How did they defeat the US military?
>>18497097They didn't, they got stomped militarily and only won politically.
>>18497097americans are inferior both mentally, physically and spiritually.
>>18497099If you really believe that, why don't you go enlist for a frontline infantry position in Iran or ukraine lmao, pathetic coward. You don't believe what you preach and that is all the proof we need
>>18497097>How did they defeat the US military?The american public did not support the complete genocide of the population and so because some of them were left alive you claim that is victory
Time was on their side
>>18497103NTA but pointing out that the US had the military advantage over Vietnam and not wanting to die in a desert are not mutually exclusive things. 90% of the soldiers in Vietnam itself didn't even want to be there but they still had the advantage military wise. Hell, Saigon didn't fall until after the army had left the country, the only people being evacuated were a skeleton crew of CIA operatives.
>>18497103>infantry position in Iran or ukraineIs the US military currently fielding ground troops in any of those places?
Wars having win-lose conditions like a video game is an extremely gay way to look at war and comes from a time when European aristocracy waged war just for prestige. Afghanistan was occupied for 20 years and is objectively the biggest shithole on the planet currently, they didn't win shit, the US just failed to complete its secondary objective of regime change (the primary objective was taking down Osama but that was done within the first 10 years). You all can call this cope but you know deep down I'm right.
>>18497112No but their weapons are getting rekt there
>>18497112based on the evidence we have, yes.
>America lost Vietnamtrue but there were no real consequences other than an ego check>America lost AfghanistanAfghanistan wasn't a war, it was a "special military operation" and the US has been waging those in multiple shitholes for decades so I don't see why Afghanistan specifically is so special
>>18497135>their weapons are getting rektAre the weapons supposed to be the US military?>>18497137What evidence?
>>18497141Vietnam wasn't a war either
>>18497097Oh Keep laughing Taliban and Thailandise bois, the Nordic Gods are not going to play nice anymore, Trump activated their secret black projects, soon the whole world will witness(Hallelujah) the Anglo Sexon power, no more conventional wars with gay F35 fucking planes literally raping each others in the sky, from now on the world will witness(Hallelujah again) the Western White race real power when they release their Alien tech they inherited from their Nordic/Tall White space brothers on everybody. Everyone will bow and pay tribute to America for real. #MakeAmericaGodlydAgain
>>18497099War is a political instrument.
>>18497157What does a crash at some airshow have to do with your post other than you referencing autistic object porn?
>>18497157you know, all it would really take is a some well placed nukes and biological weapons to utterly depopulate all non whites on earth, but that is not nice and there is still hope for a better solution than total genocide. It is a stupid and vain hope, but a hope exists for now at least.
>>18497160Don't ask don't tell fat burger when will you defeat anyone?
>>18497159Politicians don't fight wars, they merely decide whether to start or stop them. The actual warfighting is done by militaries, and militarily the Taliban and North Vietnam lost the overwhelming majority of their engagements.
>>18497255But they achieved their political objectives, which is the purpose of a military.
>>18497149>>18497141Reality check: American lost
>>18497331>they achieved their political objectivesTheir militaries didn't. American politicians unilaterally decided to leave. At no point did either North Vietnam or the Taliban do anything militarily that contributed to that unless you count sitting on their asses in another country that the US wasn't willing to invade waiting for Americans to get bored.
America didnt lose in Vietnam. The whole point of Vietnam was to stop the Soviet Union. Since the US eventually did stop the Soviet Union, they won. Do you honestly think America cares wtf political system Vietnam has?If America had kept its original objectives of defeating Al-Qaeda and destroying terrorist bases in the middle east, then I'd say Afghanistan was successful. But because they switched their objectives to nation building, then yes, America lost. HOWEVER, most people think the war on terror was a failure. Aside from being unable to democratize Afghanistan, the US was largely effective against Islamic terrorism. All groups have been significantly defeated and the situation has largely stabilized. >>18497255>>18497377shut up retard. War is politics by other means. if you don't know that you don't belong on this board.
