Post by: roo_ster on October 13, 2007, 07:42:13 PM
I don't mean failures or Pyhrric victories. We could have won it. It was pointless, anyway.
Two major criteria:
1. Pointlessness. The reference is America. I don't care how significant it might have been to some benighted citizen of the Graltian Hinterland.
2. Scale. An excursion to Lower Slabbovia may be the height of pointlessness, but if it entails only a reinforced company from the 187th Mess Kit Repair Battalion for a week of give-and-take with local rebels, it is not significant.
Extra points for folks who can dredge up pre-20th century exercises in futility.
----------
My nomination is the First World War.
1. It was a warm-up for WW2 and resolved little*. Nobody had declared war on us. The only casualties we took before we formally jumped in were when we tried to smuggle arms to a participant. If the euros had ground on until exhaustion, we still would have been just fine on our side of the Atlantic.
2. Less significant than only WW2. Dollars, blood, whatever, it was big.
* Except that it could be said that the French Army lost WW2 in WW1.
Post by: K Frame on October 13, 2007, 07:43:58 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 13, 2007, 07:52:17 PM
Post by: Len Budney on October 13, 2007, 08:10:05 PM
--Len.
Post by: vaskidmark on October 14, 2007, 03:26:18 AM
stay safe.
skidmark
Oh, yeah. Forgot to add: "Semper Fi" USMC 1966 - 1971
Post by: Iain on October 14, 2007, 06:22:20 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 14, 2007, 06:32:49 AM
Post by: K Frame on October 14, 2007, 06:39:48 AM
No way.
Like the Russo Japanese war in some ways... Made the world recognize that the United States was a major player in world affairs.
And, without us annexing the Philippines, there wouldn't be any ponset in the United States. I can't imagine a world without ponset.
Post by: roo_ster on October 14, 2007, 07:34:25 AM
The "getting outta" had some significance, IMO:
1. Like Mike wrote, it helped wake the world to the sleeping giant who can, with little effort and a troop of wanna-be cowboys, knock over a European colonial power.
2. Without the PIs, would we have cared as much about the Pacific? (real, not rhetorical question...speculation, anyone?) When WW2 rolled around, would we have had enough invested in the W Pacific for the Japs to attack and the USA to care if they did?
-----------
War of 1812 is a doozie of a a good answer.
-----------
The numerous incursions into S America, I am torn on.
Post by: ilbob on October 14, 2007, 07:43:15 AM
Boxer Rebellion. No reason at all for us to even be there.
Spanish American War led to the US being recognized as a world power, and sadly led to many more wars and military incursions, which continue to this day.
Post by: K Frame on October 14, 2007, 07:44:07 AM
Ferdinand Leseps (sp?) could conquor the Suez, but Panama conquored him.
US involvement in the Boxer Rebellion was rather minor. US involvement was two-fold -- rescue of American missionaries and diplomats who were targets of the Boxers, and a nod to America's new status as a Pacific power. Interestingly enough, the US and France both sent contingents of about the same strength (about 3K each) while the Japanese, British, and Russians all sent more than 10K troops and 36 warships.
Post by: MechAg94 on October 14, 2007, 08:24:32 AM
I wouldn't say the War of 1812 was Pointless. Pointless for whom? Not for the US. For the British maybe. I think the British realized how some good US sailors and letter's of marque could wipe out their whaling fleet and bring their overseas trade to a stand still.
Post by: K Frame on October 14, 2007, 08:39:30 AM
It gained the US a little international prestige, but other than that, nothing.
No new trading concessions from the British, no negotiated end to the British practice of impressment (the end of the Napoleonic Wars did that), it didn't add to the territory of the United States and, with the exception of the Battle of New Orleans, the United States Army was SOUNDLY thrashed.
Hell, the Treaty of Ghent didn't even address the issue of impressment.
The War of 1812 wasn't even seen as a necessity in much of the United States and many of the New England states were extremely opposed to it.
Yes, US ships performed well (with the exception of the Shannon destroying the Chesapeake in a matter of minutes), but it's instructive to take a look at the ships that fought in those engagements...
They weren't exactly equal match ups. An American 44-gun frigate was more along the lines of a fourth rate ship of the line in the Royal Navy and had a considerably heavier weight of broadside.
But don't forget...
