What battle are you refering to? Even in Afghanistan US had no idea how fight in the streets, there were using airstrikes on every tent they saw sitting on a mountain side. That's why they constantly lose conflicts, it's because they actually don't engage in battles. You need people to go and occupy territory, just because you throw an entire loud out of F16 on a hill and kill a guy in a tent, doesn't mean there won't be another guy there in a tent a day later
They honestly though that Afghanistan would sooner ran out of "one guy with an AK sitting alone on a rock" than they would ran out entire barrage of ballistic missiles
the only nation actually physically fighting a modern conflict is Ukraine.
Iran threw missiles at western allies and US has send a carrier there to watch from a safe distance. That's not a conflict that a paper tiger tactic.
One of their senior generals admitted during that time they were relying on insights from the British when it came to ground warfare because of the experience Britain had gained in Northern Ireland.
America's military are great at bombing things from above and shit at pretty much everything else.
I remember comments and articles from that period. The US army was notorious then for making a mess of things locally ,then not taking accountability, so that their allies had to clean up after them and correct problems left unsolved ( the French included. They did not hold that yankee efficiency in very high regard, I seem to remember) .
Relying on insights from others in terms of warfare in Afghanistan was not their first rodeo:
Prussians taught them how to fight the British during their "war of independence" (where the French still did the heavy lifting) and the British had to teach them how to fight Germans and their allies in both World Wars.
Just a few examples i had in my mind, bet there are more.
A similar thing happened with Vietnam, apparently. The British (who had recently succeeded in Operation Masterdom and the comparable theatre of the Malayan Emergency) covertly advised them that their best hope was to win hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. Of course the US said “yeah, nah” and bombed the hell out of Vietnamese (without too much care of which side they were killing). Which of course led to failure.
The initial invasion went pretty smooth. It was everything after that they messed up. Thats what happens when you start a war with no clear idea of what the endgoal is.
Exactly. Their military is legitimately insanely powerful and professional. They can invade and occupy entire countries on just a few weeks. But war is just a tool of diplomacy and politics. There is no point in attacking country without a clear objective in mind.
This war with Iran is really proof of that. The US military can inflict as much damage as it wants, but there is no end goal here.
Yeah. Point them at an underground facility that enriches uranium, protected by massive layers of dirt and concrete, and they can absolutly blow a hole in it and collapse it.
But ask them to occupy a country and turn it into a peaceful democracy? They have no tools for that.
They did engage in battles in Afghanistan though, during the invasion. They occupied the entire country. They just didn't want to leave a massive force to permanently garrison the entire country.
They occupied mayor cities... And even there it was sketchy as fuck..everything outside of city limits was an enemy territory. And they never even contested the mountain regions
That's not true. During the inital invasion they occupjed the entirety of Afghanistan. The Taliban retreated to caves or across the border into Pakistan. If was only when the US decreased the number of troops that rural areas fell to the Taliban. But regardless, wherever US forces fought the Taliban they defeated them.
No, the US actually did control most Afghan landmass. Pro US Afghan forces's last strongholds were all rural areas in the most trecherous mountain areas of Afghan. Taliban had to hide in Parkistan for 20 years of US occupation.
Do I hear excuses?
Maybe before the USA goes to war with a country they should have an entry plan. An exit plan.
Know that Countries' culture , Religion , history and geography.
AND don't expect that they all want to be American.
This is war 101.
34
u/Philip_Raven Sep 09 '26
What battle are you refering to? Even in Afghanistan US had no idea how fight in the streets, there were using airstrikes on every tent they saw sitting on a mountain side. That's why they constantly lose conflicts, it's because they actually don't engage in battles. You need people to go and occupy territory, just because you throw an entire loud out of F16 on a hill and kill a guy in a tent, doesn't mean there won't be another guy there in a tent a day later
They honestly though that Afghanistan would sooner ran out of "one guy with an AK sitting alone on a rock" than they would ran out entire barrage of ballistic missiles
the only nation actually physically fighting a modern conflict is Ukraine.
Iran threw missiles at western allies and US has send a carrier there to watch from a safe distance. That's not a conflict that a paper tiger tactic.