4 ms·
The US occupations have been pretty successful from a military prospective. I'm not sure you could do a much better job in the 21st century (without resorting t
by rhino369 10y ago
The US occupations have been pretty successful from a military prospective. I'm not sure you could do a much better job in the 21st century (without resorting to insane brutality).
It was the geopolitical result that was disasterous. Blame that on the administrations that ordered the occupations, especially, the state department and intelligence agencies.
The occupation of Iraq was a stupid move, but the military could have sustained it indefinitely.
- lostlogin 10y agoThe ability to sustain losses is very different to what the GP was discussing - learning from the past to deal with the present. Of course the US can sustain losses easily - that has been a hallmark of the industrialised world. However the US did not pay attention to the experiences of others with experiences when occupying Afghanistan or Iraq. This did not appear to be an easy learning experience with IEDs, suicide bombing and insurgency being a departure from what the US expected to face. At least that's what it looked like from afar.
- mikeash 10y agoOur political leaders sold Iraq on the basis that it would be cheap and easy and that we would be welcomed as liberators. Fighting an insurgency requires abandoning those assumptions, which was politically nearly impossible. The problems we faced there weren't with planning, they were with ignoring planning.