5 ms·

Please. The US couldn't even "decapitate" Taliban after 19 years and 1 trillion dollars. Nor could the Soviet Union. Nor could the British before that. You can'

by m0zg 6y ago

Please. The US couldn't even "decapitate" Taliban after 19 years and 1 trillion dollars. Nor could the Soviet Union. Nor could the British before that. You can't win a land war in 21st century without turning the place into a glazed desert, which is not going to happen due to the proximity of South Korea and due to the fact that the American people aren't totally nuts. The US tried this several times and failed every time, including in Korea. Kim Jong Un will get his ICBMs eventually, and there's nothing anybody can do about that. Better plan for that eventuality now.

howlgarnish 6y ago
There is no clear endgame in Afghanistan, other than "the beatings will continue until moral improves". In North Korea, on the other hand, the endgame is clear: the downfall of the Kim regime, mostly likely followed by integration into South Korea (if China allows, and that's a mighty big if). You're not going to have ordinary North Koreans head for the hills and turn into partisan guerrillas fighting for Juche.
- m0zg 6y ago
  > You're not going to have ordinary North Koreans head for the hills and turn into partisan guerrillas fighting for Juche Famous last words preceding every single failed US military intervention. In fact, preceding most other military interventions in other countries. Probably what Hitler thought as he was invading the USSR. Or what the USSR thought when invading Afghanistan (where, by the way, one of my uncles served, and got his right arm blown off). Truly, those who have not studied history are doomed to repeat it.
- La1n 6y ago
  >You're not going to have ordinary North Koreans head for the hills and turn into partisan guerrillas fighting for Juche. Maybe, but they might be willing to fight invaders. The Korean War that killed 2-3 million civilians doesn't make the US seem like the good guy. The US will be seen as imperialist invaders by the ordinary citizen of the DPRK.
  - howlgarnish 6y ago
    The key difference here is the existence of South Korea. Sure, if the US were to waltz in alone, they'd be treated as the invaders they are. But every North Korean has been fed a steady diet of "Korea is one!" since birth and they're all well aware that their kinsmen in the South are materially better off in every conceivable way -- so when said kinsmen lead the invasion and form the new government, they're not going to get violently rejected in the same way. The fall of East Germany is instructive: while that imploded internally instead of being triggered from the outside, there was absolutely zero violent resistance to West Germany coming in and essentially taking over. North Korea isn't going to be same level of cakewalk, but it's closer to this end of the spectrum than Afghanistan or Iraq.
jayd16 6y ago
Destruction is easy. Occupations are what cost money.
adventured 6y ago
The US won a land war against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi military, twice, easily. You can't win a guerrilla war against a motivated foe (which is what the situation in Afghanistan is), without a long-term total occupation and cultural cleansing. The US could take out the Taliban - it would require a 300,000 to 500,000 occupying force and total cultural change to what Afghanistan is, which would require brutal, horrific crimes against humanity, to strip Afghanistan of many of its current beliefs and culture. The US hasn't primarily been trying to destroy the Taliban (the US can't do it without that mass force and it knows that), it has been primarily trying to hold the Taliban at bay while trying to build up the central government of Afghanistan. This is sort of a replay of the same failed strategy in Vietnam (when the US left Vietnam the south held the extreme majority of territory and population; the south folded rapidly regardless, which is exactly what is going to happen to the government of Afghanistan, unfortunately).
- m0zg 6y ago
  > The US won a land war against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi military, twice, easily. That's one way to look at it. Another (and IMO more correct) way to look at it is that the US lost there once (hence the second invasion), and will lose again in 10-20 years as the Iraqi elites wait it out and things revert to the mean. Oh, and we lost in Syria as well, although not funding and not arming ISIS did help to alleviate some of the problems in the last few years. Assad is still right where he was, and he will remain there for decades to come. This is much like Napoleon "winning" the war against Russia in 1812. Captured Moscow. Pissed on the floor in the Kremlin. And then he got chased back all the way to Paris and exiled. Except in the Middle East it's even worse than that. The US tends to forget that those folks represent much older civilizations and they live on a different time scale. They can literally sit it out for 20-30 years while we sink trillions of taxpayer dollars there and while our soldiers are torn apart with an occasional IED. They also culturally don't give a flying fuck about "democracy" or whatever. There's really not a hell of a lot that can be done about that, and there's no way to "win" under such circumstances. If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by. That's why there won't be a permanent "victory" there, in any sense of the word.
  - 6y ago