>>18497389>War is politics by other means.NTA but I agree which is why I think War is far too complicated and nuanced to be reducible down to win-lose conditions
>>18497389>War is politics by other meansThis is just semantically weaseling out of the fact that the US military did shart on the Taliban and NV. And the OP implies that they "defeated the US military", which they objectively didn't. They lost basically every major military engagement. They won the war not against the military, but against the government.
>>18497377So you think if the NVA/Vietcong and Taliban didn't exist and we occupied Vietnam and Afghanistan without resistance that things would have gone the same way?
>>18497541I think that if the NVA or Taliban had "defeated the US military", they'd have actually won military engagements and forced the US to retreat or surrender, rather than having routinely lost actual military confrontations and only ultimately won because the US literally changed its mind for non-military reasons due to the public simply finding the wars pointless. The implication that it was a failure on the part of the US military is ridiculous. They were handed battles to fight, they won all of them, what the fuck else are they supposed to do? This is like hiring a builder, telling him to build a house, then changing your mind and cancelling it while he's building it, then laying the blame on the builder even though he simply did as he was told.
>>18497099that's the only form of victory that matters lmao. War is just a violent form of politics at its core. Doesn't matter how high your K:D ratio is, if you lose the political game then you lose the whole war.
>>184970971. They had character to fight to the end sacrificing all their lives if necessary.2. They had base (Pakistan) that US couldn't attack directly due to nuclear weapons.P.S. Make nukes.
>>18497103Why do retards like you think war is the same a generation ago, even in Iraq and the initial invasion of Afghanistaion the US army lost so few men that it kept shocking the world.People always think it’ll be another Vietnam but forget that technology has advanced so much that you can win an entire war with so few loses on both sides by just dropping bombs at the right targets.
>>18497993US lost war of attrition though.
How likely is it that Cuba invest in drones and take control of their strait?Will they see regional support from Mexico and Columbia like Iran does with Pakistan?
>>18498001>Cuba>investIsn't going to happen, Cuba is completely broke and isolated. They don't have some politically convenient neighbor bordering them where they can just set up a cozy camp to wait it out or through which they can reroute supplies. Being an island means the US Navy can easily blockade you completely.
>>18497549>they'd have actually won military engagements and forced the US to retreat or surrenderThey did. They won their wars.>the US literally changed its mind for non-military reasonsSo you are asserting that, had the NVA/Vietcong and Taliban not existed, Vietnam and Afghanistan would have gone the same way. Why exactly do you think the US would have abandoned our objectives in these countries in this alternative timeline where no one fought back?>what the fuck else are they supposed to do?Achieve the political objectives of the state that funds them. In other words, win the war.>This is like hiring a builderwho winds up way behind schedule and over budget with no sign of ever finishing the house so the contract falls through. That's a shit builder no matter how good he thinks he is.
>>18498053>They did.Name some military engagements in which they won. Actual battles. Go on.>you are asserting that, had the NVA/Vietcong and Taliban not existedNo.>Achieve the political objectivesMilitaries don't do politics in the sense of appeasing public opinion. Their job is to fight the enemy and win engagements, which they consistently did.>who winds up way behind schedule and over budget with no sign of ever finishing the houseThe US military immediately dunked on the Taliban and pushed them out into Pakistan, which the US government didn't want to invade. Likewise, the NVA was completely unable to seize anything in South Vietnam for as long as the US military was there. It's not the US military's job to mind control the president and congress to authorize them to be allowed to invade Pakistan and North Vietnam. They were given the order to occupy Afghanistan and South Vietnam and fight the enemies over there. Which they did. Successfully, in every engagement that actually mattered. Name a single actual battle in which tanks, columns of riflemen and artillery firing at each other resulted in a direct defeat of the US military in either war.
