#2
1. Bush 41, not taking out Saddam Hussein in Gulf War I.
(Not his worst indecision. That would be the failure to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to do the equivalent of Truman's denazification to the education industry and government funded foundations, but this time directed at economic/cultural marxists, in this country.)
2. Overall failure of both sides in the Civil War to not equip their soldiers with repeating firearms.
3. French at Crecy and Agincourt, not recognizing the failure of armed heavy cavalry against higher rate of fire English and Welsh longbows, not once but TWICE.
4. Failure of American general officers to counter the American media's, but especially Cronkite's, disinformation campaign regarding Tet.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/08/2013 5:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'd add that America messing around during Suez caused literally a world of problems.
#4
...All interesting and good choices except for:
#6 - The Army of the Potomac was badly disorganized in the wake of its victory at Gettysburg and simply could not be lined up and sent out again that quickly. Second, Meade had been in command for only a VERY short time - Lincoln had appointed him just before the battle, and he was literally still in OJT. If he'd been in command for a few months and still couldn't get it together, that would be a valid argument. And third, the Army of Northern Virginia was still a VERY dangerous opponent - it was not the bleeding, broken, and starving mob it would be two years later. Their morale was high, they were still in supply, and their leadership (though disappointed at the way things had turned out) was still intact and aggressive. Had Meade somehow overcome the first two problems, the result of an attack on the retreating ANV would almost certainly have been a genuine disaster.
#5- The Gatlings were genuinely wicked weapons for their day, but they had one severe drawback: once in battery they were tactically immobile. They could only fire in a straight line ahead of them and they couldn't fire at all while their bearing was being changed. On top of that, the crews had to stand erect while firing and reloading - they couldn't take cover at all. The Indians certainly weren't going to ride straight into a stream of bullets, and they were sufficiently good marksmen that they would have been able to pick off the crews, probably before they ever got off a single round. The one thing the Gatlings could have done that MIGHT have saved Custer was slowed down his march - had that happened, the other column that they were supposed to meet when they attacked the Indians might have been in place, and LBH would have looked more like Wounded Knee. (The other column was commanded by General Alfred Terry, who told LTC Custer to take his time - Custer instead drove his regiment hard and fast, most likely to get there first, defeat the Indians himself, and get all the glory. Didn't work out so well.)
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/08/2013 7:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Too many ethnocentric listings. If you have umbrage with the Western oriented world, the fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Turks sent the European nations looking south then west to get to the East. The result was the age of Exploration and Colonization and the ascendency of the West. Maybe not the victory they thought it was.
Then there's the Chinese decision that their problems with the West stemmed from the failure to faithfully follow traditional Chinese institutions and culture unlike the Japanese who saw the West's advantage lay in technology and organizational institutions. The Sino-Japanese War demonstrated that error which they would still be learning a hundred years later.
Then there's the Aztec habit of taking prisoners for sacrifice rather than grasping the concept of utter destruction of an opponent. Not killing the entire entourage of Cortez and allowing him to escape to link up with new arrivals on the coast was ultimately fatal.
The Crusaders allowing the Mamelukes to peacefully transit their lands to confront the Mongols at Ain Jalut would mean the Mamelukes and Arabs would be back to end their presence in the Levant states. The Mongols would have tolerated 'dependent' Christian states as they did in Russia.
#7
THis guy puts the Afghan invasion in Andropov's hands when at this time it was Brejnew who was Secreatary of the Party. So nuff saisd about this list.
Hitler came very, very close of taking Mocow. Since Soviet Union's railway network was centered on Moscow its loss or mere encircming would have been a critaical blow to the Red Army and to Soviet industry. He came close to taking Soviet Union's oildfields and he came to a mre 200m of taking Stalingrad. Now you could think samml mater. Soviet Union is huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge! Well no. Stalingrad was the on teh best path for transsporting oil from the Causacaus to where it was neede and more importantly Soviet Union was on the verge of dist=integration: its Army was deeply demoralized, hueg chinks of its industry were gone, so many peole had been left in German hands its population no longer exceeded Germany's and its most fertile lands had been lost so its population was surviving on 2000 calories day.. Most of this was told by Stalin in the famous "Ne shagu nazad" (no step back) directive: Soviet Union could no loneger afford to lose ground. In fact it had to recover some of the lost one in order to feed its population. Had the Germans crossed these last 200 meters they would have had time to cover theirr falnks Sovuiet Union wouldn'ty hace recovered its fertile la,nds and the German troops in the Caucasus wouldn't have been forced to retreat so the Spring of 1943 would have started with the Germans close to Soviet Union's main oild fields.
For Napoleon his main mistake was invading Russia with too large an Army. An Army so large the Russins didn't dare to oppose and withdrew instead of accepting battle like if they had faced a smaller army. An army so large it was difficult to feed. An Army who had been made so large by including hundreds of thousands of low quality troops and who had lost thirty thousand men to exhaustion and desertion beforehad iether to crush the Russian Army or not fight at all: evry Russian soldier fallen could be replaced by grabbing the nearest mujik, training him a bit and sending it to battle. Every soldier of Napoleon had to come from Germany or from France: weeks and weeks and weeks of marching before he reached the Army. And that if he wasn't killed by partisans or by the Cossacks. Technically Borodino was French victory but since the Russian Army was not anihilated it was as good as a defeat. Napoleon could have afforded a less than total victory for a battle close to the Russian border but not at Vorodino.
