The US has lost all but two of the wars it has committed itself to since WW2, with Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point. What’s another mark upon that record, better to cut losses than be further humiliated at this point.
The empire is already burning let’s not send further legions into Germania.
Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point
It’s even less stellar than that. Korea was a stalemate. Desert Storm achieved its limited objectives but didn’t resolve the underlying problems, so we got Gulf War 2 (which had poorly defined objectives and which failed on a far greater scale).
There were far smaller skirmishes such as the Grenada invasion and the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia that were arguably more successful at their near-term, limited aims.
If there’s any lesson to be learned, it’s that the Powell Doctrine should be reinstated. Also, that imperialist interference is a loser’s game, and initiatives by broad international coalitions are less likely to degenerate into clusterfucks.
I broadly agree except with Korea. The Korea was successful in its initial aims, the original end goal was to restablize the border and push the Norks to a higher parallel. The problems can be largely laid down at the feet of general MacArthur who wanted to annihilate the Norks, basically everyone disagreed but was unwilling to override him. This resulted in the Chinese getting involved which is why actually wiping out the Norks was not on the table originally, they were supposed to be used as a buffer state. Eventually MacArthur gets fired by Truman and people who aren’t stupid and don’t want to nuke Manchuria take charge, the warfront stabilizes and the modern borders are established. Maybe the active war couldve gone on for longer but by that point basically everyone involved was done with the conflict and figured that nobody winning outright was acceptable, UN and US succeeded at the initial goal if a bit lower in latitude and the Soviet bloc keeps the Norks.
I think this is different given the context of this war. It’s not an insurgency or an unfamiliar jungle it’s just a super power losing against a “lesser” military. In the process also losing influence over 20% of the world’s oil supply, which is the oil that gives the American petrodollar its value. This stupid ass and unnecessary war could change the power structure of the entire world.
It’s still effectively an asymmetric war something that basically favors home field advantage to the point of absurdity. Winning is basically impossible given that Iran has been preparing for this exact scenario for decades, any escalation will worsen the look of the US since the current dipshits in charge don’t know how to do jack shit.
Honestly pulling out before it turns into the US equivalent of the Soviet-Afghan war is basically the only way forward that doesn’t lead towards federal collapse IMO. Those in Congress have an active incentive to prevent that from happening while also working as a great propaganda win for those who side against it. The damage is already done cutting losses is the best that can be done at this point.
Our? Nah Americas. Personally I’m a Californian nationalist and recognized that the US has to collapse for my wants to come true. Problem is I’m also annoyed by incompetency and wish I could be wrong so as to not scorn my ancestors who actually had a grudging faith in the government. Regardless we’ll have to wait and see how things pan out after the mid terms, my money is that something will happen either during the elections or before January which will shake things up.
The US has lost all but two of the wars it has committed itself to since WW2, with Korea and Desert Storm being seaming flukes at this point. What’s another mark upon that record, better to cut losses than be further humiliated at this point.
The empire is already burning let’s not send further legions into Germania.
It’s even less stellar than that. Korea was a stalemate. Desert Storm achieved its limited objectives but didn’t resolve the underlying problems, so we got Gulf War 2 (which had poorly defined objectives and which failed on a far greater scale).
There were far smaller skirmishes such as the Grenada invasion and the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia that were arguably more successful at their near-term, limited aims.
If there’s any lesson to be learned, it’s that the Powell Doctrine should be reinstated. Also, that imperialist interference is a loser’s game, and initiatives by broad international coalitions are less likely to degenerate into clusterfucks.
I broadly agree except with Korea. The Korea was successful in its initial aims, the original end goal was to restablize the border and push the Norks to a higher parallel. The problems can be largely laid down at the feet of general MacArthur who wanted to annihilate the Norks, basically everyone disagreed but was unwilling to override him. This resulted in the Chinese getting involved which is why actually wiping out the Norks was not on the table originally, they were supposed to be used as a buffer state. Eventually MacArthur gets fired by Truman and people who aren’t stupid and don’t want to nuke Manchuria take charge, the warfront stabilizes and the modern borders are established. Maybe the active war couldve gone on for longer but by that point basically everyone involved was done with the conflict and figured that nobody winning outright was acceptable, UN and US succeeded at the initial goal if a bit lower in latitude and the Soviet bloc keeps the Norks.
I think this is different given the context of this war. It’s not an insurgency or an unfamiliar jungle it’s just a super power losing against a “lesser” military. In the process also losing influence over 20% of the world’s oil supply, which is the oil that gives the American petrodollar its value. This stupid ass and unnecessary war could change the power structure of the entire world.
It’s still effectively an asymmetric war something that basically favors home field advantage to the point of absurdity. Winning is basically impossible given that Iran has been preparing for this exact scenario for decades, any escalation will worsen the look of the US since the current dipshits in charge don’t know how to do jack shit.
Honestly pulling out before it turns into the US equivalent of the Soviet-Afghan war is basically the only way forward that doesn’t lead towards federal collapse IMO. Those in Congress have an active incentive to prevent that from happening while also working as a great propaganda win for those who side against it. The damage is already done cutting losses is the best that can be done at this point.
I agree they should pull out, but I don’t think they see that as an option anymore. Hubris will be our downfall.
Our? Nah Americas. Personally I’m a Californian nationalist and recognized that the US has to collapse for my wants to come true. Problem is I’m also annoyed by incompetency and wish I could be wrong so as to not scorn my ancestors who actually had a grudging faith in the government. Regardless we’ll have to wait and see how things pan out after the mid terms, my money is that something will happen either during the elections or before January which will shake things up.