Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 171 posts

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#101

Post by simiones »

greenoracle9 wrote: post #47

It depends on what "win" means. The US can win the opening military phase pretty decisively. The part that keeps failing is turning that into a political end state that can survive after the shooting slows down.

> The US can win the opening military phase pretty decisively.

Can they? Iran seems to have destroyed them pretty decisively, after the literal first day of casualties (which were happening while Iran thought it had just reached an agreement that would prevent a war, per the Omani negotiators at that time).

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#102

Post by dh2022 »

wasfgwp wrote: post #84
dh2022 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, US did not destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan. So I do not think US won much in Afghanistan (for ex. bin Laden was killed in Pakistani)

They occupied the country and mostly/almost did accomplish that. 2002 to ~2005 were reasonably clam. Then their failures to bulld a stable government brought the Taliban back.

US did not occupy the country- they occupied the big cities and a built a huge airbase. Countryside was in Taliban hands for the most part.

US never closed the border with Pakistani - and the talibans retreated in Paki when under attack and then went back in Afghanistan when things calmed down.

In Afghanistan US won as much as it won in Vietnam.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#103

Post by jmclnx »

dudefeliciano wrote: post #70
jmclnx wrote: post #11

First the meaning of "war" needs to be defined. FWIW, in the US, only Congress can declare war. IIRC, that really has not happened since Korea. Also since WW2, none of these countries posed a real danger to the US Public, plus people in the US are not invested. Compare what the public in the US had to do in WW2 compared to these "wars". If the life style of the Average US person is affected like in WW2, then you can…

> First the meaning of "war" needs to be defined. FWIW, in the US, only Congress can declare war. The Korean War was not approved by congress. And I don't see the point of bringing semantics into it. Are you saying that the Vietnam War, to take one, was not a war because there was no formal declaration of war?

I was not sure about Korea, but I am sure your are correct.

For Vietnam, yes, if you look back the Vietnam War was officially called a "Police Action".

The politicians back then knew it was not a "real war" because war was not declared, so they came up with a new name. Since then, the politicians do not even pretend to follow the law.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#104

Post by Jamesbeam »

oggreen wrote: post #2

In 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…

> modern conflicts are absolutely nothing compared to what has happened historically.

‎> vs. the send entire generations off to die methods of old.

Feel free to click and zoom yourself through the generational pile of almost a quarter million dead Russians below, armchair general.

https://200.zona.media/

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#105

Post by tencentshill »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #96
dralley wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even understand what this comment is supposed to be saying in relation to the previous one.

Look at the body exchange ratios between The Ukraine and Russia. Jan 29th: 1000 - 38 Feb 26th: 1000 - 35 Apr 9th: 1000 - 41 May 15th: 526 - 41 Jun 18th: 522 - 33 Jul 16th: 501 - 31 Total: 4549 - 219

The only sources I can find for that are all Russian. Wikipedia (Which I assume you will dismiss out of hand) says it's complicated to determine at best, as they both hide information and boost propaganda. At least don't state it as fact. No one actually knows, which is why citing sources is helpful so that weight can be added.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#106

Post by IAmBroom »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #57
enopod_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wil…

It's interesting how casually we replace concern for the population with concern for the political entity. No, the Ukrainian identity will not cease to exist with the replacement of the political entity.

You are stunningly unaware or maliciously ignoring the cultural genocide that Russia is engaging in, inside taken territories.

Children are routinely taken from parents and shipped off to Russia. Parents are encarcerated, conscripted, or slaughtered.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#107

Post by k310 »

Wars are not declared wars since WWII. They are instruments of international or domestic political projection. Lately, a distraction from damning evidence of the largest illicit sex, blackmail and money-laundering operation in recorded history.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" a lie. "Weapons of Mass Distraction" a cover-up, and a mistake about to grow bigger than Putin's "walk in the park" in Ukraine.

A war based on politics and not national survival is unwinnable.

Ask Putin, Trump, Mussolini and others.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#108

Post by IAmBroom »

fg137 wrote: post #46

Is the US expected to win wars? We all know how Vietnam went. Maybe consider that before asking the "why" question? Is Russia expected to win wars? And I would rather see none of these stupid wars start in the first place.

What a strange comment.

Are you saying no one expects the US to win a war? Or that no one hopes they will? Honestly, I can't tell what you are implying, except "war bad".

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#109

Post by atmavatar »

RenThraysk wrote: post #80
microtonal wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, where is the enriched uranium then? For now it's only a setback and it will make Iran only more determined to make a nuke.

Iran is never not going to want to make a nuke. How much determinism they have is irrelevant.

Under Obama's deal with them, Iran was quite content to not have nukes. Had the deal not been torn up, they'd likely never acquire nuclear capability in our lifetimes.

Trump's unprovoked attacks on them were not only extremely costly due to the Strait of Hormuz closing, but it underscored why Iran absolutely needs nukes to protect themselves. It's virtually guaranteed they'll attain nuclear weapons inside the next decade now.

That's what happens when you elect a narcissistic fraudster to run your country and its foreign policy.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#110

Post by RenThraysk »

atmavatar wrote: post #109
RenThraysk wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran is never not going to want to make a nuke. How much determinism they have is irrelevant.

Under Obama's deal with them, Iran was quite content to not have nukes. Had the deal not been torn up, they'd likely never acquire nuclear capability in our lifetimes. Trump's unprovoked attacks on them were not only extremely costly due to the Strait of Hormuz closing, but it underscored why Iran absolutely needs nukes to protect themselves. It's virtually guaranteed they'll attain nuclear weapons inside the next de…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN