War that the North would of sued for peace during the first 2 1/2 years with over 150k dead 300k wounded and nothing to show for it. If they had images at home every night of the destruction and the carnage instead of just reading the names in the paper it might of been different.

I think America still has it in us to fight a war like WWII if the issue is powerful enough. Let the Islamic wackos drop a few suitcase bombs around America and I think you would see the entire nation rally to totally obliterate Radical Islam and parts of the Middle East. I think in that extreme instance we would not care if we saw the wholesale destruction of entire Middle Eastern City's and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

Hopefully that will never happen. Iraq is a case of the U.S. growing impatient. We like to win and we like to win fast. If it lingers the U.S. loses it patience fast. Happened with the Mexican War, Vietnam and now Iraq. When you start losing that support you never get it back.

I agree with parts of this statement. Unpopular wars lead to the dismissal of the leaders and the introduction of those who promise change. Nixon to LBJ's ineptness. Carter to Nixon's untrustworthiness. Reagan to Carter's incompetence.

But as far as the Civil War. There was NOT a large support for war. If Lincoln had not suspended habeus corpus he would not have had the support needed to wage the war after elections. Lincoln didn't even have the majority of the popular vote when he was elected in 1860. Most of the North wanted to let the South go because they believed that if they would rather leave, then the South was free to go.

As far as fighting a WWII-like war, the US almost always responds positively to the use of the military when attacked. If we were to be attacked again by N. Korean terrorrists, I'm sure we would see similar responses to those of 9/11 or 12/7. The problem is the differences on the national impact. Yeah, we may be hurting in our gas pockets, but nothing else is effected. We don't ration food, cloth, rubber, iron, copper, brass, or other daily goods, so there is no major strain on the public. The public is therefore not connected to the soldiers. The govn't can't do as they did in WWII (See below:)



I'm tired so this may sound a bit abrut and I need to go to sleep. So I'll finish this thought tomorrow.

First WWII today would be very different. Weapon technology has changed drastically. Gone are the days of full scale armies fighting their way through full strength positions. Technology destroys the outposts and then smaller groups move in to do clean up.

Plus most people weren't unhappy with the invasion of Iraq, it the drawn out occupation and insurgency that is really straining the moral of the public. We really didn't have that in WWII.

So yeah, I think we'd be just fine in a situation like WWII. But I certainly wouldn't want to be faced by it.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:First WWII today would be very different. Weapon technology has changed drastically. Gone are the days of full scale armies fighting their way through full strength positions. Technology destroys the outposts and then smaller groups move in to do clean up.

Plus most people weren't unhappy with the invasion of Iraq, it the drawn out occupation and insurgency that is really straining the moral of the public. We really didn't have that in WWII.

We had occupations, and nation-building...but we didn't have insurgency. What galls me is that it's the flip-side of this same coin:

We want NO civilians harmed, we want as few military casulties as possible, we want as little damage as possible done to the landscape/buildings/infrastructure...but when we leave the enemy w/ abundant resources and they fight back, we're horrified! Why don't they just "lose" honorably like civilized people???

Look what Sherman did to break the fighting spirit of his enemy. This wasn't exactly a new idea in warfare either. Yet somehow, we think we're above that, and when it doesn't work, we run and say "not worth it."

If the war was worth fighting, it was worth winning.

Given the insanity of the leaders of Iraq, Iran and N Korea, and the ability to be dangerous to the entire world (not just their oppressed populations) I think it bears constant vigilance to decide whether it's worth fighting and winning wars against these people.

WWII only saw a limited insurgency and in the Germans case the citizens themselves rose up and squashed the insurgency as they were sick of the Nazis and the suffering that went along with it.

If you want a good comparison to Iraq, the Spanish-American war and the following Phillipino-American war is probably the best. The initial stage of the war lasted 100 Days and was an awesome American victory. The war in the Phillipines was not so simple as an insurgency was born and U.S. Troop presence ballooned up to 126,000 at its peak and dragged on for years. The tactics on the other side were similar to today. The Philiipino insurgency wanted to slowly bleed the Americans as they knew they could not win battles. They were hoping to effect the American Political debate and that anti-imperalist Presidential Candidate William Jennings Bryan would defeat McKinley.

Here is how we dealt with that insurgency....

As of 1900, Aguinaldo ordered his army to engage in guerrilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited them and made American occupation of the Philippine archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. In fact, during just the first four months of the guerrilla war, the Americans lost nearly 500 men who were either killed or wounded. The Filipino resistance fighters began staging bloody ambushes and raids. Most infamous were the guerrilla victories at Pulang Lupa and Balangiga. At first, it even seemed as if the Filipinos would fight the Americans to a stalemate and force them to withdraw. This was even considered by President McKinley at the beginning of the phase.

The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipinos. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much worse than the actual Filipino guerrillas.

The subsequent American repression towards the population tremendously reduced the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.


Here is a link to the Wikepedia write up on the Spanish American War and the aftermath of the Phillipine-American war and the Phillipino Insurgency. Good read if you are not familiar with the conflict.





[/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_war[url][/url]

DrTorch Wrote:We want NO civilians harmed, we want as few military casulties as possible, we want as little damage as possible done to the landscape/buildings/infrastructure...but when we leave the enemy w/ abundant resources and they fight back, we're horrified! Why don't they just "lose" honorably like civilized people???

Well they sure bombed the hell out of the infrastructure and everything worth more than $5 in Afghanistan.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:We want NO civilians harmed, we want as few military casulties as possible, we want as little damage as possible done to the landscape/buildings/infrastructure...but when we leave the enemy w/ abundant resources and they fight back, we're horrified! Why don't they just "lose" honorably like civilized people???

Well they sure bombed the hell out of the infrastructure and everything worth more than $5 in Afghanistan.

Catch 22 is everything worth more than $5 belonged to the Taliban. And there wasn't much of that.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Catch 22 is everything worth more than $5 belonged to the Taliban. And there wasn't much of that.

My dad has a friend who is in the Marines and was working for CentCom when we went into Afghanistan. He said that after a couple of days they were rebombing the same targets again even though they were probably destroyed. There wasn't much worth bombing there.