Pre-emptive strike didn't work for Japan, why did Bush think

[The Backlash Cometh]

it would work for him?

As a policy, pre-emptive strike doesn't work. Whatever advantage the Japanese may have had with an attack on Pearl Harbor, (which many military men call the most successful military strike of the whole war), in the long run it was a diplomatic failure. It served to galvanize the allies and eventually took Hitler, Japan and Italy down.

9/11 will eventually be viewed as a successful military strike, but a diplomatic failure, when we do get someone in the White House who isn't so intent on chasing his tail.

The first 24 hours of the Iraq war will probably be called a successful military strike, but can anybody doubt that it's turning out to be a diplomatic failure?

Really, something loud and graphic like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor are counter-productive as long-term strategies. If you really wanted to destabilize a country the best way to do it is by stealth. Do it economically. Take the jobs away, but raise expectations. Keep the conflict high and the spirit of cooperation low.

As they say, the first step in finding a cure is to get a proper diagnosis of the illness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. There are several things to consider

the attack was a tactical victory, but the failure to destory fuel supplies on Oahu allowed the fleet to continue the fight. If the storage tanks were destroyed, when the Carriers came in, they woudl not have been able to refuel, and get out again.

At the diplomatic level you are correct, but only partially. Due to the intercepted messages it truly was not that much of a surprise... we had broen the Code (JN-21) and were essencially readying their mail, I know how rude. The Japaese beleive though that since the 14th part of the message was delivered late (declaration of war) they were fated to loose the great pacific war, for they were dishonored.

Oh and one more thing, Yammamoto understood that the attack woudl wake the US from its slumber if it was carried out before a declaration of war. If there was a declaration of war issued then things may be different, but the Japanese did not intend a preemtive strike, they were late decoding their own message.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. How many decades did it take before all this was conventional

wisdom? I'm just wondering how long it's going to take to sort out all the secrets from the Iraq war.

[tlsmith1963]

2. If We Fought WWII Like...

...the War on Terror, you *know* what would have happened to the Japanese-Americans in the internment camps (torture, for one thing). I'm glad we didn't. WWII proved that you can beat an enemy without becoming as "badass" as the enemy. If Bush had been President during WWII, his strategy would have been to become as horrible as Hitler...not that he isn't on his way to doing that now.

Tammy

[Rocknrule]

5. If Bush had been prez during WWII

he would've joined the Axis powers

[justabob]

7. that was my first thought nt

[unblock]

3. it's hard to say pearl harbor didn't "work" for the japanese

to hold that position, you have to believe that the japanese empire would have prospered longer had they left the u.s. pacific fleet intact.

true, that day of infamy famously brought a declaration of war the next day, thereby accelerating the u.s.'s involvement in wwii. however, it's entirely possible -- indeed, likely -- that the u.s. would have come in sooner or later, and with an intact fleet, japan would have fallen much faster than it did once the u.s. did finally join the battle.

so you have to weigh delayed entry vs. having an intact fleet.

i will say, i think it inarguably didn't work for hitler....

[Silverhair]

13. The strike forced us to switch production to aircraft carriers.

The strike knocked out obsolete equipment, and proved to the American Navy that battleships were yesterday's navy and carriers were the way to go. Production of aircraft carriers was sped up and several cruisers that were being built were converted to carriers in mid-production. Even many freighters had flight decks slapped on them. Without the strike the Japanese would have faced a more obsolete navy.

Alternate history can be a fun game, can't it?

[C_U_L8R]

4. Pre-empitive strikes didn't work out so well..

for Hitler, Napoleon, even Saddam for that matter.

Bush is destined to go down in history as yet another failed tyrant.

[tn-guy]

8. Actually, a pre-emptive strike did work for Japan

In the Russo-Japanese war the Japanese launched a pre-emptive strike against Russia that was very successful. In fact, that success was part of the reason that a similar tactic was tried against the U.S. in 1941.

Pre-emptive strikes have been used successfully many times in history. Even when the pre-emptive strike doesn't succeed that does not mean the initiator will not prevail. Look at the USSR's pre-emptive strike against Finland during WWII for a case in point.

