Preoccupied with the daily news from Baghdad, we seem to think our generation is unique in experiencing the heartbreak of an error-plagued war. We forget that victory in every war goes to the side that commits fewer mistakes—and learns more from them in less time—not to the side that makes no mistakes. A perfect military in a flawless war never existed—though after Grenada and the air war over the Balkans we apparently thought otherwise. Rather than sink into unending recrimination over Iraq, we should reflect about comparable blunders in America's past wars and how they were corrected. Without such historical knowledge we are condemned to remain shrill captives of the present.
*******
Perhaps the two costliest intelligence lapses of World War II preceded the Battle of the Bulge and Okinawa—both towards the end of the war, after radical improvements in intelligence methods and technology.
*
It unfolded as the last invasion assault in the Pacific theater of operations—supposedly after the collective wisdom gleaned from Guadalcanal, the Marianas, Peleilu, the Philippines, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima had been well digested. Yet this late in the war, over 140,000 Americans were killed, wounded, or missing in the Ardennes and on Okinawa.
********
By the same token, for every purported blunder in Iraq, there is at least an understandable reason why errors occurred in the context of human imperfection, emotion, and fear. Such considerations do not mitigate the enormity of military mistakes, but they should foster understanding of how and why they occur. Such recognition might lend humility to critics and wisdom to the perpetrators—and prepare us to accept and deal with similar human fallibility in the future. So shoot looters—and CNN immediately would have libeled the occupation forces as recycled Saddamites. Level Fallujah—and Iraqis would have compared us to the Soviets in Afghanistan. Had we kept together the Republican Guard—if that were even possible—charges of perpetuating the agents of Saddam's genocidal regime would have followed, with unfavorable contrasts to our successful de-Nazification program after World War II. Granted, there were not enough American troops to close borders, monitor ammunition depots, and maintain order. But as a result, there were enough deployed elsewhere to discourage trouble in the Korean peninsula, reassure Europe and Japan of our material commitment to their security, fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, help keep order in the Balkans, and man dozens of bases worldwide.
An error plagued war? Guess it depends on the definition. To me the Americans fought the Gulf War and Afghanistan and Iraq and won very easily indeed. If we are talking a conflict compared to WWII I don't see many errors. Overwhelming force coupled with uncontested air superiority etc. etc.
Not even a comparison to Vietnam where you had a competing force launching major scale offensives.
Frankly I think the surge has shown that the US Army can do whatever military job assigned to it given the mandate and resources. To me the failure has been entirely political and had zilch to do with the army.
Iraq will go down in history as a huge mistake regardless of the success or failure of individual actions on the field because the entire operation was completely unneccessary. Unlike WWII -- where the Japanese first bombed Pearl Harbor and the Germans declared war on the US -- it was the Americans who were the aggressors in Iraq. They chose this war, and that's why it will be remembered as the collossal blunder that it is.
Maybe this is a different issue, but wasn't dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the biggest mistake? 200,000+ civilians were killed immediately, and in the months afterwards.
I think the US has been involved in several incidents throughout the world, most notably South America that have had similar results. Not sure how people can call this the worst mistake in US history, are we forgetting about Vietnam? Yes things in Iraq are not perfect, but the casualty toll in Vietnam was happening at about 50X the rate.
Maybe this is a different issue, but wasn't dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the biggest mistake? 200,000+ civilians were killed immediately, and thousands more in the months afterwards.
Were these actions necessary?
Arguable. Many think the death toll had the bomb not been dropped and a traditional forced surrender happened could have been 10X this. Not to mention the continued loss of life from the Japanese occupation of Asia, which was comparable in many ways to the German occupation of Europe.
Prior to making the decision, Truman was given an estimate of 1.4-4 million allied casualties as well as millions of Japanese and Asian casualties. Yes The few hundred thousand who died in the bombings is tragic, but when faced w/ the alternative...
Maybe this is a different issue, but wasn't dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the biggest mistake? 200,000+ civilians were killed immediately, and in the months afterwards.
