"
‘An era of defeat’ for the best soldiers in the world?"
PBS NewsHour 1/15/2015
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Journalist James Fallows says it's time to examine why the best funded, best trained and most professional military in the world hasn't achieved lasting victory in the post-9/11 era. He joins chief foreign correspondent Margaret Warner to discuss his provocative critique in The Atlantic magazine, and how the public should be more connected to American armed conflict.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Now to a critique of America’s war-fighting apparatus that’s making waves in defense circles and beyond.
Journalist and author James Fallows raises hard questions about this country’s defense establishment in a cover story “The Atlantic” magazine titled “Why Do the Best Soldiers in the World Keep Losing?: The Tragic Decline of the American Military.”
Fallows’ thesis? That it’s time to examine why the best-funded, trained and most professional military in the world hasn’t achieved lasting victories over insurgent forces in the post-9/11 era.
We will have more on the reaction to his piece.
But, first, we hear from Fallows himself. He spoke a few days ago with our Margaret Warner.
MARGARET WARNER (NewsHour): Jim Fallows, thank you for having us.
JAMES FALLOWS, The Atlantic : Thank you, Margaret.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, you contend in this article that, after 13 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which we overthrew Saddam Hussein and the Taliban and drove most of the al-Qaida remnants at least underground, that we essentially lost those wars?
JAMES FALLOWS: I’m saying that if you looked at this era from a strictly military strategic point of view, you would say there is one clear victory the United States had, which was killing Osama bin Laden.
But by having this last 12 or 13 years of open-ended war in Iraq and the surrounding countries, I argue that, from almost any perspective, that is of use of money, loss of life, taking of life, strategic changes in America’s image and reputation around the world, erosion of American values, this has been an era of defeat, rather than victory.
"
Is the U.S. military faced with impossible missions?"
PBS NewsHour 1/15/2015
Excerpts
SUMMARY: A critique of the U.S. military establishment written by journalist James Fallows has made waves in defense circles and beyond. Who is responsible for how America applies its military might? Judy Woodruff gets reaction from former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey and John Ullyot, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Ambassador Jeffrey, to you first.
Is Jim Fallows right when he says, essentially, this has been an era of military defeat in this country, rather than victory, since 9/11?
JAMES JEFFREY, Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq: It has been an era of lack of success in carrying out our strategic objectives in Iraq and in certainly Afghanistan, and, going back, Vietnam as well.
When we get engaged in these long-term conflicts, we have not done well as a nation. The military, as Jim Fallows pointed out, do win the battles. That’s what they are hired for, but they and all of us together under the leadership of the President have not come up with strategies that have led to the achievement of our objectives.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, John Ullyot, that and the biggest point that the country has lost more than it’s gained.
JOHN ULLYOT, Former U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Officer: Well, the ambassador is absolutely right that if you look battle by battle, that we never suffered a single tactical defeat on the battlefield.
So, while Jim Fallows himself is right that they have not been successful, it has not been because of military shortcomings. What it has been is, it’s been the policy-makers have committed our military to wars and conflicts both in Iraq and Afghanistan that are essentially not solvable on a military level.
COMMENT: My fellow Americans, are you listening?
