Yeah, because the USA pulled out.

The USA apparently sees these little wars as investments or something. It's getting too expensive: cut losses and pull out the troops.

A real "USA loses" scenario involves the White House flying a foreign flag. A real defeat of the USA would probably shock americans to the core. Fully expect them to lash out with nuclear weapons if such a thing ever happens.

▲

srean 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Yeah, because the USA pulled out.

Is that and act of victory or defeat ?

▲

matheusmoreira 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not victory, but it sure as hell isn't defeat either. More like a tactical retreat or something.

Defeat is the US military getting routed and decimated. Defeat is US aircraft carriers sinking to the bottom of the ocean. Defeat is Washington getting nuked.

What actually happens is the opposite. Americans show up and inflict staggering casualties while suffering a relatively small anount. Then they suddenly leave for some idiotic reason like the president wanting reelection.

America's enemies don't need to actually win, they just need to resist as long as possible and drive up the costs of the war via asymmetric warfare.

	▲	bothers 35 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That just means the military, aircraft carriers, all that, were so ineffective that the enemy didn't even need to bother destroying them to achieve victory. It doesn't matter what would have happened if various parameters were different, if only we had gone all out this one time, and the point of war isn't the act itself of making cool trucks shoot at each other, and it's silly to argue that your home isn't insecure after a thief absconds with your valuables, but failed to pick the lock you put on the chest-high fence gate. (Pardon my silly phrasing, I mean no hostility or condescension!)
	▲	firesteelrain 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]