No articles, just wondering if we are stronger or weaker because of the wars and military actions over the last dozen or so years.
Was watching the O'Reilly Factor and Laura Engram filling in claimed we are weaker. Talking about the US military only. Not economically or politically, etc.

This is a hard subject to talk about, especially, like me, if you have known several people that have died or were injured during the last dozen years. I know our deaths and injuries hurt our military tremendously but would that make us weaker at this point than we were militarily with considerations of military improvement during this time.

I actually would imagine that our military is actually stronger from having fought in the wars and conflicts. Theory and thinking you have a good system or idea is one thing, but imagine actually having implemented them and thrown out or tweaked them to get them right makes us stronger. Kind of like a football team looks really good before the season, but only through actually playing a football game can you really know what works given the heat of battle.

Yes and in more debt.

Yes, America is much weaker, because of our leadership vacuum in the Oval office.

We're overcommitted throughout the world, like Rome circa 300 A.D.

And that's not all we have in common with Rome.

(09-07-2013 05:56 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Yes and in more debt.

The wars are not the primary drivers of the debt. Nor are the "Bush tax cuts." We are $16 trillion in debt. Without the wars and the tax cuts, we'd be somewhere between $13 trillion and $14 trillion in debt (and that does not consider any growth stimulation from the tax cuts, which demonstrably did happen).

The wars and tax cuts are justifiably criticized on several fronts, and I have criticized both, but the debt grew primarily--not exclusively, but overwhelmingly--because of other things.

As for the question in the OP, we are weaker for several reasons. Fighting "limited" wars inevitably means fighting those wars to stalemates. We have lost thousands of our young men and women to no good reason. That alone weakens us. The expectation that an American military response will be too "limited" to accomplish anything emboldens our enemies. That makes our situation more precarious if not objectively weaker. Never fight a war you don't intend to win.

(09-07-2013 03:33 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  No articles, just wondering if we are stronger or weaker because of the wars and military actions over the last dozen or so years.
Was watching the O'Reilly Factor and Laura Engram filling in claimed we are weaker. Talking about the US military only. Not economically or politically, etc.

This is a hard subject to talk about, especially, like me, if you have known several people that have died or were injured during the last dozen years. I know our deaths and injuries hurt our military tremendously but would that make us weaker at this point than we were militarily with considerations of military improvement during this time.

I actually would imagine that our military is actually stronger from having fought in the wars and conflicts. Theory and thinking you have a good system or idea is one thing, but imagine actually having implemented them and thrown out or tweaked them to get them right makes us stronger. Kind of like a football team looks really good before the season, but only through actually playing a football game can you really know what works given the heat of battle.

No comment on the actual question, because I really don't know. The tragic part is that the media constantly talks about the number of military deaths overseas, but when you actually look at the numbers, you would have had a better chance of getting killed in Detroit or Chicago than you would have being in the military in Iraq. There is little news on that though.

I have a ton of respect for our military members and always try to thank them for their service whenever I see them going or coming at the airport when I travel.

it did improve our use of military tactics.

-the smash mouth style that we normally use for special ops missions has now been completely changed to stealth

-we finally upgraded armor at the top for the gunner on Humvees

-we learned a lot about how to handle IEDs

-we shifted from russian to arabic as the primary 2nd language of choice to teach our more advanced intelligence/military personal

(09-07-2013 12:08 PM)john01992 Wrote:  it did improve our use of military tactics.

-the smash mouth style that we normally use for special ops missions has now been completely changed to stealth

-we finally upgraded armor at the top for the gunner on Humvees

-we learned a lot about how to handle IEDs

-we shifted from russian to arabic as the primary 2nd language of choice to teach our more advanced intelligence/military personal

Sounds like many changes that would help if we ever had to fight an all out war in the Middle East area. Like some say might happen in Iran, or in some Israel based attack. That's why just militarily it would seem we are stronger than we were. Far from it economically and/or maybe backing wise. Hard to believe we made some of the mistakes that we did though --- like disbanding the Iraqi army instead of using them, the continuation of the war in Afghanistan when we all knew it was unwinnable from the beginning, giving up almost all our posts in Iraq, not having Iraqi oil pay for our mission, poor IED protection for so long, multiple killings of our soldiers by Afghan armed forces, and on and on.

It's not what we have but how we use it. We don't use it well.

(09-07-2013 12:25 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It's not what we have but how we use it. We don't use it well.

Just like our government or anything else we undertake the last few years it seems.

(09-07-2013 09:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 05:56 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Yes and in more debt.

The wars are not the primary drivers of the debt. Nor are the "Bush tax cuts." We are $16 trillion in debt. Without the wars and the tax cuts, we'd be somewhere between $13 trillion and $14 trillion in debt (and that does not consider any growth stimulation from the tax cuts, which demonstrably did happen).

The wars and tax cuts are justifiably criticized on several fronts, and I have criticized both, but the debt grew primarily--not exclusively, but overwhelmingly--because of other things.

As for the question in the OP, we are weaker for several reasons. Fighting "limited" wars inevitably means fighting those wars to stalemates. We have lost thousands of our young men and women to no good reason. That alone weakens us. The expectation that an American military response will be too "limited" to accomplish anything emboldens our enemies. That makes our situation more precarious if not objectively weaker. Never fight a war you don't intend to win.

There is also the physical and emotional cost that will last for decades. We're still paying for Vietnam.

In pure strength and tactics? We are stronger. From an actual Homeland Security prospective we could very well be weaker. From my experience, the next big threat could be domestic. For example, if we are going to become a victim of more terrorist attacks, those cells are probably already here and already planning. Having our military spread out and weary wouldn't help our situation at all if a few were able to succeed over an extended period of time.

PEACE

We have been way overcommitted. If Syria happens. Then Iran will happen. Then Russia or China will do whatever the f&ck they want to do. Because we will be exausted. This is how the terriost are winning.

Vietnam absolutely weakened us. Recent events were the result, not the cause. War USED to be viewed as a heroic thing in the 50's and before... military produced propaganda films made us proud of our military... In the 60's, the brutality of war came into our living rooms over dinner and we didn't always like what we saw. Now we expect our pit bulls to wear white gloves... and most of our enemies don't put that requirement on their soldiers.

The move "a few good men" is a perfect example. We can debate most of the movie, but the part at the end where the soldiers were clearly only following orders... orders not intended or even likely to kill anyone (that they would have known)... and they are still dishonorably discharged used as pacifist propaganda is a big part of the problem