5 ms·
> The US is not good at wars. What? We can kick pretty much any country's ass six ways from Sunday. We admittedly have trouble with having the political fort
by angrybits 11y ago
> The US is not good at wars.
What? We can kick pretty much any country's ass six ways from Sunday. We admittedly have trouble with having the political fortitude to fully break our adversary's will to fight back, but I think that is a systemic issue with a faster flow of information (starting with Vietnam). It's not necessarily a US-specific problem, and it certainly doesn't mean the US is not "good at war".
While we can agree to disagree on the feasibility of a military solution, I can assure you that it's the threat of that possibility that drives diplomacy. Diplomacy without the threat of war to back it is more akin to begging than anything else.
- awfullyjohn 11y agoI'd read this as "The US is not good at cleaning up after wars" more than whether the US is good at "kicking ass"
- angrybits 11y agoIt's the way things are. You have to subdue the opposing side completely, or the war never ends. Doing this means essentially beating them mercilessly until they have no choice to fully capitulate. It's not that we lack the capability, it's that soccer moms don't want to see that shit on CNN. War is an ugly business, and we seem to have lost our stomach for it. Time will tell if it is to our benefit or determent.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- moistgorilla 11y agonaive about what?
- emp_zealoth 11y agoWell, ask the soviets how it worked out for them. I'm sorry, but your military is nowhere near as badass when it comes to subduction and ruthlessness. And the soviets failed spectacularly.
- selimthegrim 11y agoOh really, so those Iraqi franc-tireurs and IEDs were just simulations then then? Maybe Baudrillard is still alive....winning a war involves having an endgame in line with victory objectives, and the US can't rule over countries that don't have a coherent political structure in place to dicker over costs and benefits upon exit.