Staying Power.

This is coolbert:

 A few years ago the U.S. military conducted a survey of foreign militaries. The U.S. military wanted to find out what the perception was of U.S. military forces by foreign powers.

And the one item that all the foreign powers agreed upon was that the U.S. was not willing or able or could sustain heavy casualties. Because of domestic political concerns, the U.S. does not have staying power in a conflict if the casualties the U.S. suffered were heavy. This was said to be a glaring weakness.

How does this perception stand up under examination? In my opinion, not well. One particular historical example seems to indicate the American nation is able to sustain and endure heavy casualties and continue to fight.

When studying and reading about the American Civil War, one can see that Americans were able to sacrifice themselves in prodigious numbers.

As was mentioned in a previous blog, as many American troops were killed at Shiloh as were killed at Waterloo. And after Shiloh, twenty battles were to be fought that were of equal or greater magnitude. Total number of dead during the almost four years of the American Civil War were greater than the number of dead incurred during World War Two!?

Click here to see an interesting web site that describes the terrible casualties of the American Civil War [this site says the total population of the U.S. at the time was about 28 million. I have seen statistics that say as high as 40 million.

Again, these statistics quoted are often at variance with one another by a lot]. Click here to see another interesting site that lists the statistics from casualties in a number of Civil War Battles [please note that these casualties sustained were ONE DAY statistics for most of these battles.

Keep in mind also that in some of these battles, casualties include POW.]. No less authority than Winston Churchill cited this fact to his British Generals when they objected to large scale American involvement in the war. The British Generals said that the Americans were not able to sustain heavy casualties. Churchill said for his Generals to go read about the American Civil War!

The American military is able to sustain and carry out a war where heavy casualties are involved. But only under certain circumstances.

Several criteria have to be present.

The cause for which American troops are dying has to be a cause the populace feels is worth fighting for.

Korea and Vietnam were fights not considered to be totally vital to the American people. They were not willing to waste lives on a fight that was not totally vital.

But the Cold War, which turned hot twice in Korea and Vietnam, was considered to be vital and important enough to Americans that they were willing to stay the course for forty five years until the abrupt demise of the Soviet Union.NOT so much a sacrifice in lives but treasure nonetheless.

And there has to be a perception that success can be achieved.

And it does not have to be instantaneous success of a dramatic nature, or successes without failure.

Can be gradual and sustained, toward the ultimate goal of victory.

But successes are what win wars.

Progress has to be seen for the goal.

Generals cannot fight battles if they do not put the proper resources and skill to work to ensure success.

We as a people are not going to stand for wasting the lives of our troops in forlorn efforts that do not show progress.

We are a democracy. And this democracy wants to do things wisely. The wastage of human life on the Western Front is a perfect example of how the Generals were given free reign to the loss of millions without public opinion saying, "stop, this is not working."

The U.S. is not a China or a Russia where human life is regarded as being cheap. We place value and worth to the lives of our soldiers. Those foreign powers are just wrong, period!

coolbert.