>>18498072>Name some military engagements in which they won.The Vietnam War. The war in Afghanistan.>Actual battlesYou won't even acknowledge that we lost the wars. So you'd do the same with shit like operation redwings and cope by claiming we killed 6 gorillion of them.>Their job is to fight the enemy and win engagementsNo, again, their job is to achieve the political objectives of the state that funds them.>y-you have to fight me the way I want you to>otherwise it's not fair and doesn't countJust fucking disband the US military at this point. What good is a military that can't win unless its enemies only do what you want them to? What good is a military in which not one single person has any concern or competence for theater level strategy? It truly is nothing but a vehicle for welfare and bribery. The founders have never been more vindicated in their objection to a standing army.
>>18498102>The Vietnam War. The war in Afghanistan.These aren't specific military engagements. Name the battles.>You won't even acknowledge that we lost the warsStop being at schizo, at no point did I deny that the US lost the wars. I'm strictly denying the idiocy of pretending that the blame is on the military.>their job is to achieve the political objectives of the stateNo, it isn't, that's the job of politicians. Or do you think a general should just coup the government when he's ordered to not invade NV or Pakistan so he can do it?>y-you have to fight me the way I want you toNo, again, the military has to fight their enemy in the way that their civilian government wants them to. Or do you think the US military should go rogue and invade NV/Pakistan?>What good is a military in which not one single person has any concern or competence for theater level strategy?The military doesn't decide where they can invade or how they can fight.Riddle me this: if you think it was an issue with the military, then what's your alternate military strategy for winning, champ? Do you violate the government's decision to not attack the enemy cowering outside of the borders?
>>18498115>No, it isn'tYes it fucking is. That is the only, exclusive, sole reason that any military exists.>I can't win unless I overthrow the governmentThen why didn't Grant or Ike have to overthrow the government? They were tasked with winning more difficult and devastating wars against actual peers, and they pulled it off without having to declare themselves military dictators. War changed. And instead of adapting and doing their job, the US military instead chooses to cry about politicians. Politicians who, lets remember, have had less and less direct involvement in the prosecution of wars over time. Not being allowed to invade any country you feel like because you were too incompetent to either keep the enemy in or keep them out is not some onerous micromanaging. It's the absolute bare minimum. Lincoln was sacking generals for a fraction of the incompetence displayed by the modern US military.>Do you violate the government's decision to not attack the enemy cowering outside of the borders?Can you please cite for me where any president ordered the US military to grant the taliban free passage across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? Or even a member of congress (even though they couldn't if they wanted to)? While you're at it, can you find out for me who thought it was a good idea to aid and abet the rampant child rape that had helped the taliban gain popularity in the first place. Because it doesn't seem like it was congress.
>>18498174>Yes it fucking is.No, it fucking isn't. Militaries fight battles. They shoot shit. They do not decide to start or end wars or where and how they're allowed to operate.>why didn't Grant or Ike have to overthrow the governmentWhen did Grant or Ike ever run into a situation in which they fully occupied a state while their enemies camped out in a neighboring state they weren't allowed to attack?>instead of adapting and doing their jobWhich "adaptations" do you propose for dealing with an enemy that's sitting across a border you're ordered to not cross by sitting politicians?>Politicians who, lets remember, have had less and less direct involvement in the prosecution of wars over timeLmao what's your fucking model? Literally right now, the US military got tossed into a braindead war in Iran which runs contrary to every advice they gave to the administration who ignored the 40 years they spent studying how a war with Iran would actually play out because the government thought they could somehow expect to secure 1800km of coastline with zero fucking boots on the ground despite no simulation showing this to be possible.>you were too incompetent to either keep the enemy in or keep them out???The Taliban and NV were kept out for the entirety of the occupation save for meme attacks that the military successfully repelled. Again genius, what's your proposal for the US military to "just keep North Vietnam inside South Vietnam lmao"? Do you want them to tie a rope around it and pull the landmass over?>president ordered the US military to grant the taliban free passage across the Afghanistan-Pakistan borderWhen Trump and Biden ordered them to pull out of Afghanistan.>who thought it was a good idea to aid and abet the rampant child rape that had helped the taliban gain popularityNot an argument, whoa the Taliban replaces little boy rape with little girl rape because only the latter kind is tolerated in their religion.
