Kusterand and Pappas vote to keep troops in Syria despite no authorization to have them there. Why?smartest_kobold t1_jbj5s7c wrote
Reply to comment by ArbitraryOrder in Kusterand and Pappas vote to keep troops in Syria despite no authorization to have them there. Why? by klem18
>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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments