01-28-2017, 10:48 AM
Quote:For WW I, because they thought they could win. The British ended up winning the war.
As for Iraq, note that this war started in 1991, not 2003. The 2003 conflict was just a continuation of the previous one, which we justified by Iraq not living up to the agreement made at the end of the first round of hostilities in 1991. So the decision on the Iraq war was made in 1990, when we decided to to to war against Iraq. Out stated objective was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, which we accomplished. If we had stuck to the original goal and signed a peace treaty with Iraq after routing his forces we would have won the war. But we decided to move the goalposts and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
We started the Iraq war in 1991 because we thought he would win. And we did win, but then threw it all away. It was the same silly hubris that made us think we could fight and win a war against North Vietnam with a partner that was half in the bag with the enemy. (S Vietnam was riddled with communist insurgents, while N. Vietnam did not have an anti-communist insurgent problem).
Can the US win a war with China in the seas close to their country? I don't think so. What do you think?
In the short-run, sure? The US Navy maintains a qualitative advantage, and a broader alliance network. If it becomes an endurance contest, as GPCW tend to become, it becomes much more iffy. But the point is not whether I think it's a good idea, it's if the US government is willing to make the sorts of concessions necessary to avert it. As Warren pointed out earlier, I don't think there is enough support in the power-structure to do that unilaterally.
Quote:I would point out that in 40 years of facing down the Soviets, we never got any hubristic ideas about fighting a war with them. But now a war with China (over exactly what) is something the Pentagon is going to advocate? They are going to have to fight this war. And they can't blame their loss on insurgents who hide amidst civilian populations where we can't touch them. This will look like a straight up clash of militaries, for which there will be no excuses, it's career suicide.
And yet they are visibly planning for it. As are the Chinese. Doesn't mean it isn't going to happen, but it doesn't mean it definitely won't happen either.
Quote:Also I have this issue with your reasonably constructed cycle concept. The Macrodecsion phase is projected by M&T for 2025-2050. The 4T is projected for 2006-2024. Even with a few years of slop on both sides, there isn't a lot of overlap. As I see it, the S&H dating arguments against Macrodecision events playing a major 4T role; the 4T should be largely over by the time the Macrodecision phase gets rolling.
You're making up rules that don't exist again. The Napoleonic Wars occurred almost entirely in a 1T, as did the War of the Spanish Succession. Besides, I believe Howe conclusively came out in support of a 2008 start date. So, no, your point is incorrect.