>>18498202>They shoot shit.This country is genuinely doomed.>When did Grant or Ike ever...You are the blackest gorilla nigger that has ever lived. If Confederate forces had all fled to Mexico or German forces had all fled to Spain both Grant and Ike would have pissed themselves laughing.>Literally right now, the US military got tossed into a braindead war in IranYou mean the one that we started by blowing up a school and then hitting a bunch of civilian infrastructure, ensuring that there could never be a diplomatic resolution to a war that was definitely going to require one in even the best circumstances? You talking about that one?>there wasn't actually any fighting in Vietnam and Afghanistan>the enemy just sat in other countries playing cards the whole time>all the killed and wounded were from the foodAh, well that settles it then. There's no cost to inconclusive forever wars that fail to ever even approach their objectives. So the government is totally unreasonable to end them after two decades of failure. The enemy basically doesn't exist, so why is everyone getting their panties in a bind?>Not an argumentIt clearly was to the Afghan people. But who cares? We just established that enemy combatants never fight, pose no threat, do no damage, and inflict no casualties. So the US military creating more of them than it kills doesn't matter.
>>18498273>If Confederate forces had all fled to Mexico or German forces had all fled to Spain both Grant and Ike would have pissed themselves laughing.So what would the US do if the US government then ordered them to not invade Mexico or Spain?>the one that we started by blowing up a school and then hitting a bunch of civilian infrastructureYeah that one, why has Donald Trump, who intentionally started the war, regularly attempted to use civilian infrastructure attacks as a threat? And why doesn't he simply admit that bombing the school was a mistake like the US has done on multiple occasions in the past when something like this happened? Is the military forcing him to do it?>There's no cost to inconclusive forever wars that fail to ever even approach their objectivesWhen did I say there's no cost? I asked for your genius plan to deal with the enemy being in another country without having the government's authorization to attack them past the border.>It clearly was to the Afghan peopleNo, it wasn't. The Taliban is a Pashtun nationalist terrorist organization. Slightly less than half of Afghans are Pashtun. Countless Afghans desperately tried to run away from them and the fact that all the other fragmented minorities can't magically become united and LARP as an "Afghan people" that doesn't exist means nothing. And yes, if you're going to point out boy rape without the Taliban, you have to address girl rape with the Taliban.>enemy combatants never fight, pose no threat, do no damage, and inflict no casualtiesApparently not since you can't name a single major field battle which they won. Literally name some instances in which columns of Taliban riflemen and armored divisions exchanged fire with American counterparts, won the engagement and seized the position they were fighting over.
>ITT Retards can't tell the difference between counter insurgencies and near peer conflicts
>>18498291>So what would the US do if the US government then ordered them to not invade Mexico or Spain?Reinstated/installed friendly, functional governments while effortlessly and effectively defending the borders against armies with no military infrastrucure that would all mutiny/desert in under a year. Probably throw some parades.>it was a oopsie woopsieHow exactly does this refute the idea that the US military's incompetence has undermined its own government's political objectives?>I asked for your genius planWe already had a plan. The training and arming of long term, local occupation forces was within the mission and authority of the US military. And they failed.>uhm akchually, they all hate the talibanAnd yet they hate us more. You can cry about them raping girls all you want. But you fight the battles in front of you, not the ones in your head. What was even the justification for helping rape boys? To stay in the good graces of some warlords. It was nothing more than us backing the wrong horses. Consistently. That is a military failure. Politicians back in the US have no fucking clue about the tribal politics and attitudes of people thousands of miles away. Nor do they care. It is up to the military to make those judgements to achieve their mission. Cotez got damn near the entirety of Mexico to rise up in rebellion against the Aztecs. But we can't even put together a functional militia in an already conquered country.>columns of Taliban riflemen and armored divisionsImagine landing at Normandy squealing about line infantry. You asked how the US military could adapt. Maybe stop expecting your enemies to fight like they just woke up from a century long coma. That'd be a good start.
