Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

smartest_kobold t1_jbidg5k wrote

Reply to comment by Open-Industry-8396 in Kusterand and Pappas vote to keep troops in Syria despite no authorization to have them there. Why? by klem18

The "Jewish Space Laser" lady is voting here. So the appeal to authority is very questionable.

Let's look at our military strategists. They all work for the Pentagon, so they've got nothing but incentive to keep the war machine rolling, despite not winning a war in 75 years.

−2

ArbitraryOrder t1_jbiw9ju wrote

>despite not winning a war in 75 years

I see you know absolutely nothing about US Military intervention. Here is every war completed and inarguably won since WW2:

  • Korea (1950-1953)
  • Lebanon (1958)
  • Dominican Republic (Civil War, 1965-1966)
  • Korea DMZ (1967-1969)
  • Grenada (1983)
  • Libya (1986)
  • Tanker War (1987-1988)
  • Panama (1989-1990)
  • Gulf War (1990-1991)
  • Iraqi no-Fly Zone (1991-2003), Prevented Saddam from commiting larger genocide
  • Haiti (1994-1995)
  • Kosovo (1998-1999)
  • Pakistan (2004-2018), Pakistan asked us to intervene against the Taliban
  • Somali Pirates (2009-2016)
  • Libya (2011)
  • Uganda (Lord's Resistance Army, 2011-2017)
  • Iraq ISIL (2014-2021)
  • Libya (2015-2019)

This is just wars in which the United States formerly sent troops to a situation and that went out way both on the battlefield and politically afterwards. Normally wars won are shorter and less memorable, but not always.

The list of ongoing Conflicts are as follows:

  • Yemen, (2002 - Present)
  • Somali, against Mujahideen, al Shabab, ISIS (2007 - Present)
  • Syria, against ISIS, Russia, and Assad Regime (2014 - Present)
  • Niger, to stop Boko Haram (2018 - Present)

Wars with mixed outcomes that ended:

  • Bosnia/Croatia (1992-1995), this war was a stalemate effectively which ended in the Dayton Accords and an akward situation for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • Iraq (2003-2011), Saddam and Ba'ath party were gone. Iraq got a democratic government despite it being shaky, and overall less violence, but ISIS and other such groups were formed from this conflict, which forced the US to return in 2014.

For the United States, most losses come not from lack of Military might but from lack of political will, because that is how smaller groups beat larger nations in war. The definite losses:

  • Veitnam (1965-1973 US, 1955-1975 Overall), remember we didn't start this war, it was ongoing before we got involved.
  • Loatian Civil War (1959-1975)
  • Permesta Rebellion Indonesia (1958-1961)
  • Bay of Pigs (1961)
  • Somali (1992-1995)
  • Afghanistan (2001-2021), succeed in initial mission, but couldn't hold the country forever from Taliban as the geography is difficult to control and other geopolitical goals became more pressing.
−6

smartest_kobold t1_jbj5s7c wrote

>I see you know absolutely nothing about US Military intervention. Here is every war completed and inarguably won since WW2:

Korea was a tie. This list shows we are great at installing a US friendly dictator quickly or getting stuck in a protracted war. Six of these "wins" are Iraq or Libya.

>This is just wars in which the United States formerly sent troops to a situation and that went out way both on the battlefield and politically afterwards. Normally wars won are shorter and less memorable, but not always. The list of ongoing Conflicts are as follows:

Helping our BFF MBS conduct a genocide in Yemen is not really a military win, so much as a war crime.

>Wars with mixed outcomes that ended:

We're still in Iraq even though they asked us to leave.

>For the United States, most losses come not from lack of Military might but from lack of political will

You think we could've won Vietnam, Laos, or Afghanistan if we'd only had more political will?You think the US could've conducted an unprovoked military conquest of Cuba at the height of the Cold War without nuclear exchange?

Now, we did eventually "win" in Indonesia with a brutal right wing coup, but... Uh... brutal right wing coup.

1

ArbitraryOrder t1_jbjac4s wrote

>Korea was a tie.

By no means can you claim that winning half of the peninsula when it was completely occupied a tie.

>Six of these "wins" are Iraq or Libya.

And? They are still separate wars with distinct missions.

>This list shows we are great at installing a US friendly dictator quickly or getting stuck in a protracted war.

The list really isn't as simple as you make it sound. Only in one of these Wars did the United States seek to install a dictatorship where a democratic regime was in place, the Dominican Civil War, and in others like in Indonesia, Veitnam, and Libya, it wasn't really a set of good choices, just useful or not.

In far more conflicts, the United States overthrew dictatorship to restore/set up democracy: Panama, Iraq, Grenada, Kosovo, Bosnia/Croatia, Somali (attempted), Afghanistan (while we were there), Korea.

>Helping our BFF MBS conduct a genocide in Yemen is not really a military win, so much as a war crime.

Did I say every War was moral? Fuck no. And the Military can win an immoral conflict. Also that is ongoing so it has no determination.

>We're still in Iraq even though they asked us to leave.

Some of them asked us to leave, but many asked us to stay. It isn't as cut and dry as you pretend it is.

>You think we could've won Vietnam, Laos, or Afghanistan if we'd only had more political will?

With Afghanistan unquestionably yes, that was the status quo. Veitnam and Laos are more questionable, but like all guerrilla fighters against superior forces their goal was to make us not want to fight more than to beat us militarily. That is the Total Defense Strategy, making the occupying forces quit before they can gain total control.

>Now, we did eventually "win" in Indonesia with a brutal right wing coup, but... Uh... brutal right wing coup.

Sure, but we were talking about Wars, not coups. They aren't the same thing.

−1