harmonica
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2017
- 43,841
- 20,010
- 2,300
hahahhahahahah--YOU are a war gamer--thinking there is always a winner and loser........you still don't get it!!! hahhahahha.......you don't understand...you don't know shit about history or wars...a lot of times there are no clear winners or losers--ESPECIALLY in wars against terrorism/counter insurgency/etcmost modern wars are not total wars and /or do not have a clear winnerThey aren't afraid of the jab... They're afraid of the perceived unproven shit that is in it.Afraid of a jab, one third afraid of a jab.
No wonder Americans cannot win war anymore.
And how are the National Guardsmen passing the body fat tests?
One-Third Of US Military Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine: Pentagon
Pentagon officials said Wednesday that about one-third of the US military are declining to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, despite significant coronavirus infection levels in the forces.www.ndtv.com
Yes, I am sure they think gravity is a conspiracy too.
Never going to win a war again.
The U.S. not winning wars has nothing to do with this or anything like it.
The U.S. doesn't win wars because it doesn't try to and hasn't since the nuclear age began.
It won the First Gulf War, all objectives achieved and with far less cost than we had anticipated, with the added wisdom not to expand the objectives and invade and occupy Iraq.
Bush the Elder was far more intelligent than his son.
But then I was in this war, no war has been won by the US since I left the military.
And no I cannot return to save you.
...you prove to know nothing about history
won:
NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
you weren't in PG1-or else you have lost your mind
Indeed, even the Gulf War or Desert Storm as some call it was not a total war, the objections were limited to removing an occupying force from the territory of an ally not the removal of a regime and occupation of Iraq. Accomplished with far less loss than expected because Bush the Elder used overwhelming force and build the largest coalition since World War Two.
The failure in Afghanistan was a problem of American cultural navel-gazing and myopia, the policymakers never really bothered to understand the nature and history of that country. This is a growing problem with American culture writ large. Had America done so it would have realized the nation-building aspect of the war policy was doomed to failure, in point the idea that rural areas with various competing ethnic and religious groups with little acquaintance with modernity could be occupied and brought under the control of a central government in Kabul. As America learned the hard way that was never going to happen. Add to that America foolishly also turned it into an idiot war on drugs, attacking poppy production rather than co-opting such by purchasing such and more alienation followed. Americans never understood the complex ethnic rivalries, centuries-old that are in the very DNA of the nation.
Moving forward the best strategy is to maintain aid to the central government to hold cities (though they will always be under terror attack) and then do what the British Empire did so successfully after her failed invasions of Afghanistan, bribe or support any ethnic group not antithetical to American interests to fight those who are and then hunt with drone or special forces high profile figures dedicated to global jihad.
Keep a light profile in the rural areas.
The Iraq war was probably always doomed to failure no matter what the US did and it was never in US interests to pursue it in the first place as Saddam had basically been strategically neutered. But here, once again, it was American ignorance about other cultures that really turned it into a disaster. There seemed to be no comprehension whatsoever of the deep Sunni Shia divides which had been manifest through all of history. No reflection on how that could erupt as it did into mass religious bloodletting. Add to that the titanically stupid decision to disband the Iraq Army rather than decapitate the political leadership and use the army to help maintain control in occupation, as Iraqi junior officers offerred and boom! The US created an instant Sunni insurgency with a well-armed, disgruntled former army who had not been defeated but simply did not fight for Saddam. Indeed the US was so foolish they did not even secure mass explosives in army bases in the initial stages of occupation.
This is perhaps one of the most poorly thought out and ill-conceived occupations in the history of war.
..so the US WILL NOT win a lot of wars--especially like in Afghanistan---HEY---Russia and the Brits did not win there either!!!!! = like I said, you--most people--don't know much about history or wars
Actually, if you read about it the British in the 19th century had several failed invasions, one so disastrous only one man and his horse made it back to British India. But subsequently, the British did control Afghanistan to her policy objectives, not through occupation but rather by supporting and bribing those ethnic groups which had no designs on the territory controlled by the British or alliances with Russia (who the British feared would control Afghanistan in 'The Great Game') The British wisely did not change strategic goals but rather tactics. They started a policy of no occupation but sending advisors and arming - bribing such groups not hostile to British policy to fight those groups who did have such designs.
The policy worked for decades.
And the US should have learned from such and rather than trying to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland had a much lighter if meaner footprint in the country.
lighter footprint = nothing/do difference --no guaranteed win ...combat/war is not like making a cheese sandwich
--and you think that would WIN in Afghanistan??????!!!!!!!!?????
You are lost in a vedio game idea of war.
The term a win is meaningless in the long game of policy with such nonexistential wars.
The point is to achieve your policy objectives as the British did after their disastrous invasions. America can too if her policy objectives are rational, no nation-building and a considered view of just what are the objectives?
Pretty simple actually, never allow the country to be a refuge of global jihad supporting - bribing any group who has a beef with those harboring such ambitions, and there are many, and keep most cities and Kabul out of the hands of the Taliban. Though it will always be subject to a terror attack. This does not require the mass ground deployment nation-building or attempting to take rural territory does and can largely be achieved with technical assistance, military aid, and special forces - drones helping hunt international jihadists.