We lost one of our 44-gun frigates, the USS President, during the War of 1812.
Post by: Bigjake on October 14, 2007, 09:42:17 AM
Same on Jfruser's take on WW2, unless I've misread it;
Quote
Less significant than only WW2. Dollars, blood, whatever, it was big.
A loss in WW2 would've been the end of the United States. and staying out of Europe wouldn't have helped. Hitler was eventually headed this way, and the Japs met us in Hawaii.
Post by: K Frame on October 14, 2007, 09:54:45 AM
The US incursions into Canada were repulsed with HEAVY losses. The American burning of York is largely cited as the reason the British burned Washington, DC.
While the American stand at Ft. McHenry was certainly memorable, it did absolutely nothing to stop the British from essentially exercising free reign along the mid Atlantic coast.
For much of the war US war ships were blockaded in port by the British Navy.
The British didn't really even consider themselves to be fighting a war against the United States. It was, to them, a minor annoyance in the scheme of things then happening in Europe.
Even had the United States abjectly lost the War of 1812, Britain had absolutely no interest at that time in attempting to retake the colonies. It was a favored plan of a very small minority of Parliament, but it had no support among either the general population, the majority of the government, or the crown.
The United States wouldn't have gone away.
Post by: wooderson on October 14, 2007, 10:07:20 AM
Post by: Len Budney on October 14, 2007, 10:11:26 AM
Span Am War? ... Made the world recognize that the United States was a major player in world affairs.
Sounds like a ghetto thing. "Why you gotta akse? I had to whack him, yo! Thass the on'y way fo' me an' my homies to get some respeck, aight?"
--Len.
Post by: Tallpine on October 14, 2007, 01:20:41 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 14, 2007, 03:54:57 PM
The Allies were war-weary and there was no support at home to put in the effort required to actually change the outcome of the Russian Revolution.
Although, that one was winnable. At the very least Lenin's bloc could have been defeated and restricted in area of influence within Russia.
Post by: Paddy on October 14, 2007, 05:41:40 PM
(1898)
The Spanish-American War evoked much enthusiasm and patriotism across the nation, as newspaper headlines and war hawks trumpeted "Remember the Maine" in an attempt to stir up popular support for the conflict. Invoking the Monroe Doctrine, the United States claimed to desire war with Spain in Cuba in order to rid the Western Hemisphere of a decaying imperial presence, although the American impetus was really much more Machiavellian than that. The United States had to execute an amphibious landing, a task at which it was wholly inexperienced, if it were to wrest control of Cuba from the Spanish. Nonetheless, a poorly trained and inadequately outfitted expeditionary force, which included the First Volunteer Cavalry, embarked in Tampa Bay, Florida for a landing on Cuban shores near the village of Daiquir?.
The First Volunteer Cavalry, nicknamed the "Rough Riders," were a raucous band of men recruited for their shooting and riding abilities by territorial governors in the U.S. West. Colonel Theodore Roosevelt left an important Navy post in Washington, D.C. in order to serve as second in command of the First Volunteer Cavalry, instantly winning the affection and respect of his men. The Rough Riders' most famed exploit occurred at San Juan Hill, where Roosevelt recklessly led his men up a smaller rise, Kettle Hill, and chased the Spanish from their positions. Roosevelt later recalled that "San Juan was the great day of my life."
The Rough Riders' reputation spread more as a result of their swagger and Roosevelt's bumptious personality than any real military accomplishments. As the soldier's account which follows attests, their organization left much to be desired and their energy could be as much a detriment as an asset. The Spanish failed to muster much resistance in Cuba, seeking an armistice prior to an expected clash outside of Santiago.
One lovely morning a thin, distant, and darker haze appeared off to the south. The shadows on the deck began to shift and we knew we were changing course to round Cape Maisi. We were in sight of Cuba at last!
It was a rugged coast, and in those mountains Cuban soldiers and Spanish troops were fighting. We could see some little settlements on the beachesfrom one of these, perhaps, centuries ago, buccaneers had put forth in their crude cockleshells to board a Spanish galley and plunder it for silk and rum and doubloons.
Presently we approached the shore, coming close to a little dock which we later found was Daiquiri, where the Rough Riders were to land. Then, farther on and nearer to Santiago, we came to a little bend in the coastline, sheltered under a hill. This was the cove of Siboney where we were to go ashore. Above the little village and on all the hills and ridges that surrounded it were the little Spanish fuertesblockhousesthat were always built in sight of each other for protection against the Cuban troops in the field. A little farther to the west, we passed the narrow entrance to the Bay of Santiago where Admiral Cervera's fleet lay at anchor. The entrance was almost indistinguishable from the green jungle that rose above it on each side. We could see the pinkish ocher of the ancient forts that guarded it. They looked like the toy forts made for children, or like picturesque defenses of the old-time barons, but Washington knew that they had modern guns as well as the olden bronze cannon. We were three miles off shore, wholly safe, and we gave the Spaniards a review in forcesome fifty ships and transports in single column, while our battleships and cruisers fringed the line. Not a shot was fired; it was a demonstration.
We turned slowly back to Guantanamo, and drifted lazily along the coast with the tide, with only here and there a transport turning her engines occasionally to keep her place in the column.
Then we steamed back to the entrance to the Bay of Santiago. This time, the cruisers and battleships began the attack on the forts that guarded the bay. Our transports lay about three miles off, and we had good seats for a perfect panorama. The air was as clear as crystal.
Slowly the battleships and cruisers steamed past the entrance, perhaps two miles off; sometimes it seemed closer. Their turrets would burst into a vast billow of smoke as they scanned the hills with their fire; and occasionally they would turn one into the ancient forts that would burst forth in a blast of shattered brick and dust. We could see shells burst in the jungle. The cruisers steamed slowly from Daiquiri, past Siboney and on past the Santiago forts and into the west, bombarding as they went, and then came back again. The little Spanish blockhouse above Siboney seemed to be hityet later, when we landed, it was intact and without a trace of damage. For fifty miles the coast was bombarded, a maneuver to mislead the Spaniards as to where we would land.
It is doubtful if this bombardment had any effect, other than perhaps to delude the Spaniards. They had the whole coast and Cuban mountain range to retire behindand they did.
Then we prepared to land.
We steamed back to the bight of land where a little beach stretched down from the village of Siboney. Then we drifted with the tide, waiting our turn to land. We watched the little steam launches of the Navy towing strings of ship's boats packed with soldiers and their horse-collar blanket rolls. We envied them. Great Scott, there wouldn't be any Spaniards left by the time we could get ashore! Impatiently we lined the rails and looked at these boatloads of lucky men. We could see the troops form up on shore and then lose themselves in the green that fringed the foothills of the mountains beyond.
The horses and mules were jumped overboard and swam ashore. And not a colonel or a wagon master had the power to tell a ship captain how close in to shore he should come. The transports were under charter merely, and it was the ship captain who could tell the colonel what he, the skipper, would or would not do with his ship. The horses and mules were jumped overboard from a half to a quarter mile off shoredepending upon the skipper's digestion or his judgmentand then swam. Horses by the hundred were drowned.
I have been told by some authorities that if a horse gets water in its ears the animal feels all is lost and will drown. This may have accounted for the heavy loss of horses and mules in the landing.
It was this loss of horses that left each field battery with no spares. Later, when Captain Best's battery was on San Juan and had to be withdrawn, they did not dare risk the horses up in the open on the hill. Two infantry companies were sent over to screen the withdrawal of the guns by the cannoneers. Over twenty infantrymen were casualties in three minutes, though only one artilleryman, a sergeant, was killed. Also, two generals went into the battle of San Juan on footan unheard of thing for those daysand one of them reached the battle line from his headquarters riding on a cargo mule. Horses were reserved for orderlies and messengers and for the immediate staff of General Shafter. Colonel Teddy Roosevelt had a horse but left it behind when the fighting began at Kettle Hill, and fought the rest of the day on foot; but Teddy had a certain way with him.
SOURCE: Post, Charles Johnson. The Little War of Private Post. Boston: Little Brown, 1960.
Post by: K Frame on October 14, 2007, 08:36:09 PM
You mean, like besides the War to Prevent Southern Independence
Or the war that ensured Southern Stupidity...
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 15, 2007, 03:03:29 AM
And Iraq. Fabricated evidence gets us into war, so that what....GWB can continue to be a war time president? wag the dog people...
Post by: stevelyn on October 15, 2007, 03:58:14 AM
My second choice would be WW I.
Europe should have been left to implode into another dark age.
Post by: richyoung on October 15, 2007, 12:09:24 PM
gotta disagree with Mike's thoughts on 1812. Had we lost, the US wouldn't be around now.
Same on Jfruser's take on WW2, unless I've misread it;
A loss in WW2 would've been the end of the United States. and staying out of Europe wouldn't have helped. Hitler was eventually headed this way, and the Japs met us in Hawaii.
Same on Jfruser's take on WW2, unless I've misread it;
Quote
Less significant than only WW2. Dollars, blood, whatever, it was big.
A loss in WW2 would've been the end of the United States. and staying out of Europe wouldn't have helped. Hitler was eventually headed this way, and the Japs met us in Hawaii.
Haven't read the McCollem memo, I see. FDR was going to get IN that war, by hook or by crook, ... and he found a way to push the Japanese into making an overt move - but not before the Reuben James went down somewhere she shouldn't be, doing something she shouldn't have been doing, as an alleged "neutral" warship....
Post by: jnojr on October 15, 2007, 02:03:16 PM
The American burning of York is largely cited as the reason the British burned Washington, DC.
I have a difficult time seeing the burning of Washington D.C. as a "bad thing". By a foreign power, sure... I'd prefer that American citizens did the burning. But I'd take it any way I could get it.
Post by: BakerMikeRomeo on October 15, 2007, 03:07:43 PM
Iain, we will bury you.
Y'know, that saying just doesn't work unless you post a pic of yourself banging your shoe on your desk.
~BakerMike
Post by: Antibubba on October 16, 2007, 09:07:15 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on October 17, 2007, 03:33:42 AM
No one lost the War of 1812, and no one won the War of 1812.
The US incursions into Canada were repulsed with HEAVY losses. The American burning of York is largely cited as the reason the British burned Washington, DC.
While the American stand at Ft. McHenry was certainly memorable, it did absolutely nothing to stop the British from essentially exercising free reign along the mid Atlantic coast.
For much of the war US war ships were blockaded in port by the British Navy.
The British didn't really even consider themselves to be fighting a war against the United States. It was, to them, a minor annoyance in the scheme of things then happening in Europe.
Even had the United States abjectly lost the War of 1812, Britain had absolutely no interest at that time in attempting to retake the colonies. It was a favored plan of a very small minority of Parliament, but it had no support among either the general population, the majority of the government, or the crown.
The United States wouldn't have gone away.
I hadn't looked at this topic in a little while, but I have to disagree with Mike. The British did lose the War of 1812. Not on the battlefield or between war fleets though. They lost it due to US commerce raiders and others with letters of marque tearing up the British commercial fleets. The British whaling fleet alone was nearly wiped out completely. The British went to the peace table because their income went to zero. The Battle of New Orleans just put icing on the cake and gave Americans a reason to beat their chest. That was the exception to the rest of the ground war.The US incursions into Canada were repulsed with HEAVY losses. The American burning of York is largely cited as the reason the British burned Washington, DC.
While the American stand at Ft. McHenry was certainly memorable, it did absolutely nothing to stop the British from essentially exercising free reign along the mid Atlantic coast.
For much of the war US war ships were blockaded in port by the British Navy.
The British didn't really even consider themselves to be fighting a war against the United States. It was, to them, a minor annoyance in the scheme of things then happening in Europe.
Even had the United States abjectly lost the War of 1812, Britain had absolutely no interest at that time in attempting to retake the colonies. It was a favored plan of a very small minority of Parliament, but it had no support among either the general population, the majority of the government, or the crown.
The United States wouldn't have gone away.
Regarding this entire argument: What makes a war pointless? IMO, just because a war is easy, doesn't make it pointless. The consequences of losing or the results to history do that. The consequences to the US losing that war would have been bad. The British did burn Washington. I have heard that the only reason they didn't do more was due to some freak weather. It has been a while since I read about that.
Post by: roo_ster on October 17, 2007, 04:33:22 AM
--------
I think some posters suffer from, "The Best 100 Songs Ever" bias*. Meaning, events that occur most recently are given more weight than events that occurred in the past.
* Every one of those exercises is front-loaded with pop tunes that came out in the last year or two.
Post by: Joe Demko on October 17, 2007, 05:00:15 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on October 17, 2007, 06:39:12 AM
Chris
Post by: MechAg94 on October 17, 2007, 06:57:00 AM
To me, Iraq is up in the air. Won't know for 10 or 20 years for sure how it will be seen.
