"My opinion is that US is up for rude awakening on ineffectiveness of US army when/if real fighting starts." Possibly. Though units that fought in both Afghani

"My opinion is that US is up for rude awakening on ineffectiveness of US army when/if real fighting starts." Possibly. Though units that fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq during those time periods would argue with you about the fighting. What can be said definitively is that the US largely fought in small unit actions/light infantry compared to the Fulda Gap style battles foretold in Tom Clancy novels. The US military is huge though, and has incredible resources it can bring to bear in a conflict. Logistically, the US is unmatched. It has the reach of an empire and can bring force to most regions in a matter of a few hours. Its deployed military technology is still much superior than any potential opponents despite their best efforts. Would losses be huge? Any peer conflict will have huge losses (even assuming the conflict doesn't break past the nuclear threshold). The war in Ukraine has resulted in roughly 500K casualties. Even a conflict over Taiwan, which would largely be a naval battle, might see high US casualties. [Note; Fallejuah took a long time because there wasn't unity of command; two separate battles, different organizations, and a desire to appear civilian-friendly. If the US was fighting to recapture Crimea, there would be no concern about appearing civilized. People need to remember Sherman's march to the sea, or the battle for Hue. The US is fine with inflicting huge casualties, and will even suffer them willingly when the ardor of war has infused the population.]