>>18498337>Reinstated/installed friendly, functional governments"Just design a country from scratch bro." How long did South Korea, Japan and Germany had the US military stay around in large amounts again? Wait, until today? But I thought "taking too long" was an issue? Why didn't Ike the Magnificent immediately pull out of Europe, Japan and Korea as soon as fighting was over? Do you think South Korea would be there today if the US had promptly left?>the idea that the US military's incompetence has undermined its own government's political objectivesBombing the wrong target happens. It's a fact of war. When a politician orders a war to start, they have to accept this, and be prepared for it. There are many ways to respond to it, and the US government is choosing to do nothing but to pretend it didn't happen.>We already had a plan. The training and arming of long term, local occupation forces was within the mission and authority of the US militaryAgain "lmao just make the country work on its own" as if the military could magically brainwash the entire population to create a country from scratch in one of the biggest shitholes in the world. Can you name a single "successful" case in which an army went in, sat inside a country occupying it for a limited period while the enemy regrouped outside the borders, then suddenly left hastily on political orders and it worked swimmingly? The US military repeatedly warned the US government that Afghanistan was unstable, that more troops were needed beyond the near skeleton crew that had been left for the last several years, and did they listen? No, it was just "do magic shit with a handful of troops". From 2015 onwards there were fewer than 10k troops in Afghanistan, you don't think this is a "nation building" amount.>What was even the justification for helping rape boys?When did they "help" it anyway?>You asked how the US military could adaptYeah and you still haven't answered or named actual pitched battles lost.
>>18497097Both wars of insurgency and vietnam was also a civil war and revolutionary war.They won by continuing to exist at the time that the war ended. Basically, if the taliban and vietcong/NVA never surrender and are never completely wiped out, they win by default. The nature of a counter-insurgency means that if they are able to operate in any amount of scale, the side fighting against the insurgency is losing. This is one of the problems that conventional militaries have in fighting insurgencies. The victory parameters are conceptual and cannot be readily measured.And as was shown in vietnam, reacting with brutality just creates more vietcong recruits. You can't really win a counter-insurgency relying only on military means. You must engage different parts of your war effort in order to remove the impetus to carry on an insurgency at all. Hearts and minds, etc.basically, the US could never win the vietnam war unless they completely conquered the north and permanently occupied vietnam OR they convinced the vietnamese to no longer NEED to rebel. The latter would require convincing all communists that western style gov't is preferable and removing all corruption from the south vietnamese gov't.I think the mistake was in thinking that vietnam was going to be a repeat of the korean war, where a foreign power could be defeated and a permanent armistice could be created. The US did not understand the nature of vietnamese revolution. But even that is not entirely true because we know from the pentagon papers that the multiple administrations carrying on the war DID know that the vietnam war wasn't winnable.
>>18498363Afghanistan already existed, you lying retard. Our uncanny ability to turn people into forever enemies does not change that fact.>How long did South Korea, Japan and Germany had the US military stay aroundHow long were they in a state of constant insurgency? Speaking of Japan, why did MacArthur bend over backwards to keep Hirohito alive and on the throne? He was a general. He was just supposed to shoot shit. Not assess the local political situation, manipulate it according to his own country's interests, and prevent an insurgency. That was someone else's job, surely.>Bombing the wrong target happens.So often that it is perceived by enemy, ally, and citizen alike as intended policy. At some point they stop being wrong targets.>then suddenly left hastily on political ordersWe left because we were getting less than nowhere. "We need more twoops." Why? So you can waste even more time, money, and lives pissing off the locals and making the situation worse than it was at the start?Colonial forces with a fraction of the resources did a better job of taming literal mud hut savages. There is no excuse for how badly we failed at installing a working puppet government.>When did they "help" it anyway?Covering up for and protecting the people doing it and even going so far as to punish anyone who tries to intervene would count as helping in a court of law, let alone the court of public opinion.>you still haven't answered or named actual pitched battles lostI'll get right on it after you name when the British lost to an American tercio during the Revolution.
