Will Trump Lead the US into a new Ground War?

His kids are cowards, just like their dad. They'd never serve, just like their dad.

 

Don won't do anything unless it's in America's interest, so I can't see him getting bogged down in useless conflicts like some previous Presidents have done..
Churchill said the same thing- "In war, one has neither friends or enemies, only interests"

 

Donald was rejected from serving because of bone spurs. Bone spurs today will get you rejected from being able to serve. Back during WW ll flat feet would get you a 4-F classification.

As for Trumps kids, what is it, only 12 % of their generation served.

Today's millennials 5 % or 6 % served.

My generation, of the 10 million men of military age who served (40%) the other 60 % didn't serve. Does that mean those that didn't serve between 1965 - 1973 are all cowards ?

Obama didn't serve but he would have been rejected from serving because of his drug abuse problems.

Trump did win the military vote and the veterans vote.

Who was the last Democrat Presidential candidate to win the military or the veterans votes ? JFK ???

 

The current 'hot potato' is Syria, and Don's magnificent businessman brain naturally has an interest in a cut of its oil for America..



Obama and Hillary totally blew it by calling Assad "a tyrant", so Assad turned to Putin for help against the rebels, no doubt with the promise of a share of the oil when things settle down, and now Don has also become chummy with Assad for the same reason, what a man..

 

He will need a war in order to maintain control. That is how he will rally the brainwashed masses, being the little Hitler he is. Already we see how no matter the evidence to the contrary, he can do no wrong in the eyes of his congregation. Start a war and he can say anything he wants. His followers will fall to their knees and sing his praises with their arms stretched out to heaven.

 

Putin and Russia has a better track record during the past five years killing ISIS and other jihadist than Obama and the USA.

Obama, Hillary and Kerry were too busy arming ISIS and seeing that jihadist were allowed to spread to the EU and America when they should have been killing ISIS.

Maybe Trump will be able to find a Gen. Curtis LeMay in the U.S. Air Force who hasn't already been purged by the Obama White House who will bomb them (ISIS, Al Qaeda, Islamist jihadist) back into the Stone Age.

 

Right..




ISIS are like a cancer with some tendrils along the river valleys, so a few battalions of Coalition troops with massive air support could work their way from one end to the other, cleaning out ISIS as they go..




And I bet there isn't a manjack in our armed forces who isn't itching for the fight..
"Dad, why did you become a soldier?"
"Because I wanted to meet the enemy up close son, face to face"

 

The US is already at war, the US has troops fighting all over the world.

Historically, war is the normal state for humanity, its not unique to the USA.

Trump is already pursuing diplomatic solutions but not going hat in hand and bowing as a subservient on an apology tour. Trump is engaging Russia and China as an equal. Not like obama has been doing for 8 years.

But I suspect there will still be a war. After ruining much of the world and leaving large parts in chaos and war, obama is doing all he can to sabotage Trump. The Democrats would love to blame a war on Trump even if the cause is the 8 years of obama. Add in the warmongers such as McCain and the other RINO Trump haters, and the chance for war is high.

 

Not without Congressional approval certainly. Trump's a builder and war causes horribly ugly destruction, The Trumpster would never look at the devastation of war and feel any sense of satisfaction. And he is preparing to make US foreign policy great again, by immediately firing all of Obama's political ambassadors. Not the real ones, but the ones given the role a political favor. The Press of course has a big owie over this.

Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president, and when the president changes, so does his “pleasure.”

When the party in control of the White House changes, one can expect significant if not dramatic changes in policies, resulting in the end of the effectiveness of these appointees, in fact, that's kind of the point. To the extent they retain ties to the former president, they present the risk of working at cross purposes with the new administration, and Trump intends to sweep Obama’s policies from the entire federal government.

In the temporary absence of a formal ambassador, nations work with career diplomats assigned to those stations by the State Department.

The post in Germany remained unfilled from December 2008 to September 2009 in the Obama transition, Obama didn't manage to nominate a replacement until July, though he didn't miss a single golf outing.

George Bush’s ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, left the office on January 20th just as Trump is asking ambassadors to do now. His successor, David Jacobson, wasn't in place until October 2009 — and he worked on Obama’s transition team.

Obama kept Bush’s UK ambassador Robert Tuttle was in place for two weeks to February 6th 2009, but his successor Louis Susman didn’t assume the position until October 13th of that year and Obama loafed until May before nominating him, and the media didn’t seem all that concerned about our presence in those countries during the lengthy transition period in 2009.

This looks like a tempest in a teapot, a nonsensical concern over nothing at all. The Trump transition isn’t doing anything that we haven’t done in every transition in regard to our presence in “critical nations,” and political appointees should know better than to rely on continued employment after January 20th.

Hillary Lost and Elections have consequences.

But, as for ground wars, very unlikely. Far fewer drone strikes, too.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/...rrent-ambassadors-must-leave-on-january-20th/

 

The 21 MILLION ground troops who died in WWII might disagree with that...

Quick question: After this mythical air victory of yours, who holds that conquered territory?

 

7 countries?

 

Didn't vote. I would vote possibly.

 

After 111,600 American Marines, sailors and soldiers were killed and another 253,140 were wounded some one had a bright idea and so we nuked Japan, twice bringing an end to the war in the Pacific against Japan.

 

Regarding the so-called war plans I wonder if Rubio becomes president he selects Russia and if Trump becomes president he selects Switzerland that attacked objectives. Or Rubio, select protect Israel against Iran.

 

I don't blame you for not reading all of my post. Too often I write too much, and it must get boring. Nevertheless, I did address who should "hold that conquered territory". Emphasis is added....

"Then AFTER all that's done, we send in the ground troops to "keep the victory secured and the post-war situation stable"... BUT, only for a limited period of time. None of this horse (*)(*)(*)(*) of trying to "win hearts and minds" or doing any "nation-building". What a stupid pantload of crap that was.... We go in, wipe out the Islamo-Nazis, and then tell whoever survives that they can worship whoever or whatever they like, but if they ever mount a terror threat to the United States again, we'll go back in and keep on doing the same damned thing for as long as it takes, as often as it takes. Then, we leave them alone...."

Thus, I don't care what variation of "god" they worship... as long as they are not committing acts of violence against the interests of the United States, they can sit in their Third World piles of (*)(*)(*)(*) and pay homage to whatever or whoever they like. But, if they come at us, we bomb the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of them again... from the AIR. And, if there is a "next time", maybe we make the devastation more complete....

You're right, but in fairness to the military commanders who directed the war against Japan, we simply had no way to put a nuclear weapon on a target in Japan until we took territory on which we could construct airfields that would allow us access to Japan, within the range of the most advanced bombers we had in the air at that time.

Hyperliberal, Leftist bleeding-hearts still raise hell about the fact that we used nukes on Japan at all, but we had already dropped ton after ton of conventional bombs on Japan, firebombing several of their cities to the point where they weren't even recognizable. And STILL the Japanese military government refused to surrender. That would have left us with the options of getting another 200,000 - 350,000 American military personnel killed in an invasion of the Japanese islands, OR, dropping nuclear weapons.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that for everyone concerned, Truman made the right decision!

Conclusion: AIR POWER has won wars for the last 90 years, gentlemen. And in the future, no war will ever be won again without air supremacy....

 

It's known as "Crush and Bolt." Mostly used in punitive actions. You go in, break some things, kill some people and leave with the message if you (*)(*)(*)(*) with America or an American citizen again...we'll be back.

It's how America fought the majority of it's wars from 1800 to 1941. From 1800 to 1934 U.S.Marines made 140 armed landings on foreign shores, the majority being punitive actions. Small wars that the majority are unaware ever took place.

It's not the job of the military to win hearts and minds and no war has ever been won using political correctness.

 

Or ground troops, regardless of your verbal masturbation.

 

I'll bank on his assessment of full-blown conflict as a negative and say no. So far, his professions about Iraq and his denial of the intel pattern that led us there seems to support that he'll be resistant to war to the chagrin of the neoconservatives he opposed in the GOP primary. There never was a showdown between him and Secy Clinton on the matter. She was one of the top warmongering neocons left in US politics.

 

Well, I'll tell you what, 'von Clausewitz', let's fight a war. You get to take an army of "ground troops" to the theater, and I'll just "masterbate" along with my air force. Let's see who wins....

."Ya know, one day they'll figure out how to fight wars from the air... then we're both screwed!"

 

That's exactly what Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropo and Konstantin Chernenko did from 1979 to 1989 in Afghanistan.

The FIM-92 Stinger missile was such a game changer.

 

I suspect war is coming with China regardless of who is in the White House, unless we are willing to withdraw and concede the entire Eastern Pacific to them.

 

That's why ISIS was defeated years ago, right? Flattened by airstrikes, never to be heard from again?

 

I don't know if he will or won't. My impression and that is all I have to go on is impressions. That impressions is that Hillary Clinton is/was more of a war hawk than Trump. Hillary was all for over throwing Qaddafi, for trying to over throw Assad, she just seems to me as someone who wouldn't hesitate in using military power.

Trump to me is an unknown. From out of nowhere he came. Letting the Russians handle Syria, ISIS and not us doesn't sound like a war hawk whether or not one agrees or disagrees with that. He seems to want closer ties with the Russians which Hillary is just the opposite. I just don't know. I'm leery of him, don't trust him, but as more or less a dove candidate between him and Hillary, he may have been the dove. Time will tell. So much is unknown with Trump. When he does say something, he at times came back the next day and said exactly the opposite and on the third denied saying anything at all.

Time will tell.

 

And thank you for bringing up exactly that point! Truthfully, it is very astute, and you are right!

Indeed, ISIS (ISIL, Daesh, or whatever we're calling it this month) is not "flattened by airstrikes", and really, not defeated at all. Ya know why? Because our "air power" has been commanded by a military that takes orders from President Warlord "Red Line" Obama, the great Führer who was not able, with all his years in office, and with all his much-vaunted power, to be able to knock off a gaggle of delusional peasants running around wild in the desert, wearing black robes, waving scimitars and pretending to be a "Caliphate"....

Had we had someone in the position of Commander-in-Chief who wasn't a closet Islamo-sympathizer, and a half-wit, ISIS would already be a funny, anachronistic memory.... Don't blame the aircraft, please. I can assure you that we definitely have the ability to remove violent, radical Islam from human experience.

 

There's intelligent air warfare strategies, and there are not-so-intelligent air warfare strategies. Nothing says that a military MUST use the stupid ones, and keep on using them, too, until that military is finally defeated....