This... whatever it is, kinda entertained me. The guy puts a few things in there just to piss people off. He is a bit naive in some ways. Never really gets to the point. Reminds me of myself.
Jump to content
Way ahead of you on this one.
Serious question. I'm not talking just any victory, I'm talking about something like when Hannibal defeated Rome in the Battle of Cannae, widely regarded as one of the greatest feats in history.
Let's go one-by-one through U.S. wars:
Meh... kinda. But Britain was over-extended, crippled by the French-Indian/Seven Years War, and it was ultimately the entry of the French that was decisive.
War of 1812:
Britain burned down DC and seized the capital, repelled basically every one of our Canadian invasions. Britain was also distracted by the Napoleonic Wars. The Treaty of Ghent basically re-established the state of affairs prior to the war. I'd call this one a tie, if anything.
Come on now.
Doesn't really count, although if we want to bring in internal conflict, some individual battles may be in the discussion (Fredericksburg? Although that was more Burnside being an idiot than Lee)
World War I:
Didn't enter the war until 1917, when European powers had already exhausted their primary war material. Questionable whether US entry was even decisive.
World War II (Europe):
A case can be made here. But, Britain deserves at least as much credit for the Africa campaign (e.g. El Alamein happened before the US even entered), and the Eastern Front was arguably more decisive than the West. In other words, it's not as if the US actually bore the brunt of the German Forces. Stalingrad was probably where the war was won, not Normandy.
World War II (Japan):
This is probably the closest the US has come. But, two points are critical: a) Japan had already been fighting China since 1937, and never really brought their full strength against the US; b) the battle of Midway, arguably the closest the US has ever had to a "great' military victory (and probably our greatest victory in WW2), was really more luck than tactical genius.
Not really, given that China repelled us back to the 38th parallel and we still act like p-ssies whenever Kim Jong Il starts sh-t up.
Speaks for itself.
Persian Gulf War:
Like stealing candy from a baby.
Decisively defeated a pathetic military and then proceeded to get dragged into >8 years of nation-building.
We have a fairly disappointing resume as far as world empires are concerned, especially given the amount of disproportionate military spending vis-a-vis the world. Just sayin.
I think that the US mainly likes to show that we have the biggest dick, which is why we spend so much on our military. Otherwise, we don't really win any real wars, and lose a lot of minor wars. Simply put, we have no real interest in winning, because we're the bully who also wants to be loved. We can't afford to fully beat someone into submission, because then they won't love us.
Iraq and Afghanistan both could've been handled a lot differently if we'd really be interested in going in and taking over, but instead we just go, kill some people and expect to be loved and honored and the people will love us for building a couple roads.
We should be more like Russia! Better to be feared than loved, right?
Edited by Odine, 02 October 2016 - 12:54 AM.
One could argue that wars are not waged the same way as they were formerly waged. So wars of attrition happen. Weapons used in World War I were shocking but ultimately left it unresolved when it was finally ended World War II happened. Wilson's ideas of League of Nations helped build a kind of network which means that ultimately war results would be lame. You could say that yes, the first Gulf War and Iraq was decisively won but we can't lord over it like a Roman conqueror. So Nation Building becomes an exercise in not accomplishing anything. Afghanistan is weird and a lesson that Russia learned but apparently we didn't. Not everyone needs democracy and wants it.
In other idealism news, Russia seems to be successfully turning back the clock on war with repossession of Crimea and now Syrian bombings. China's kind of weird. They're having a small* economic crisis right now but they're building islands which is interesting. I heard someone say China should take North Korea but they don't, do they?
Also doing this on a phone sucks. There's so much historical events to point to and expound on but I hate text typing on a phone.
* they are on the cusp of a blow up in their housing similar to our 2008 one.
Perhaps when the goals are murkey it makes it hard to determine what should be done when it drags on beyond a presidents term length. *Shrug*
And what the hell about Afghanistan? I think Russia learned a lot about what a hell hole waste that was. But something has emerged that started with Vietnam in a pronounced way - insurgencies and guerrilla tactics are hard to beat. Not good for Communist Nation Building. Some even consider that war to be one of the contributing factors that helped bring down Soviet Russia. A lot of money and man power was spent on nothing.
Iraq v.2 sort of screwed everything up in the sense that you used to have success criteria solidly defined before you went into a conflict. In this case it was to ostensibly remove chemical weapons of war and the leader who possessed them. Whether the Bush admin actually believed they were there or not is *almost* moot because what they did next: They made the war into whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. This month it's about establishing a democracy (right!). Now it's about surging against insurgents. Now it's about keeping Iran at bay. Now it's about the Kurds but also about Al Queda since they're here now. Oh, there's Iran again! And so on and so on... Once you get the troops in it can be whatever you want it to be. Meanwhile, back here, since we now live in the United States of 9/11 we just applaud our troops and hope for the best because anything else means you are not a Patriot.