2 ms·

with the exception of Iraq, afghanistan, korea, cuba, and vietnam at no real point in these battles was our technological sophistication or "firepower" a decisi

with the exception of Iraq, afghanistan, korea, cuba, and vietnam at no real point in these battles was our technological sophistication or "firepower" a decisive capability that led to a victory. I'd say this makes a strong case that the US is exceptional at state to state warfare but struggles with prolonged counter-insurgencies, "nation building" and covert ops. All but Cuba had their acting governments' conventional forces beat down fairly effectively with little ability to inflict major damage on US forces.

ethbr0 4y ago
If the criteria for success is "a stable state with high security for all citizens" then any conventional military is a necessary but insufficient tool for the job. Communist doctrine said it best: military-political aims can only be solved by a fusion of military and political effort. Failure to allocate equally prioritized effort, by ensuring all leaders of both efforts appreciate the duality, results in an inability to achieve desired outcomes. And based on historical outcomes of multiple alternatives... I'm not convinced that forcefully-catalyzed political regime change and state rebuilding can be successfully accomplished without (distastefully severe) political indoctrination. You have to change a lot of minds to do so, including some that don't want to be changed, in less than a generation.