Comment by kergonath
1 day ago
The US lost these wars politically. This has always been the US weakness rather than pure military power.
The US was better at getting what they wanted through either soft power or threat of military action than as a result of actual intervention. Which is why it’s really counterproductive when the government does not believe in soft power anymore. It’s the one thing you did well and that allowed you to get your way most of the time.
> The US lost these wars (>... Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran) politically...
These were not wars! These were American offensive aggressions against sovereign countries that lasted years if not decades for the people in power to suck resources into and out of the military complex andfor their own agenda. Interest peters out after a while when people realize the true nature of the offensive.
A war has two or more participating countries and a dialect between the two to resolve the conflict. A war has casualties and losses on both sides of the border (preferably not from local flight equipment but actual military hardware).
> These were not wars! These were American offensive aggressions against sovereign countries that lasted years if not decades for the people in power to suck resources into and out of the military complex andfor their own agenda.
I don’t entirely disagree. But they were large scale military operations, however one-sided. They were expeditionary wars for all intents and purposes, just like Russia’s occupation in Ukraine is, even though no war was formally declared.
> A war has two or more participating countries and a dialect between the two to resolve the conflict.
That was how it worked historically between peer countries, a kind of gentlemen’s agreements. Asymmetric warfare is not so clear cut. Colonial wars were messier. So can be civil wars, which can spread across borders (just look at the Balkans).
> A war has casualties and losses on both sides of the border
Coalition soldiers died in Afghanistan. Many American died in Viet Nam as well, which contributed to the US finally losing in both cases.
>But they were large scale military operations, however one-sided
No matter the size, they remain manufactured conflict. Those conflicts were created in order to make money and change policies to make money, terrorism at its core to those who have to live through it.
> Coalition soldiers died in Afghanistan.
You didn't get my comment.
Casualties on both sides of the border°1.°2. Anyone going to bomb mainland America will signal the end of the American "expeditionary" one-sided conflict causing ways that have been going on since its inception.
°1 A one-off event a la 9/11 is an outlier and should be considered an attack by terrorists, (causing terror in the middle East and around the world for decades), and not an attack by a sovereign nation that another nation should retaliate against. Refer to policy change comment above, the war on drugs, the war on terror.. manufactured conflict.
°2 Coalition learned this time around, were not duped into joining the latest manufactured middle east conflict.