Citation needed.
4 Likes
Strange place to look for one, but here you go:
It’s always struck me as odd that the world’s most bellicose nation, with the infinite military budget and all the best toys seems to be entirely incapable of actually winning a war.
It’s almost like the winning of wars isn’t the point.
1 Like
Hey… we won some wars in our day! We won World War 2, didn’t we? I mean, the Soviets “helped” I guess… /s
4 Likes
The USA, for all its military might, has been notoriously bad at winning wars ever since WWII (and we can argue how much the Soviet Union contributed to that by keeping the larger part of the German military off the Western allies’ troops’ back in the European theatre). Certainly if we discount invasions of tiny countries like Panama or Grenada, and actions in the open desert where the other side doesn’t seem to be even trying. Against committed opponents in more difficult terrain, the best the USA appears to be able to achieve are inconclusive ties if not outright getting-their-ass-kickeds. It’s probably just as well that so far no US president has been crazy enough to invade North Korea because that would definitely end very badly for the visiting team, and the North Koreans know it.
Think of it as repeated stimulus packages for the manufacturers of military gadgets, and/or advertising of the good stuff to those nations that buy said stuff in order to actually win wars.
Generally, the idea is that before you go to war abroad you decide what must happen so you’re done and can go home. For NATO in Afghanistan, that never seems to have been figured out in earnest, which is why that war has been allowed to drag on for 20 years and is now ending in an inconclusive tie (if we want to be charitable). Certainly the champagne corks will be popping at Taliban HQ because from their POV, they’re the winners; once the NATO troops are gone they get to do whatever they please once more.
2 Likes
I have a funny feeling that “persistent military footprint” has a “What I told you was true; from a certain point of view” very specific definition somewhat different from what a naïve English speaker would expect from reading it according to standard dictionary definitions.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