Napoleon's Army lost 30 thousand men before it had crushed the Russian border to desertion and soldier being physically unable to follow the Army. The Russian Army ended accepting battme at Borodino. That was a battle Napoleon had either to avoid or win by knockout not by referee decision: Paris at 1750 miles of Moscow. 20 miles a day: nearly three months that what was needed to replace French soldier lost.
#9
IMNSHO the greatest political/military decision (can't be sure whether or not it was a mistake) was the cancellation/destruction of the Imperial Chinese Navy in the mid-1400's. From here:
From 1405 until 1433, the Chinese imperial eunuch Zheng He led seven ocean expeditions for the Ming emperor that are unmatched in world history. These missions were astonishing as much for their distance as for their size: during the first ones, Zheng He traveled all the way from China to Southeast Asia and then on to India, all the way to major trading sites on India's southwest coast. In his fourth voyage, he traveled to the Persian Gulf. But for the three last voyages, Zheng He went even further, all the way to the east coast of Africa. This was impressive enough, but Chinese merchants had traveled this far before. What was even more impressive about these voyages was that they were done with hundreds of huge ships and tens of thousands of sailors and other passengers. Over sixty of the three hundred seventeen ships on the first voyage were enormous "Treasure Ships," sailing vessels over 400 hundred feet long, 160 feet wide, with several stories, nine masts and twelve sails, and luxurious staterooms complete with balconies. The likes of these ships had never before been seen in the world, and it would not be until World War I that such an armada would be assembled again. The story of how these flotillas came to be assembled, where they went, and what happened to them is one of the great sagas and puzzles in world history.
When another seafaring voyage was suggested to the Chinese Imperial court in 1477, the vice president of the Ministry of War confiscated all of Zheng He's records in the archives, damning them as "deceitful exaggerations of bizarre things far removed from the testimony of people's eyes and ears." He argued that the expeditions of Zheng He "to the West Ocean wasted tens of myriads of money and grain and moreover the people who met their deaths may be counted in the myriads. Although he returned with wonderful precious things, what benefit was it to the state?"
With the destruction of the records the history of this fleet was nearly forgotten. This was just 15 years before Columbus 'discovered' America. It could have been so very different.
#11
I'm starting to think the Crimean War was a mistake. Instead of the British and French fighting for the Ottomans, why not let Russia bleed itself pacifying the Ottomans and the Balkins, perhaps no WWI and Constantinople back on the map?
h/t Instapundit
In their latest report on the economic benefits of the shale revolution, the global research firm IHS makes a number of encouraging findings. IHS estimates that the unconventional oil and gas value chain already supports over two million jobs, is responsible for $1,200 in average additional net income per household and is contributing nearly $300 billion to GDP. The most promising finding for manufacturers is that the best is yet to come. Looking at just one manufacturing sector, the chemical manufacturing sector, capital investments in new plants and expansion at existing plants is expected to more than triple in just four years.
#3
Releasing the shale revolution is the only thing he can do to help the economy. I'm amazed he hasn't found a way to buy off/backstab the greens on this issue yet to save his Union buddies.
[WashingtonPost] They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration's attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense.
Is there a plan? A plan that doesn't have "... VICTORY!!" as the middle steps?
None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our "responsibility to protect" the world's innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military's civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.
That kind of guilt feels good. It's how one knows oneself to be ever so superior to those oafs who don't feel it.
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about "red lines." These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won't deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.
They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. "Look," one told me, "if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn't think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone." But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.
The Israelis still won. But for the Israelis, the power to unleash the hounds of war is not an aphrodisiac.
Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.
#3
The Generals + Admirals know the score - Baby Assad is effective at suppressing Radical Islam + related Hard Boyz.
Once he's gone, SYRIA = LIBYA = post-2014 PAKISTAN = the various autonomous andor independent MilTerr Groups will have STRATEGIC ACCESS, IFF NOT OVERT POLITICAL-LEGAL CONTROL, OF NUKES + WMDS [NBC-CBRNE]. THEY WILL BE THE GOVT-STATE = NEW ESTABLISHMENT.
h/t Instapundit Moved to Opinion
At the same time the IRS harassed Republican nonprofit groups during the 2012 political campaign, it selectively advised black churches and other Democrat nonprofits on how far they can go in campaigning for President Obama and other Democrats.
This raw exercise in political favoritism has not been reported in the context of the still-smoldering IRS scandal, in which the agency in 2012 audited big GOP donors and blocked Tea Party groups trying to obtain tax-exempt status as part of what House investigators suspect was an effort to re-elect the president.
But that same year, top officials with both the IRS and Justice Department -- including the IRS commissioner and attorney general -- met in Washington with several dozen prominent black church ministers representing millions of voters to brief them on how to get their flocks out to vote without breaking federal tax laws.
#3
..either that or so compound the long lists of grievances that a heck of a lot of people will just sit on the sidelines when the real fight erupts once critical mass has been achieved.