Were these actions necessary?
The article mentions Okinawa. Imagine trying to land troops on the Japaneses mainland.
Maybe this is a different issue, but wasn't dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the biggest mistake? 200,000+ civilians were killed immediately, and in the months afterwards.
Were these actions necessary?
I don't mean to sound callous, even though I obviously do, but in the end, screw 'em. They started it.
Arguable. Many think the death toll had the bomb not been dropped and a traditional forced surrender happened could have been 10X this. Not to mention the continued loss of life from the Japanese occupation of Asia, which was comparable in many ways to the German occupation of Europe.
Prior to making the decision, Truman was given an estimate of 1.4-4 million allied casualties as well as millions of Japanese and Asian casualties. Yes The few hundred thousand who died in the bombings is tragic, but when faced w/ the alternative...
Yes, I remember learning about this in history as well. The alternative (invasion of the mainland) would have been an even more tragic loss of life.
I can't remember what the exact translation for the Japanese Defense plan was, but I do remember it being something about "the glorious death of 100 million", which would have involved lining up unarmed civilians on the beaches to face Allied Soliders.
The article mentions Okinawa. Imagine trying to land troops on the Japaneses mainland.
The documentary "Fog of War" pointed out that at the time the US droped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, American fire-bombing had already killed 20-50% of the population of Japan's 20 largest cities. Some individual firebombing campaigns alone killed 100,000's of Japanese (supposedly 100,000 alone were killed in Tokyo on March 9, 1945).
The notion that the a-bomb had to be dropped to avoid a ground invasion seems a bit weak when the US was already burning Japan to the ground before the a-bomb's were dropped. Firebombing killed a lot more people than the a-bomb's.
Imagine having to attack the japanese mainland, lose tens, if not hundreds, of thousand of soldiers to win....and then the public finds out it could all have been over with the drop of one bomb. i know it's harsh, but the atomic bomb could be seen as mistake-prevention as well.
The documentary "Fog of War" pointed out that at the time the US droped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, American fire-bombing had already killed 20-50% of the population of Japan's 20 largest cities. Some individual firebombing campaigns alone killed 100,000's of Japanese (supposedly 100,000 alone were killed in Tokyo on March 9, 1945).
Considering that the Japanese pretty much fought down to the last man even in the most dire of consequences, even 50% of the population would have been hell to get through. I don't think there was ever a "right" solution, but in the case of Truman, I can't blame him for choosing to protect the lives of his own people, rather than the one of the enemy. In the end though, with his decision he saved many more lives than were killed...on both sides.
The documentary "Fog of War" pointed out that at the time the US droped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, American fire-bombing had already killed 20-50% of the population of Japan's 20 largest cities. Some individual firebombing campaigns alone killed 100,000's of Japanese (supposedly 100,000 alone were killed in Tokyo on March 9, 1945).
The notion that the a-bomb had to be dropped to avoid a ground invasion seems a bit weak when the US was already burning Japan to the ground before the a-bomb's were dropped. Firebombing killed a lot more people than the a-bomb's.
Big difference though - the A-Bomb is more than just a killing machine, it wiped out thousands of lives in a split second.
I don't think you can underestimate the serious shock factor that dropping this weapon had on the Japanese leadership - the damage of a single bomb.
The documentary "Fog of War" pointed out that at the time the US droped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima/Nagasaki, American fire-bombing had already killed 20-50% of the population of Japan's 20 largest cities. Some individual firebombing campaigns alone killed 100,000's of Japanese (supposedly 100,000 alone were killed in Tokyo on March 9, 1945).
The notion that the a-bomb had to be dropped to avoid a ground invasion seems a bit weak when the US was already burning Japan to the ground before the a-bomb's were dropped. Firebombing killed a lot more people than the a-bomb's.
Does that mean they would have just kept firebombing them to get them to surrender? If so, wouldn't that have been even worse?
Iraq: The worst mistake in American History....or was it?
GOLD!!!
