The Best Trained, Most Professional Military...Just Lost Two Wars?

[Bob's World]

The example of a value-based law that absolutely cripples the ability of US business to compete overseas is the anti-corruption laws. The rules are incredibly vague and impossible to ensure compliance with, and the penalties are so severe as to risk a death penalty on a business found out of compliance.

State Department has a zero tolerance position on "corruption." Very well intended, but as a successful business owner pointed out in a discussion with State officials I attended last year "that in many places corruption is how many places do taxation where formal taxation does not exist." He also pointed out that "I don't see US business people when I go overseas. I see them from every other country, but by and large US capital is too fearful of being nailed for corruption to even participate at all." Unsaid, of course, was that to strike a deal in many places, what is seen as corruption under US law is simply seen as a standard business practice by many others.

When US entrepreneurs outmaneuvered the UK for rights to develop Saudi oil there were no such constraints in place. Today more pragmatic countries are cutting deals and moving forward, while US capital is either fleeing or to too scared to be employed.

We need to get off of our moral high-horse and stop expecting everyone else to play by rules designed by us, for us. They are playing by their own rules now, and the only ones being truly hurt by our rules now are ourselves.

[JMA]

We need to get off of our moral high-horse and stop expecting everyone else to play by rules designed by us, for us. They are playing by their own rules now, and the only ones being truly hurt by our rules now are ourselves.

Come on Bob this is silly.

The US had its chance force moral conditions on the world when the Soviet Union collapsed but failed.

The rapacious greed of US corporations needed to be tamed and to the credit of the US it has done well in that regard. But leaving the back door open for the scum of the earth to enter was not smart. You had your chance and you blew it.

[Bob's World]

Moral Courage is a hard thing to define, but we all know it when we see it.

Have many senior leaders opted to "go along to get along"? Absolutely. Actually that is prevalent across the ranks. But one has to temper that with the realization that as an institution our military really just does not understand the nature of this type of conflict. We are far too blinded by the inertia of what the force was actually trained, organized and equipped to do; an inability to adapt the lessons learned from historic conflicts that were similar in nature to the realities of our own current mission, interests and the world we live in today; and the complete subjugation of military leadership to civil authorities (there are a great number of brilliant civilians working in the Pentagon, but few have a foundation as trained, experienced military professionals).

When I listen to smart, successful military leaders justify the "success" of heavy CT approaches, or "Clear-Hold-Build," or Nation Building, etc: I don't think they are being dishonest, I think they are in large part truly baffled by why these programs are not producing the promised results. They can look at their tactical metrics and see success piled upon success, but they can look out their window and see that reality is anything but success. We focus on the wrong things. As a wise man once said, "things that count most cannot be counted, and the things one can count do not count." We love things we can count. The same wise man said "people love chopping wood, as the results are immediately evident." The military in particular loves chopping wood, and our promotion system loves wood choppers.

Bottom line is that many factors contribute to why powerful nations stumble in this way. If it is any consolation, history books are full of very similar tales.

[Surferbeetle]

When I listen to smart, successful military leaders justify the "success" of heavy CT approaches, or "Clear-Hold-Build," or Nation Building, etc: I don't think they are being dishonest, I think they are in large part truly baffled by why these programs are not producing the promised results. They can look at their tactical metrics and see success piled upon success, but they can look out their window and see that reality is anything but success. We focus on the wrong things. As a wise man once said, "things that count most cannot be counted, and the things one can count do not count." We love things we can count. The same wise man said "people love chopping wood, as the results are immediately evident." The military in particular loves chopping wood, and our promotion system loves wood choppers.

Let's return to first principles and seek some clarity?

When we truly observe, it is done by focusing on deeds, not rhetoric. Einstein was not swayed by empty rhetoric, nor Charles Darwin, etc. These folks and other observers understand that nature is ruthless, efficient, and red in tooth and claw...

Afghanistan - I can read a map, but you should be able to do a better job on this one than I can...

Iraq - Saddam, his sons, and many of his gang no longer walk the earth....blood has been spilled to atone for what was taken from us. Oil production is back up to what it was before Saddam took power ~ 3 million bbl/day. Internet penetration has gone from something close to zero to what appeared to be more than 50% in urban areas by my observation.

Iran - The economy is in shambles. The Syrian connection/pass thru supply route is fractured. Velayat-e faqih has a viable competitor in Najaf. Saudi Arabia & GCC, Turkey and Israel circle, scheme, and smell weakness...

Arab Spring - The world's largest youth bulge has a better chance to find employment and apply it's energy to productive efforts than previously.

US Army - Many of the weak remaining from the '92 purge have been run off. The SOF model is validated and has earned resourcing...GPF will be cut; unless the 2 trillion mentioned in the campaign is needed to bring a proud and headstrong country to heel (the 12th Iman will not get his chance to come home for a while yet)...and if so GPF will gain a reprieve for a time.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - Continues to gain in strength, governments need money to pay bills. Banking will be brought to heel. Shadow banking will be brought to heel. Commodities trading will be brought to heel. Rule of Law will continue to spread...

As to the lost wars, lost way narrative...BS

[Dayuhan]

The US had its chance force moral conditions on the world when the Soviet Union collapsed but failed.

I'm not sure the US has ever had an opportunity to "force moral conditions on the world", and that sounds like the kind of Quixotic quest that ends with inevitable exhaustion and failure. The world is a large place with a very low standard of morality and no particular inclination to follow American instructions. The fastest route to the collapse of American power would be to waste it in a futile effort to police the world.

The rapacious greed of US corporations needed to be tamed and to the credit of the US it has done well in that regard. But leaving the back door open for the scum of the earth to enter was not smart. You had your chance and you blew it.

Some would say the rapacious greed of American corporations was simply redirected to domestic financial dealings. Of course American corporations are as greedy and as profitable as they ever were. They've just found ways to make money under changing conditions.

The reluctance of American companies to make long-term deals in politically unstable areas has as much to do with risk tolerance as with corruption regulations. In objective terms the Chinese (for example) are doing the oil-consuming world a favor by pumping oil in places where other companies won't go. If they didn't pump it that oil would probably not come to market at all.

It will be interesting to see what happens when a government that has made long-term deals with the Chinese is faced by an insurgency that wants to change those deals. Will they write it off, or will they jump in and try to "do COIN"?

But back to the original question...

(...) President Obama has described our military as “the strongest military the world has ever known.”

There’s just one problem with this...

That military just lost two wars in a row.(...)

If our military is so great, why have the last fifty years been so disastrous? (...)

I don't see any inconsistency there. The US by any objective standard does have "the strongest military" in the world and in the history of the world. That doesn't mean it will always succeed, especially if it's used in pursuit of objectives that cannot be achieved through the use of military strength. Driving a screw with a hammer is likely to fail, but that doesn't mean you have a lousy hammer.

Fuchs' point that the US military hasn't been proven in equal contest against a peer opponent is true, but irrelevant, since "strongest in the world" is a relative measure, not an absolute measure, and the potential peer competitors have even less experience of peer conflict and far less evidence of capacity.

In theory Russia or China could threaten the US with mass, but does either have the capacity (or, really, the incentive) to deploy and support that kind of mass outside their borders in a situation where the US would be forced into a full military confrontation?