History will show whether the US will prevail or not in Iraq, but there is no consistent historical correlation between launching a pre-emptive strike and achieving ultimate victory.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. No there is no consistency at all.

Which means that it is a decision that was taken recklessly, especially when the commander in chief had no exit plan in case it failed.

[ComerPerro]

10. Well, the pre-emptive strike did work for us

We hit Iraq, and within a few weeks we had capture Baghdad and ousted Saddam.

Two stated goals were accomplished, hence "Mission Accomplished".

The war is over.

This mess that has been going on for over two and a half years is due to BushCo's complete lack of planning, utter arrogance, and total disregard for human life.

Not only does it cost lives and cost the US its reputation and credibility, but its also horribly embarrassing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Not to mention that "this mess" was predicted by the first George

Bush which is why he didn't go into Baghdad.

I say that the success of a war cannot be determined by one battle. Most pre-emptive strikes are won because of the element of surprise. But once you lose that element of surprise, then you're dealing with people who are fighting on their own native soil.

Pre-emptive strikes are only good if revenge is your ultimate purpose. Bush used our military might to take out someone who once threatened his father. But doing so may not have been the best thing for America, because in removing a secular dictator from an area that thrives of Holy Wars, Bush most certainly set the wheels in motion for the next Middle East crisis.

[Silverhair]

12. That is because the Japanese bungled the strike.

Yes. They blew it - big time !! Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics. After the well planned and executed morning strike against the fleet Hawaii was defenseless, but the fuel storage farms, supply warehouses, repair facilities and commercial docks were UNTOUCHED !! The reason you knock out the military opposition is to be able to either capture or destroy the logistics. By leaving the logistics alone, they allowed the US to quickly bounce back from strike and to have the use of Pearl Harbor for the entire war. Destruction of Pearl, or invasion and occupation of Hawaii would have forced the US to conduct the war from our own Pacific coast.

Hitler made a really stupid move in declaring war against the US. His treaty with Japan did not require him to as it was a defensive treaty, not an offensive one. Besides, what did he care about treaties anyway? If he had not declared war, the the US anger would have been focused on Japan, and he would have been able to concentrate on Russia.

This does not mean that I advocate a preemptive strike anywhere, but I do recognize that they can be extremely effective.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Sounds like Bush made the same mistake in Iraq.

About tactics and not logistics. It was all shock and awe, and then he left a major munition facility unprotected. From what I understand, it was looted by the Iraqi resistance and used against us in their guerilla warfare.

[Silverhair]

15. Please don't confuse W with the actual military generals.

W does not personally draw up invasion plans. Get real. He doesn't say, "Search here." Those decisions are made by field commanders, not by W in the White House.

The vast majority of Iraqi munitions were seized by US military, but not 100% of them. The amount that was missed, a few hundred tons, sounds like a lot to an civilian, but on the scale of a full fledged war, it was actually a tiny percentage.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Have you happened to notice how successful guerilla warfare is

against large superpowers? It works for the Afghans, it worked for Fidel Castro and I hate to tell you, but it's working for the Iraqis. A few hundred tons sounds like plenty and our military experts are claiming that it was a mistake to leave those munitions unprotected.

[Silverhair]

18. Of course it was a mistake. No battle plan is ever perfect.

Mistakes happen in all wars. And you have missed my point. Your hatred of W is so great that you seem to have allowed yourself to think that he personally plans every patrol, every guard, every detail. Those things are done by local military commanders, and the local military commanders have been extremely competent. It is impossible to secure ALL of an enemies supplies.

In the 1970's, when I was stationed on Guam, somebody found an old Japanese ammo dump that had been hidden in a cave. In the 1980's some guy finally asked the British gov't what they were going to do about a WWII gun & ammos bunker that had been built on his land. They had lost it - and the Brits were never invaded.

W can rightly be blamed for the war in the first place.

[Loonman]

16. Pearl Harbor was more of a delaying tactic

Japan could not island-hop and build up a long system of defenses across the Pacific if the bulk of the US Navy Pacific fleet was in Hawaii. Even Yamamoto thought it was a bad idea, almost immedietly after the attack.