I don't know enough about the wrongs committed by the Central Powers and later the Ottoman Empire, nor the strength of the original Allies to vote on whether or not the US should have joined in the battle.
I will say this though: BOTH "world wars" were fought and concluded in less time than Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Why?
In both the world wars the commanders were given their objectives and the politicians got the hell way and let them do their jobs. Letting those in DC and their inherent future personal political plans, combined with what we call political correctness has made "winning" a war an unattainable goal.
I suggest that the pantie waste politicians have cost innumerable casualties on ALL sides.
[Advertisement begins here]
I would ask that all that read The Batavian consider becoming involved in The Wounded Warriors Project - regardless of your political beliefs. These men and woman returning from the middle east put themselves in harms way for all of us - from progressives to tea party.
"I will say this though: BOTH "world wars" were fought and concluded in less time than Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Why?"
My answer is that both World Wars were fought under a doctrine of 'total war'. This included a total mobilization of national resources, with no holds barred, anything and everything -- including civilians -- be damned. (Grant and Sherman were pioneers of this concept in the American Civil War, later refined by Ludendorff and Clausewitz.) I'd have to disagree with you about the commanders being given objectives, after which the politicians scurried out of the way. A large part of Eisenhower's brilliance as Supreme Allied Commander was in juggling the demands of Churchill (no French invasion -- go for the 'soft' Italian underbelly) with FDR's insistence on Overlord (French invasion at all costs, and as soon as possible.) Such were the politics of war. As a result, Overlord was delayed for over two years, first for landings in North Africa, and then for landings in Italy. This was not what Eisenhower had favored, but the delay of Overlord certainly worked to insure its success. Much was learned the hard way in the prior invasions, and at enormous cost.
In fact Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (I don't include Korea) were styled on the model of colonial war, limited wars of politics (hearts and minds) and of forceful 'persuasion'. Look, for example, at the French experience in Indochina, into which we foolishly rushed, and even more, the French experience in Algeria.
" The Wounded Warriors Project - regardless of your political beliefs. These men and woman returning from the middle east put themselves in harms way for all of us - from progressives to tea party."
I don't know enough about the
I don't know enough about the wrongs committed by the Central Powers and later the Ottoman Empire, nor the strength of the original Allies to vote on whether or not the US should have joined in the battle.
I will say this though: BOTH "world wars" were fought and concluded in less time than Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Why?
In both the world wars the commanders were given their objectives and the politicians got the hell way and let them do their jobs. Letting those in DC and their inherent future personal political plans, combined with what we call political correctness has made "winning" a war an unattainable goal.
I suggest that the pantie waste politicians have cost innumerable casualties on ALL sides.
[Advertisement begins here]
I would ask that all that read The Batavian consider becoming involved in The Wounded Warriors Project - regardless of your political beliefs. These men and woman returning from the middle east put themselves in harms way for all of us - from progressives to tea party.
"I will say this though: BOTH
"I will say this though: BOTH "world wars" were fought and concluded in less time than Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Why?"
My answer is that both World Wars were fought under a doctrine of 'total war'. This included a total mobilization of national resources, with no holds barred, anything and everything -- including civilians -- be damned. (Grant and Sherman were pioneers of this concept in the American Civil War, later refined by Ludendorff and Clausewitz.) I'd have to disagree with you about the commanders being given objectives, after which the politicians scurried out of the way. A large part of Eisenhower's brilliance as Supreme Allied Commander was in juggling the demands of Churchill (no French invasion -- go for the 'soft' Italian underbelly) with FDR's insistence on Overlord (French invasion at all costs, and as soon as possible.) Such were the politics of war. As a result, Overlord was delayed for over two years, first for landings in North Africa, and then for landings in Italy. This was not what Eisenhower had favored, but the delay of Overlord certainly worked to insure its success. Much was learned the hard way in the prior invasions, and at enormous cost.
In fact Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (I don't include Korea) were styled on the model of colonial war, limited wars of politics (hearts and minds) and of forceful 'persuasion'. Look, for example, at the French experience in Indochina, into which we foolishly rushed, and even more, the French experience in Algeria.
" The Wounded Warriors
" The Wounded Warriors Project - regardless of your political beliefs. These men and woman returning from the middle east put themselves in harms way for all of us - from progressives to tea party."
I second that, Bob.
Let's not forget one thing
Let's not forget one thing concerning WWI & WWII:
The U.S. did not get involved immediately, and only towards the end of WWI did the U.S. send troops over to France to assist the Allies.
WWII was already in full swing when the U.S. got involved and only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.