#5
I have long wondered why it is that Democrat politicians can openly campaign at black churches, yet the Catholic Church has to be very careful about what it says, less it lose its tax exempt status.
For example, I remember reading an article where Mario Cuomo (ex governor of New York, father of the current governor) enthusiastically endorsed Bill Clinton at a black church.
Yet, the Catholic Church cannot tell people to vote for or against particular candidates due to the candidate's stand on abortion.
Well, I guess now I know.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
09/08/2013 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I have long wondered why it is that Democrat politicians can openly campaign at black churches, yet the Catholic Church has to be very careful about what it says, less it lose its tax exempt status.
Because black churches are viewed as an aspect of 'black culture', an anthropological curiosity one might find in the pages of National Geographic. Rather patronizing on the part of the cultural and political elites, but quite effective.
#7
So, Pappy, you're saying that black churches are NOT religious organizations, but are, in fact, political?
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
09/08/2013 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#8
No, they're religious organizations and quite influential that way, though less than they used to be. Black churches historically have been a strong force for black society and civil rights.
Society and the cultural elites view black churches, to put it bluntly, as curious 'native cultural ceremonies'. That's why black churches get treated in movies and television as "singing and dancing while in robes" and more for their contributions to music than in helping society.
The political elite, however, saw the power black churches had and still have, the cultural acceptance they enjoy, and have exploited it. And both sides now support that exploitation.
[TheNation] The dirty little not-so-secret behind President B.O.'s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it's not about Syria at all. It's about Iran--and Israel. And it has been from the start.
By "the start," I mean 2011, when the B.O. regime gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling Hereditary President-for-Life Bashir Pencilneck al-Assad Supressor of the Damascenes... of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran's. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama's Syria policy.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/08/2013 9:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Considering Obama ignored the Arab spring uprising in Iran and has done little to deter Iran or to protect Israel. I think this is reach for another excuse for support action in Syria.
Song of an Antisemite
Russian title: Antisemity
Just being a hoodlum appears so trite
I ought to convert to an anti-Semite
This cause might not yet have the law on its side
But millions of zealots support it worldwide
One would get a thrashing if I so decide
But I need to know who is a Semite
What if they are held in the highest regard
What if for the trouble I get myself barred
But my drunkard pal with a wider worldview
Said that a Semite is just a plain Jew
Well, I am in luck, as it would appear
I am reassured there is nothing to fear
I worked up resolve, cause Albert Einstein
Was once a respected icon of mine
The people, forgive me, but I have to ask
Should Abraham Lincoln be also unmasked?
Among them, are many who suffered from Stalin
And highly respected by me Charlie Chaplin
My dear friend Rubin and victims of Nazism
And even the founding father of Marxism
But my drunkard buddy said after a job
The blood of the infants they drink, every drop
And I over drinks in a bar overheard
That they long ago crucified our Lord
Without more blood they simply can't do
They tortured an elephant right in a zoo
Against our people committed high treason
And stole all the crops of the previous season
Along major highways they grabbed all the lots
Built luxury dachas and live there like gods
I'll maim and I'll burn, just to make them pay dues
To save our country, I club dirty Kikes!
#10
one of the problems with the opinion section is that it matters greatly whose opinion it is and for one thing you can't always tell from the title and second some people can't identify the who simply by the source
for example in this opinion it is The Nation; a hard lefty rag
so the title could have been
Hard Lefty Mag says Syrian war about Iran and Israel
of course this has the difficulty of making the titles long
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/08/2013 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I took it that it was posted in the "know your enemy" sense, #8 grom.
But then I know the reputation of the rag that published this.
Posted by: Barbara ||
09/08/2013 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#12
it is The Nation; a hard lefty rag
I'm afraid I had no idea. If someone would be so kind as to work up a list of such things, that would be terribly helpful.
On the other hand, after reading Frank G's link on the editor's connections, I have to assume the ideas there get a hearing at the highest levels, and therefore do matter, however utterly stupid they might be.
however they do use the magazine's own self identification thus Mother Jones and The Nation are called liberal instead of 'hard left' as I would call it or 'Stalinist' as others would call it
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/08/2013 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Red-diaper baby-founded, Stalinist in their outlook, and Anti-American.
#1
The comments section are a good read. Media war in action now. Whip up support for the one. What a team. McCain, Ed Asner, Hillary, Carville, Petraeus and Powell is a no show. Next Alec Baldwin and Fonda. Sounds like a Democrat wet dream or at least a TV series. Babs could do the intro music with Springsteen.
#4
Actually it's closer to a mirror image of the Spanish Civil War. Though the WWI-scarred US government officially stayed out of that war, there was private support given to both sides.
#9
I can name a few conflicts that have taken place in sub-Saharan Africa that are no longer discussed as well. Perhaps outcomes failed to meet expectations..... or did they ?
#10
It's almost as if a lot of parties on both sides are embarrassed
Well, Stalin backed the Communists 'Republicans' and Hitler backed the Nationalists. And the Euro democracies sat it out. Damn, there seems to be a theme here.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Hereditary President-for-Life Bashir 
