Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would imagine no gang in Haiti wants to (or is even capable of) a ground war with the US Army, so the "intervention" would be 90% aid and 10% a show of power. The mechanics and operations of a ground war against a civillian population are terrible. "surely the US will dominate because we have tanks and missiles and nuclear bombs!" The net situation seems to me to be that you're fighting in civillian-dense areas a…
I don't think people really understand or think about what happened in Afghanistan. Like maybe we were just holding back or something. The final drone strike we carried out in Afghanistan is both deeply symbolic and enlightening. We killed a guy, his family, and bystanders including 7 children. The reason is that somebody thought the water bottles the guy was loading into his truck looked suspicious, so that was a go…
I hope that's not true. I know it's more present for me because I lost family there, but, I was against the wars long before that and I'm against them long after he died.
> The point of this is that we certainly weren't "holding back" or anything of the sort.
You misunderestimate the power of the US Military. We could have reduced the entire country to ashes, and it probably would have cost a fraction of what it ultimately cost the US.
> But ultimately winning an occupation against a civilian population that is both hostile and armed, is basically impossible.
Yes.