Vietnam might have been a useful war. It definitely became pointless when we gave up and pulled out. Similar to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
I think the Spanish-American War had some serious results. The US was seen as a world power and the Spanish pretty much dropped out as a world power.
The War of 1812 basically showed that we could keep the British from retaking the US. Not sure if that end result is enough. It wasn't pointless to me.
Post by: K Frame on October 17, 2007, 07:19:26 AM
You're joking, right?
Yes, American privateers captured a significant number of English merchantmen.
But, just how much of an effect did that really have?
In the grand scheme of things, virtually no real effect on the British.
Their merchant fleet was simply enormous, and most of it was untouched by American privateers. There were simply too many English merchant vessles and too few American privateers. As well, many of the ships that were taken were smaller coastal trade ships,
In counterpoint, the Royal Navy blockade of the American coast, hurt American commerce FAR more than American privateers hurt British trade.
After 1813 American sea trade virtually ceased in most ports of any significance.
At best, this aspect of the war can also be seen as more of a push than as an American victory.
Yes, American privateers captured cargos of significant worth, but that was more than offset by the losses in foreign trade.
Post by: thebaldguy on October 17, 2007, 01:32:43 PM
Getting involved in a civil war as an invader is not a good idea.
Post by: Andrew on October 17, 2007, 04:37:57 PM
Kidding aside, Grenada was amazingly foolish. Somalia wasn't really high on my Proud To Be American list of activities, either...
A.
Post by: macadore on October 17, 2007, 04:57:00 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on October 17, 2007, 05:08:26 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on October 17, 2007, 05:10:34 PM
Quote
At best, this aspect of the war can also be seen as more of a push than as an American victory.
Yes, American privateers captured cargos of significant worth, but that was more than offset by the losses in foreign trade.
I wasn't really thinking about balance of trade or offsetting losses. Just the idea that it was a push means the US did very well to me. The British Empire was the superpower of the time.
Yes, American privateers captured cargos of significant worth, but that was more than offset by the losses in foreign trade.
Post by: RevDisk on October 17, 2007, 05:22:58 PM
Oy, tough call. On pure weirdness: The Banana Wars, the USMC's contribution to United Fruit (now Chiquita) ranks pretty high. Seriously, I'd really love to hear a rational explaination for the Marine Corps and the CIA's endless wars/coups on behalf of Chiquita. Any Marines here wanna give it a try?
From the standpoint of stupidity amoung the generals, WWI or Vietnam would be a toss up. WWI, I think. Vietnam was not nearly as large nor bloody. But the same brand of stupidity rings true amoung the brass of that era as well. I hear-by announce Disk's Law: When your generals are commanding from palaces, you've already lost the war. Disk's Second Law: And you deserve to lose it.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 17, 2007, 06:41:38 PM
Oy, tough call. On pure weirdness: The Banana Wars, the USMC's contribution to United Fruit (now Chiquita) ranks pretty high. Seriously, I'd really love to hear a rational explaination for the Marine Corps and the CIA's endless wars/coups on behalf of Chiquita. Any Marines here wanna give it a try?
Um, because they were ordered to by Nat'l. Command Authority.
Well, that and United Fruit's seductive "All The Bananas You Can Eat / We Support The Troops" campaign.
Post by: K Frame on October 17, 2007, 07:21:30 PM
Quote
At best, this aspect of the war can also be seen as more of a push than as an American victory.
Yes, American privateers captured cargos of significant worth, but that was more than offset by the losses in foreign trade.
I wasn't really thinking about balance of trade or offsetting losses. Just the idea that it was a push means the US did very well to me. The British Empire was the superpower of the time. Yes, American privateers captured cargos of significant worth, but that was more than offset by the losses in foreign trade.
I don't disagree with that.
But take a look at exactly why the United States went to war in 1812, and exactly what it gained in the Treaty of Ghent.
The disparity between the two positions is pretty dramatic, and the overall effect on the national economically was pretty harsh.
There are victories, moral victories, and phyrric victories.
If one wants to claim a US victory in the War of 1812, one really has to consider that it was a phyrric victory, at best.
Post by: yesitsloaded on October 17, 2007, 07:34:51 PM