Myth of US Military Invincibility

What is victory?

 

Due to the truth that we let the politicians and not the generals and Admirals fight those wars!

 

Good question. That's what the commanding general asked. He didn't know why we were there or what was our objective.

 

Have we ever lost a war when we actually fought it to win then, and not based upon political constraints?

 

And there's the rub.

You can exact revenge and leave, like the Punitive Expedition.

You can totally subjugate them, like we did to Japan.

You could go nuclear and kill >90% of the population, and I'm sure none of us want that.

But lack of strategy and/or political will is a different issue than the OP, which questions military supremacy.

 

I understand there were political constraints for the Vietnam war. But what were the political constraints for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? Certainly, Americans saw that these two longest wars in American history weren't accomplishing anything but there really hasn't been a strong antiwar movement like there was for Vietnam. Maybe the difference was that young men were drafted to go to Vietnam. If there had been a draft for these other two wars there most likely would have been more opposition. Instead, National Guard troops agonized through multiple deployments. They paid the real price for these wars.

 

again, the big problem was that we fought it with political,notmilitary operations, for how can we really be trying to win when under president Obama soldiers not given live ammo, nor allowed to shoot back?

 

This is a REAL WHOPPER.
U.S. Troops in Afghanistan to Carry WEAPONS with NO BULLETS

FALSE
Origins: This item circulated on the Internet in January 2014 claiming that the Obama administration had ordered U.S. troops in Afghanistan to carry weapons containing no ammunition appears to have originated with a since-removed article published on the U.S. Report web site (not to be confused with the venerable U.S. News & World Report news magazine) reporting that:
Commanders have reportedly ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol in a manner that could handicap them.
A few things to note about this article:

• It was originally published in May 2010, so it’s not an account of a recent change in policy or an implementation of new rules.
  
• It was based on an information provided by a single, anonymous source.
  
• Describing what it reports as meaning that U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan have been required to “carry weapons with no bullets” is misleading and inaccurate. The article describes troops carrying weapons that are in fact loaded (i.e., have full magazines) but don’t have a round chambered — a soldier carrying such a weapon would therefore need to expend a small amount of time (~1 second) chambering the first round prior to firing, but that is a vastly different situation from carrying a weapon with no bullets that cannot be utilized until an ammunition magazine is snapped into place.

In any case, regardless of what the situation may have been back in 2010, the very opposite of what is now being reported about it has since been implemented: troops in Afghanistan are not required to carry unloaded weapons; as of August 2012 they were required to carry loaded weapons at all times:

All U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan are to be required to have a fully loaded magazine in their weapons at all times in response to a spike in attacks by rogue members of the Afghan government’s forces.

 

AsI stated, under president Obama, the soldiers in Iraq and in Afgan were under rules of engagement to not have live rounds and have guns on safety all times, and not fire until and unless fired upon. Thankfully, revoked under president trump!

 

As stated where? not in this Fact Check on your ridiculous claim. Try reading the whole article.

 

I am just glad that we now have a president that put America first again, and not one who caters to globalism!

 

But your claim was false. Correct?

 

Nope, unless you say that our Military lied, as they were the ones complaining on the rules of Engagement!

 

This complaint was in 2010 under Bush. Pres. Obama reversed Bush's strange orders.

A few things to note about this article

• It was originally published in May 2010, so it’s not an account of a recent change in policy or an implementation of new rules.
  
• It was based on an information provided by a single, anonymous source.
  
• Describing what it reports as meaning that U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan have been required to “carry weapons with no bullets” is misleading and inaccurate. The article describes troops carrying weapons that are in fact loaded (i.e., have full magazines) but don’t have a round chambered — a soldier carrying such a weapon would therefore need to expend a small amount of time (~1 second) chambering the first round prior to firing, but that is a vastly different situation from carrying a weapon with no bullets that cannot be utilized until an ammunition magazine is snapped into place.

In any case, regardless of what the situation may have been back in 2010, the very opposite of what is now being reported about it has since been implemented: troops in Afghanistan are not required to carry unloaded weapons; as of August 2012 they were required to carry loaded weapons at all times:

 

Bottom line is that Obama despised the US Military, as it was part of as he saw it the US 'war mongering" machine, and the Military now has real supporter in trump!

 

Please provide some support for that argument for once.

 

The Obama era is over. Here's how the military rates his legacy

 

Half of active-duty service members are unhappy with Trump, new Military Times poll shows

 

They all would also know that if they were suddenly under assault, the current president would order them help, not waiting several hours to see if our allies agreed with us, or if the media would!

 

As usual you dont know what you are talking about