Is that a justification for US having an idiot as a defense secretary?
I agree with you on this count.
No we don't we just expect US to win the wars it starts and provokes, which it rarely does.
I see your point but you miss the mark in your critic. Warfare is a costly and messy undertaking and such an effort can take
YEARS to produce the "desired outcome" in some regions because people can be more resistant to change in some regions. The US also does not bring much of its firepower to bear in some conflict situations to solve them on a quicker note because
war profiteering is a lucrative business (
Total War vs.
Limited War). There is a significant difference in
Total War approach and
Limited War approach and American leader(s) need to decide how to fight a particular war.
"Total war is a conflict where a nation mobilizes all its resources and people to achieve complete victory, while a limited war involves a nation using a portion of its resources for a specific objective." - Google AI Overview
Some Presidents considered
Total War approach to defeat a well-equipped adversary in war and some Presidents considered
Limited War approach in pursuit of a specific objective in the region of interest. For perspective,
Eisenhower considered
Total War approach to
defeat the Imperial Japanese Empire in the Pacific War but
Truman considered
Limited War approach to
restore South Korea in the Korean War.
American accomplishments in warfare are found to be numerous historically:
- The war for independence from the British Empire (1775 - 1783) [
Check -
Check -
Check] (
Total War)
- Wars for expansion of the US homeland vs. the British Empire (1812 - 1815) [
Check -
Check -
Check], the Mexican Empire (1846 - 1848) [
Check -
Check -
Check], and the Red Indian Tribes (1609 - 1980) [
Check -
Check -
Check] (
Total War)
- The war for expansion in the Pacific vs. the Spanish Empire (1898) [
Check -
Check] (
Total War)
- The US ensured defeat of the Central Powers in World War 1 (1917 - 1918) [
Check -
Check -
Check] (
Total War)
- The US ensured defeat of the Axis Powers in World War 2 (1941 - 1945) [
Check] (
Total War)
- The US restored South Korea in the Korean War (1950 - 1953) [
Check -
Check] (
Limited War)
- The US ensured retreat of Soviet Union from Cuba (1962) [
Check -
Check] (
Limited War)
- The US ensured defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan (1979 - 1989) [
Check -
Check] (
Limited War)
- The US overthrew Noriega regime in Panama (1988) [
Check -
Check] (
Limited War)
- The US ensured defeat of Soviet Union by checking its advances in other countries, Economic Warfare and Color Revolution (1947 - 1989) [
Check -
Check -
Check] (
Limited War)
- The US liberated Kuwait from Iraq (1991) [
Check -
Check] (
Total War)
- The US liberated Kosovo from Yugoslavia (1999) [
Check] (
Limited War)
- The US overthrew Saddam regime in Iraq (2003 - 2011) [
Check -
Check -
Check] (
Limited War)
- The US overthrew Qaddafi regime in Libya (2011) [
Check -
Check] (
Limited War)
- The US ensured defeat of hostile ISIL groups across Iraq and Syria (2014 -
ongoing) [
Check -
Check -
Check -
Check -
Check] (
Limited War)
American military footprint is global due to its military exploits and security commitments around the world [
Check]. The American Empire is a continuation of the British Empire on many counts.
Potential critic is better understood in the political choice between
Total War approach or
Limited War approach to defeat an adversary.
Limited War approach can also lead to the "desired outcome" in some regions (see above),
BUT it can also lead to less satisfying outcomes such as in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
In the ongoing war between the US and Houthi,
Trump seems to have considered
Limited War approach in pursuit of a specific objective in the region of interest (i.e., to stop Houthi anti-shipping activity in Red Sea and bring Houthi to the negotiable table in this context). The US Navy is largely involved in this war but this force is best suited for naval warfare and to degrade conventional warfare capability of a country but Houthi have a different force structure that is largely underground and/or concealed in civilian constructions. The US needs to plan and launch a ground offensive to succeed in this case.
Trump says that he is not restricting American military options in this war so
Hegseth is calling the shots? If this is the case then
Hegseth is indeed an idiot for not coming up with a good plan for this war.
Trump is known to hold individuals to account when they do not live up to his expectations.
Hegseth needs to up his game or he might be replaced. Let's see.
The alternative is to SWITCH to
Total War approach but it will lead to millions of deaths in Yemen due to strategic bombing considerations. But in this case, some will complain how inhumane Americans are. As mentioned above, warfare is a costly and messy undertaking, and there will be complaints irrespective of what is done.
yemenonline.info