>>18497099War is a continuation of politics by other means.
>>18497097White people couldn't fight in dense swampy jungles or shithole mountanious deserts.
>>18497097Let themselves get raped until the US got bored and left.
>>18498418White people BTFO them pretty much anytime there was an actual engagement. It wasn't a matter of not being able to step on rats, it was a matter of being unable to locate them.
>>18497097By using asymmetrical warfare to put financial strain on their enemies until the war became unpopular with the general populace. This generally only works against democratic states.>>18497099The war was over 50 years ago. It's time to stop coping and just cut your losses.
>>18497107>90% of the soldiers in Vietnam itself didn't even want to be thereThis is a complete pop culture fabrication. Over 2/3rds of servicemen in Vietnam were volunteers. The only reason this is pushed is because everyone who learns about McNamara's morons immediately assumes that was the standard.
>>18497114>Afghanistan was occupied for 20 years and is objectively the biggest shithole on the planet currentlyThe goal of the war was never to make Afghanistan "not a shithole". It was to repel American presence, which they did.>you can call this copeBecause it is. The US fled the region and all you can say about it is, "w-well it's still a shithole".
>>18498448>*armed soldiers enter your home*>Herro comrade, join our army voluntarily or we rape and kirr you famiry.>"O-okay..."Cool story bro.
>>18498463Your original post was referring to American troops in Vietnam.
>>18497097>VietnamThe US handled itself well militarily but it was a lost cause due to the US propping up corrupt puppets in the south. They even couped their own puppets when it was proven how incompetent they were. They told the American public, who for a long time supported the war en mass, "we're winning, two more weeks guys" for like 5 years and then Tet happened. The US curb stomped the NVA and viet cong in Tet after the initial shock so bad that the cong wasnt really much if a thing for a few years after the fact. However, the American public finally woke up and said, "if we are 'winning' how tf were the gooks able to pull off Tet?" This, coupled with the fact the war was expensive, the draft and the fact we were propping up a corrupt shithole made Vietnam untenable and so we withdrew.>AfghanistanThe taliban was a mere speedbump and where annihilated, however, due to bushes retardation there was no plan other than "let's get bin laden" the taliban was ready to talk in '02 but "we dont negotiate with terroists" made it to where no peace settlement could be reached. The idea of bringing back the monarchy, which wouldve maybe worked, was never seriously considered due to the fact neocons are spiritual trostkyites who are true believers in heckin democracy or some bs. Then Iraq happened, again due to bushes retardation and troops had to be funneled into that quagmire. This allowed the taliban some breathing room and they were able to be off the ropes. Then we killed bin Laden and had a "why are we still here?" Moment. Its bad form to completely destabilize a country and just up and leave when you got your outlaw, so we stayed for 10 more years to try nation building but go figure those sand niggers are incompetent and actually dont give a shit about democracy. Then we gave up and left.TL;DR we had no proper strategy and supported corrupt regimes, our military performed well but our politicians were retards
>>18497538its not semantics nigger. its the basis on which warfare has been conducted arguably since the 30 years war.
>>18497565Yeah but it’s not a military loss
>>184971031 million Russians have died in Ukraine lol
>>18497097
This thread is just some brown/Third Worlder cope.
terrain
>>18497135notice how "their weapons" (being used by people who are not in the US military) are "getting rekt" by an actual military, not muh heckin guerilla rice farmers
>>18497100>americans are inferior both mentally, physically and spiritually.CorrectAlso you forgot to add in>jewsThank me later anon
>>18497224which one of the people in this image is currently alive?
>>18497114>Afghanistan was occupied for 20 yearsNot true you tranny
>>18500077So America was never in Afghanistan at all? Lmao pathetic
>>18498454Afghanis were clinging onto exterior parts of airplanes taking off and then falling to their deaths in an attempt to escape their homeland but your right, the US totally lost the war and anyone saying otherwise is coping about reality.
