To "win" a war you must have specific and measurable goals. If your politicians start a war but cannot articulate such goals, you're going to lose. They'll assure you they will win, but they've already lost. They are bad at their jobs, why did you hire these morons?
Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
21–30 of 171 posts
Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
#22The question should be "why is it so hard for the US not to start wars".
America didn't have to do this. And now they cry that nobody is helping them.
Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “special military operation” euphemism that both the US/Russia used in Iran/Ukraine does have a degree of truth. These wars are really military engagements with directional objectives rather than truly existential wars with binary outcomes. Modern wars really resemble Rome’s Germanic wars more than the Punic ones.
I mean Russia definitely keeps losing very many soldiers every day, I don't think that is comparable at all. It's completely different from US vs Iran.
This comment epitomises one of the reasons why the US does not and cannot win any war against a peer adversary.
Flawed data.
Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
#24"You lose 100% of wars you don't wage", Don Gretzky
Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
#25Because the military industrial complex is acting like socialist jobs program. If the USA could produce 4000 tomahawks per day, instead of 400 per year the Iran thing would be over. Also USA is very sensitive about the other side's civilian deaths.
> Also USA is very sensitive about the other side's civilian deaths.
I'd argue that it's not sensitive enough. We've bombed schools and desalination plants.
If your goal in a war is to topple a regime and prop up a more friendly one, then you can't just bomb them to submission. All that does is topple the regime and replace it with a probably worse one. You need to convince the population that the new regime is actually better, and you don't convince anyone of anything by killing their kids.
Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
#26Depends on the war. Venezuela was quickly won.
Venezuela was purchased. Delcy. The rest was performative.
Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
#27It's not exactly rocket surgery, is it? Because they are fighting on the other side of the world. I feel like the article glosses over this way too quickly. It's not surprising the US aren't winning. It's surprising they are at all able to do something that resembles waging war at that distance. Wars are incredibly hard to fight away from home. On the other side of the world? There is basically only one country in th…
> There is basically only ever one country in the history of ever that has been able to do that I guess you mean the British empire? Or Dutch? Maybe Spanish?
Or the romans or the Mongols?
Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
#28In WW2 thousands of troops could die in a single day and we wouldn't know their names until months or years later. Today a single troop dies and it is the first story on the national news. Millions of civilians also died, just the amount of soldier deaths would be the equivalent of 2-3 September 11s (worldwide) every day for a period of 6 years. So we say "war" but modern conflicts are absolutely nothing compared to…
The “special military operation” euphemism that both the US/Russia used in Iran/Ukraine does have a degree of truth. These wars are really military engagements with directional objectives rather than truly existential wars with binary outcomes. Modern wars really resemble Rome’s Germanic wars more than the Punic ones.
Russia's goal is direct annexation of about quarter of the Ukrainian territory and installing a lifelong puppet regime to control the other three quarters. Ukrainians stand to lose not just their voice and any semblance of economic prosperity, but also their very identity.
With the exception of extreme cases like Gaza, it doesn't get more binary than that.
Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
#29I assumed the point of war these days was largely just money making. "Winning" puts an end to the grift - it's far more profitable to keep a nice long term rolling boil going.
Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?
#30In WW2 thousands of troops could die in a single day and we wouldn't know their names until months or years later. Today a single troop dies and it is the first story on the national news. Millions of civilians also died, just the amount of soldier deaths would be the equivalent of 2-3 September 11s (worldwide) every day for a period of 6 years. So we say "war" but modern conflicts are absolutely nothing compared to…
The “special military operation” euphemism that both the US/Russia used in Iran/Ukraine does have a degree of truth. These wars are really military engagements with directional objectives rather than truly existential wars with binary outcomes. Modern wars really resemble Rome’s Germanic wars more than the Punic ones.
For Ukraine it's very much an existential war. If they lose, Ukraine will cease to exist. The only way of winning is, well, winning this war. It is also very much a real war, with hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides, a true massacre not seen in Europe since WW2.
Trumps stupid war on Iran on the other hand is really just some air strikes, and Iran can win by just not losing, which is easy, because the US will not invade.