Why has America stopped winning wars?

[Armoured]

Since the defeats at the first and second battles of Gaza it was Allenby that restructured the British- australian army and others and moulded it into a force for victory. It was he who allowed the Cavalry charge and it fitted his style of command as did the support of irregular arab forces. He changed a static style of warfare into a fluid one And broke the Turks, took Jerusalem and showed the rest of the generals that victory was possible.

So Britain won the war with Australian support.

Incorrect. Chauvel had already ordered preparation for the charge before receiving Allenby's order. Whole thing was an Australian operation, in both planning and execution.

 

[mindlight]

Incorrect. Chauvel had already ordered preparation for the charge before receiving Allenby's order. Whole thing was an Australian operation, in both planning and execution.

Sir Harry was made a Corps Commander by Allenby despite being an Aussie and not being a toff. Allenby had guys who rose through the ranks as his sub commanders, men of proven worth. Also Allenby was known for his more fluid battle style which had incurred considerable casualties on the Western Front but which worked well with the EEF.

Sir Harry had his position because of Allenby and was doing what Allenby would have wanted him to do. He was also in a position to advise Allenby and lucky that Allenby was prepared to take his advice.

Most British Commanders were not so enlightened.

Sir Harry was a good man but it was Allenby that beat the Turks with his new style of command and warfare.

 

[mindlight]

Allenby took Jerusalem. The first Christian to do so since the First Crusade! It was arguably one of the reasons for the British Empire and ultimately would provide a context for the return of the Jews and the creation of the state of Israel after 2000 years in exile. He is a commander that served Gods purpose, facilitated the fulfilment of prophecy and who took on and defeated Muslim troops by dividing Turks from Arabs for instance. In the broader context men and empires win their victories or are defeated according to Gods plan

 

[Armoured]

Allenby took Jerusalem. The first Christian to do so since the First Crusade! It was arguably one of the reasons for the British Empire and ultimately would provide a context for the return of the Jews and the creation of the state of Israel after 2000 years in exile. He is a commander that served Gods purpose, facilitated the fulfilment of prophecy and who took on and defeated Muslim troops by dividing Turks from Arabs for instance. In the broader context men and empires win their victories or are defeated according to Gods plan

And he couldn't have taken Jerusalem is Chauvel hadn't taken Beersheba first.

 

[mindlight]

And he couldn't have taken Jerusalem is Chauvel hadn't taken Beersheba first.

The Third Battle of Gaza at the other end of the Gaza Beersheba line was also important. Without diminishing the success that occured at Beersheba it was not ALL important. It was part of a broader campaign coordinated by Allenby.

 

[HonestTruth]

there are FAR greater profits to be made from the continuation of war rather than through its cessation - witness the BILLIONS made by Dick Cheney's Halliburton with not a single word of objection from the far right

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The South Vietnamese people had two mortal enemies: the Communists and their own corrupt government run by American puppets. The US had refused to support the unification elections agreed upon in the Geneva accords because they believed the communists would win.

It would be more correct to say that the US didn't support reunification elections because they concluded that people living in communist-controlled areas would not be permitted to vote freely. Given communism's track record, they were probably correct. The South Vietnamese govt certainly didn't help matters.

The US bears culpability for the growth genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (sound familiar?). Ironically, the communist Vietnamese government put an end to the Khmer Rouge, not the righteous U.S.

Well, they bear some responsibility, but so do various communist organisations in Europe and the Chinese govt along with the Vietnamese themselves. The Viet Minh supported the Khmer Rouge for a number of years before they fell out, and it was the Khmer Rouge themselves who started hostilities with Vietnam after they invaded and massacred several thousand Vietnamese.

Dealing with communists was really a lose-lose situation for the US - wherever communism took hold, massacres were almost certain to follow, yet intervention itself caused deaths through war and made some people more likely to defect to the opposing side.