>>18500452In all fairness most of them were just shitting themselves that they'd be punished/executed for collaborating with the US
>>18500437presence =/= occupation>>18500452>AfghanisThose are traitors who renounced their nationality when they collaborated with mutts for some shekels, and out of shame they desperately tried to flee the country because they knew the consequences of treason
>>18497097By hiding underground and outlasting them.Air superiority can't beat just digging deeper.
>>18497097Outwaited the US. Americans love money way more than fighting. Only reason WW2 went so well was because US was poor af due to the depression.
>>18497159If war is just politics than nobody can ever truly win a war since one side seldomly decisively 100% wins in politics and gets all of their aims, even after a revolution.
>>18497097Why do people say this?Vietnam was an operation that was in progress, it didn't end in defeat, it didn't end. What happened is Americans started protesting the war and then the government was like, "Why are we even in Vietnam anyways?" And they decided to cancel the war. They didn't lose they basically just decided to leave Vietnam alone.With the other one, USA was just policing that country and then decided to give up on policing it, and then the taliban conquered it almost instantly without the USA there anymore. These were not "fights to the death" where one side obliterated the other side, they were like "long dragged out military presence" and then we decided to just leave for various reasons. Cancelling the war due to a change of interests is not the same as losing it. Lol.
>>18497114Was it worth 2 trillion of your tax dollars anon? Genuine question. Most people either want lower taxes (so they have more money to spend on goods and services) or better infrastructure/gubmint services (to improve their lives and the economy.) Strangely though the burgers itt don't seem to care about either of those things, they love spending money on vaporizing browns on the other side of the world for no obvious reason
>>18497097Dig in and wait until the US gets bored and moves on.
>>18500571If Russia packed up tomorrow and left Ukraine, would you also say they didn't lose?If you invade a country and leave without achieving your military goals, then you have lost the war.
>>18497103>"If you don't believe that this side won this war 60 years ago, why don't you go and fight in this unrelated war now?"I don't get the logic
The US never had a tangible strategic aim with either war. Vietnam was done to show that the US was serious about containing the spread of communism even though LBJ knew from day one that it would be almost impossible to actually prevent Vietnam from going red. The Vietnam war also happened right as the third world was largely moving away from the USSR and towards the US. The Vietnam war stopped this trend and extended the cold war by 20 years. Afghanistan was completely retarded. The US had just watched the Soviets destroy their nation over a failed occupation of Afghanistan and decided to step into the same trap. Once again there was no tangible goal. The US was the unipolar world power and wasted their chance to organize the interconnected world economy in a way that favored them and instead got caught up in a quagmire trying to colonize the middle east. They believed that controlling oil was the future and that they could turn Islamists into liberal democrats.
>>18500703>extended the cold war by 20 years. Probably the funniest part of this thread. If truman just decided to screw over the french vietnam would've gladly been a western ally. If ike just decided to let ndd fall they probably would've gradually drifted away from the ussr over time like china. Similar thing with LBJ, but over a longer timescale. Instead people here are defending an ultimately pointless war
>>18500703>controlling oil was the futureWhat great oil fields does Afghanistan have?
>>18500770It was all part of a larger goal to stomp out Islamism across the middle east with the main goal of pulling the gulf and arabia into the American sphere of influence. Instead of evolving post war the states just copy pasted the failed doctrine of containing communism to containing Islamism.
>>18500722To be clear I mean LBJ extended the cold war by going to war in Vietnam and making all of the non-aligned nations wary of America right as they were all getting sick of the USSR.
>>18500775It also helped create the sinosoviet split though, weakening the soviet union (although desu it probably would've happened anyways since mao was a crazy bastard)
>>18499684Why would browns cope about winning?