by m0zg 6y ago

howlgarnish 6y ago

There is no clear endgame in Afghanistan, other than "the beatings will continue until moral improves". In North Korea, on the other hand, the endgame is clear: the downfall of the Kim regime, mostly likely followed by integration into South Korea (if China allows, and that's a mighty big if). You're not going to have ordinary North Koreans head for the hills and turn into partisan guerrillas fighting for Juche.

m0zg 6y ago
> You're not going to have ordinary North Koreans head for the hills and turn into partisan guerrillas fighting for Juche Famous last words preceding every single failed US military intervention. In fact, preceding most other military interventions in other countries. Probably what Hitler thought as he was invading the USSR. Or what the USSR thought when invading Afghanistan (where, by the way, one of my uncles served, and got his right arm blown off). Truly, those who have not studied history are doomed to repeat it.
La1n 6y ago
>You're not going to have ordinary North Koreans head for the hills and turn into partisan guerrillas fighting for Juche. Maybe, but they might be willing to fight invaders. The Korean War that killed 2-3 million civilians doesn't make the US seem like the good guy. The US will be seen as imperialist invaders by the ordinary citizen of the DPRK.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  The key difference here is the existence of South Korea. Sure, if the US were to waltz in alone, they'd be treated as the invaders they are. But every North Korean has been fed a steady diet of "Korea is one!" since birth and they're all well aware that their kinsmen in the South are materially better off in every conceivable way -- so when said kinsmen lead the invasion and form the new government, they're not going to get violently rejected in the same way. The fall of East Germany is instructive: while that imploded internally instead of being triggered from the outside, there was absolutely zero violent resistance to West Germany coming in and essentially taking over. North Korea isn't going to be same level of cakewalk, but it's closer to this end of the spectrum than Afghanistan or Iraq.

jayd16 6y ago

Destruction is easy. Occupations are what cost money.

adventured 6y ago

The US won a land war against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi military, twice, easily. You can't win a guerrilla war against a motivated foe (which is what the situation in Afghanistan is), without a long-term total occupation and cultural cleansing. The US could take out the Taliban - it would require a 300,000 to 500,000 occupying force and total cultural change to what Afghanistan is, which would require brutal, horrific crimes against humanity, to strip Afghanistan of many of its current beliefs and culture. The US hasn't primarily been trying to destroy the Taliban (the US can't do it without that mass force and it knows that), it has been primarily trying to hold the Taliban at bay while trying to build up the central government of Afghanistan. This is sort of a replay of the same failed strategy in Vietnam (when the US left Vietnam the south held the extreme majority of territory and population; the south folded rapidly regardless, which is exactly what is going to happen to the government of Afghanistan, unfortunately).

m0zg 6y ago
> The US won a land war against Saddam Hussein's Iraqi military, twice, easily. That's one way to look at it. Another (and IMO more correct) way to look at it is that the US lost there once (hence the second invasion), and will lose again in 10-20 years as the Iraqi elites wait it out and things revert to the mean. Oh, and we lost in Syria as well, although not funding and not arming ISIS did help to alleviate some of the problems in the last few years. Assad is still right where he was, and he will remain there for decades to come. This is much like Napoleon "winning" the war against Russia in 1812. Captured Moscow. Pissed on the floor in the Kremlin. And then he got chased back all the way to Paris and exiled. Except in the Middle East it's even worse than that. The US tends to forget that those folks represent much older civilizations and they live on a different time scale. They can literally sit it out for 20-30 years while we sink trillions of taxpayer dollars there and while our soldiers are torn apart with an occasional IED. They also culturally don't give a flying fuck about "democracy" or whatever. There's really not a hell of a lot that can be done about that, and there's no way to "win" under such circumstances. If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by. That's why there won't be a permanent "victory" there, in any sense of the word.
- 6y ago