| ▲ | benreesman 6 days ago |
| The United States Military is the most terrifying institution of force in the history of the human race (history of the universe as far as we know). It achieves a level of training, discipline, organization, morale, combat effectiveness and general formidavlbility that makes the median Marine among the best soldiers on the planet anywhere, all backed by a logistical apparatus unrivaled by any conceivable combination of private sector actors working together. Unrivaled now, maybe ever. And it got its ass kicked in Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars and countless lives later and a bunch of Pashtun tribesmen with AK-47s and RPG-7s have the country back, and a bunch of our materiel for our trouble. Because the only thing on the planet more dangerous than a United States Special Forces operator is a man with nothing to lose. |
|
| ▲ | glitchc 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Nah, that's only true because the US fought in accordance with the Geneva Convention. It could have easily turned the entire country to glass if it wanted to. |
| |
| ▲ | Aeolun 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, but that would have been pointless because none of the objectives would have been achieved. All those tribesmen would now be in Iran, and the US would have abandoned the world two decades earlier. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Instead... Billions were spent and none of the objectives were achieved anyway. Actually I'm not sure what the objectives even were. | | |
| |
| ▲ | leshow 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2022/08/what-do-we-owe-a... | |
| ▲ | lukan 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, you could have nuked the whole of Afghanistan. But for what gain? (And what loss) | |
| ▲ | achierius 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Would American soldiers do so? If you think they all would, you have no understanding of history. | | |
| ▲ | glitchc 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | After the firsr few years, most soldiers were either mad enough or terrified enough of IEDs that they would have willingly accepted alternative options. | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | History seems to indicate enough would. And with modern weapons, that can be a low number. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | _rm 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It didn't get its ass kicked in Afghanistan, it ran off with its tail between its legs, never having been clear why it had been there in the first place. |
|
| ▲ | goatlover 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's not true at all. Afghanistan was occupied for 20 years until the US decided to pull out, because nation building didn't work there. That's not a military failure. |
| |
| ▲ | WaxProlix 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Substitute Vietnam then, if the point makes you feel better. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Same story. The problem was the US wasn't going to invade the North, and China supplying the NVA added a long tail supply chain that wasnt being touched. What you might do better to note is both of those conflicts consisted of the US invading someone else's home soil to effect change and being outlasted in terms of public interest - a public who at home were living peaceful, first world lifestyles. Everyones little civil war fantasy is when the fight is happening on your home turf to start with. | | |
| ▲ | WaxProlix 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't really agree - a dedicated populous with light arms in both cases was able to ward off a full victory on their home turf, and the US caved to losses and other pressures (60k dead americans in 'nam, hundreds of thousands wounded physically, notorious trauma uncounted etc). I don't have any sort of civil war fantasy, but I think that holding out against a military deployment in-country until it became socially and politically untenable would be pretty reasonable. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure...in 20 years. The US stayed in Afghanistan for long enough a whole new generation grew up after the occupation had started. There's many dictatorships which are considerably older then that, yet weapons are easily available or common - Iraqis didn't lack for small arms during Saddam's rule. | | |
| ▲ | WaxProlix 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Iraqis didn't view Saddam as an invading force. Some even liked him! |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Aeolun 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m sure they could have made it work given 50 or 75 years. Need a few generations that haven’t known anything else. |
|
|
| ▲ | varjag 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I mean sure but also very few of Talibs who first faced the US military had lived to see its withdrawal. |
| |
| ▲ | benreesman 6 days ago | parent [-] | | That's the whole point. They were willing to die for it forever and at some point we weren't anymore. That's how war works now. It's always been true to some extent but conflict is just getting more and more asymmetrical with no obvious upper limit. At some point the Houthi in a cave with a five hundred dollar DJI drone and rage in his heart is king in that world: the only way to lose is to care about something that hasn't already been taken from you. You'll never kill all of them. Not with a nuclear bomb. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes but you have plenty to lose. You'll be the one doing the dying. Whereas the Houthis are a sufficient non-issue that shipping traffic treats them as an insurance cost, the US Navy's biggest problem is they'd really like laser rather then missile to cut that drone out of the sky (which is to say: they enjoyed Iranian backing meaning they were smuggled surprisingly capable antiship missiles, and they won't be getting many more of those now). |
|
|