>>18500452Those people aligned themselves with the US occupying force. You're basically bragging that you abandoned your allies in the region after you failed to build a functioning state.Embarrassing. Do you even listen to yourself? I guess this is expected from retarded Americans these days since most of you are 80 IQ mestizos now.
>>18497097>North VietnamUS tried to fight without either transitioning to a war economy or mobilizing the reserves, both of which were judged by McNamara to be necessary back in 1965. The PAVN also both waged a highly successful air war and made use of the NLF as proxies to exhaust the American will to fight while preserving their own strength for the final battle against South Vietnam>TalibanUS resources were diverted to Iraq just as the Taliban were reeling from their absolutely catastrophic early defeats (30-60% of all Taliban fatalities sustained over the course of 20 years occurred in just the first three months of the invasion), helping to enable their rebound by 2007. After the 2009-2012 offensives (Operation Strike of the Sword, Operation Moshtarak, the Korengal Valley campaign etc.) largely failed to destroy the Taliban, Afghanistan was largely written off as a lost cause and became a political hot potato, being passed from one president to another, with only enough men and material being committed to avoid imminent defeat in the hopes that it would just be "the next guy's problem".>IranCombination of GWOT-era institutional rot that started in 2001-2002 (one might argue that the US was starting to militarily stagnate after the 1991 Gulf War) becoming systemic, the complete failure to incorporate lessons from Ukraine regarding the threat of drones, and Trump's own massive incompetence. The Iranians were actually in a pretty sorry state after the Twelve-Day War and definitely after killing around 10-30,000 bpeople for protesting lack of bread, but successfully blunting the United States in a conventional war (something that not vastly more powerful nations like the Third Reich and Imperial Japan were unable to accomplish) has no doubt breathed new life into the regime.
>>18500992Sino-Soviet split had roots in the very first meeting between Mao and Stalin and the relationship was functionally broken by 1959 even if it wouldn't become official until the mid 60s.
>>18500770Not him but one of the countries right next to Afghanistan is Iran, which is both hostile to the US and produces 5% of the planet's entire supply of crude oil. Controlling Afghanistan was a means of gaining leverage over Iran. Imagine how different things would be today if there were still American troops in Afghanistan and the United States had a means of launching a direct ground invasion of Iran to force Tehran to make concessions rather than the prospect of a bloody opposed amphibious landing on Iran's coast.
>>18497097>How did they defeat the US military?Classic insurgency strategy. Intransigence, capacity for suffering, develop a cult of the martyrs, bleed out the white devil with 1000 cuts.
>>18500452>US totally lost the warYes. Soviet puppet regime lasted longer in Afghanistan than zog sodomite circus clowns after their enablers left.And that is a good thing.
>>18497097Very carefully
>>18500703>Vietnam was done to show that the US was serious about containing the spread of communismWhy so serious?Merch Kiss even threw ROC out UN and gave PRC major diplomatic victory just to contain Northern Vietnam. Well, that worked.
>>18500458>>18500471>>18501148No, not every single person had been collaborating with the US, much less to such a degree where they would be killed. Look at pictures of how many people were flooding the gates at HKIA.Your theory is the Taliban killed all of those people that couldn't board the planes? And you still think the US are the evil ones in this case?I knew euroids seethed at America but I didn't know it went this deep.>>18501446Yet the Soviet Union crumbled and the zog sodomite clown circus continues.
>>18501470>Yet the Soviet Union crumbled and the zog sodomite clown circus continues.In Afghanistan? Lol, not any more.
>>18500471>it is ok to murder civilians if they comply under an occupation Retard
>>18500566No one said anything about getting 100% of everything you want.
>>18501689>it is ok to murder civiliansIt is kosher if it helps the tribe.
vietnam was a political loss. Politicians tried to make it a military loss.
>>18498008Drones are extremely cheap though
>>18501464That was about picking up China as an ally against the Soviets. By that point Vietnam was obviously going to end badly. The US agreed to pull out of Vietnam and Taiwan in the same meetings where they dropped ROC from the UN.
