Why Johnnie can't fight

Despite its current reputation, the American army has never done well with tactics. Battles they have won have, for the most part, been grinding affairs, with heavy casualties.

The Revolutionary War started out very poorly for the Americans, with loss after loss. They were almost ready to throw in the towel at Valley Forge. Other than a few bright spots, such as the battle of Cowpens, American generals produced no great victories during the war. Meanwhile, the British, who declared war on France, will also face Spain, who will declare war in 1779 as an ally of France, and the Dutch, who have been engaging in profitable trade with the French and Americans. In addition to America, the British will fight in the Mediterranean, Africa, India, the West Indies, and on the high seas, while facing possible invasion of England itself by the French. In 1782, Parliament, tired of all the fighting, and demoralized by the loss at Yorktown, decides not to pursue the war any longer.

The War of 1812 was a non-starter. After a few naval actions, the Continental Army invaded over the Niagara River, met the Canadians at Lundy's Lane, and the two sides shot each other to pieces.

Then there was the Civil War. America's one great shining light, Robert E. Lee, along with a more than competent staff, kept the South in the game years longer than they should have been able to. They were helped in no small measure by the Generals of the Union, and it helps us in our understanding of the mindset of the the American general to look at them. McClellan, who was loved by the troops - on both sides, since he was an overcautious tactician. Burnside, one of the worst generals in human history. Sherman, master of the Army Ant School of warfare, whose only tactical innovation was the willingness to kill and burn everything in his path. Many later US generals would take a page from his book. Grant, the old drunk who was able to finally make use of his army's numerical and material advantages to bring the war to an end.

The pattern was set, and has been followed ever since. Casualties be damned, finesse be damned. Git there fastest with the mostest. Use numerical and material superiority to grind your opponent into the dirt.
Every war the US Army has ever fought has been fought the same way. And when that basic tactic hasn't worked, the US Army hasn't won.

There was WW1. After sitting as a neutral for three years, presumably getting reports on the fighting, the United States entered the war in 1917. They had no aircraft; they bought French planes. One year after Cambrai, they had no tanks. Two years after the Somme, their first battle had them go over the top into German machine gun fire, causing them to join the stalemate. One year later, a fed-up German army essentially went on strike, and the war ended.

WW2. Again, the US sat out the fight until the Japanese convinced them of the folly of isolationism - a lesson that the US would have to relearn 60 years later. Again, the US went to war with no modern tanks or aircraft. They won their early victories by overwhelming their German opponents - and defeated the Japanese by technical innovation. There was no tactical innovation by the Americans in this war. Patton read Rommel's book; Nimitz copied what the Japanese were doing, and beat them at their own game. The Sherman tank beat the Tigers by numbers, sacrificing 3 out of 4 tanks to kill their opponent, and counting on the fact that they had 5 Shermans for every Tiger the Germans had.

Korea saw the Americans armed with WW2 weapons try to beat the Chinese. With the UN's help, America managed a draw. MacArthur's Inchon invasion stands out amidst a lackluster performance by American generals. However, the Chinese were too numerous to overwhelm, and America eventually just sealed off the border and went home.

Vietnam showed off America's weaknesses to the world. The US Army had learned nothing since The Battle of the Bulge. They fought a blitzkrieg in the jungle, and lost, unable to bring their enemy to bear. This was only a few years after the French had lost to the same army in the same way - and only a few years after the Australians had beaten a similar army using more practical tactics. Tactics that America failed to learn.

Finally, after years of Cold War, America was presented with the perfect conflict - the Gulf War. Textbook tank terrain, an opponent inferior in numbers, technology, and training, a noble cause, no outside allies for the enemy. Bush Senior's army rolled over the Republican Guard.

Then came the 21st Century, and the neo-chickenhawks. They had been chafing since Bush Sr. had left Saddam untouched. They decided to go over and do things right.
For a while, it was the Gulf War all over again. The precision missile strikes, the tank attacks.
Then the war changed, from blitzkrieg to guerilla. And the army faltered.
With tactics still unchanged from the streets of Berlin, 60 years ago, the men of the United States army now attempts to fight a 21st Century war. At the platoon level, the troops are first rate. Barring an ambush, they can take on all comers - and they can usually deal with ambushers, too.
It's at the staff level that it all breaks down. The generals cannot seem to get their head around the problem of an enemy that plants bombs along the road, or sends suicide bombers against their troops.
They say that they cannot leave until the job is done.
Then go back to their war of attrition.

We need a Guderian. A Napoleon. Someone to think of a whole new way of making war.
Something the United States has never had - a military genius. Robert E., where are you, now that we need you?