Why did Iraq lose so horribly in the Gulf War? I'm sure they had tons of veterans from the Iraq-Iran War that should have counted for something. It's not just that they lost, but they lost over 20,000 men with over 75,000 wounded while only 148 U.S. soldiers died
I know this is very hard for many people to appreciate, especially fellow liberals, but never in the history of mankind has a nation been anywhere near as powerful as the US. Mid ranking generals hold more power than entire continents. If it weren't for the fact that other countries have nukes (which yeah that's a bit silly to even say), and if the US didn't give a shit about consequences (PR n shit), it could take on the rest of the planet without really breaking a sweat. It's really really funny to me that this is controversial. It's as real as the sun in the sky. Lot of butt hurt when people hear this because they think we're bragging, as if American people are on the same team as their gov haha
Technologically inferior weapons, total air dominance by the americans,army still somewhat fucked by iran-iraq war, not resorting to a guerilla tactic against overwhelming enemy superiority
Mfw when america got BTFO in any war after WW2 even Korea and has only declined in its might since.
Be realistic you might be able to quickly conquer 3-4 shit tier nations at once, 1-2 secondary powers and 1 great power (China and russia are debatable due to Terrain and stuff). You won't be able to hold these for long and america would quickly spiral into bankrupcy and massive civil unrest.
Please re-read what he said, and then read about those wars. In Korea the US backed off after dominating the North Koreans for fear of escalating things with China and kickstarting WW3. In Vietnam the US stayed out of North Vietnam for the same reasons and the war became increasingly unpopular at home.
In Iraq and Afghanistan the US quickly seized all major population centers and held them. A minuscule number of soldiers were lost in more than a decade of fighting despite restrictive rules of engagement.
Keep in mind that at any given time only a fraction of US forces were present in the middle east while the rest of the military was spread across the globe.
I have noticed that a lt of the people who claim the US "lost" in Iraq/Afghanistan have to do a lot of mental gymnastics when they define victory. What do you call it when your enemy crushes your forces, installs a puppet government, and forces you to flee the country so you won't be slaughtered mercilessly?
How would that be useful in the first Gulf war? Guerrilla tactics are only useful when you're fighting an enemy on your own turf. The first gulf war was about tossing Saddam out of Kuwait.
He turned the USAF into the most devastating military force on the planet through a combination of long-term investments in high-tech weapons that paid off just in time, and a conscious decision to prioritize "realistic" training exercises such Red Flag and simulated battles against Aggressor Squadrons.
Superior technology + Superior training = Victory
New to the thread, but it's quite obvious as to how someone claims that: The U.S. failed to achieve its objectives of creating friendly successful democratic states in Afghanistan or Iraq that can exist on their own without Western forces constantly backing them up. If you don't have the political objectives achieved, all the battlefield success in the world means jack shit.
Did the KMT win the war against the Communists by their successes in the 20s and 30s? What about the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s?
Saddam had one of the Largest Armies in the world
But how do you think he got it?
"Join the Army or your family dies"
They were a poorly trained army with low Moral and most of there weapons were Soviet which is inferior to American Weapons despite what Russiaboos say
The KMT was thrown out of mainland China and the Soviet left Afghanistan. Their puppet government fell.
The US maintains a troop presence in Afghanistan and the puppet governments in both nations are still in power.
And the Soviet puppet government in Afghanistan was stable until the Soviets left. The KMT seemed on top of the Chinese political scene when you had the "Bandit pacification" campaigns in the 20s, certainly held on longer than America's been in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Ghani's government only exists insofar as the US keeps an unpopular and expensive troop presence ensuring that he stays there. We don't need to do that for say, France,or South Korea. And it's touch and go as it is. I mean fucking hell, there was another strike in the capital, killing a bunch of policemen 2 days ago.
>In Korea the US backed off after dominating the North Koreans for fear of escalating things with China and kickstarting WW3
Really, so the UN just pulled back calmly from the Chinese border all the way to Seoul because they didn't want to escalate things, and not because they had to retreat.
Are you retarded? The US forces retreated because they had massive gaps in their line and desperately wanted to avoid being encircled and destroyed. They then spent nearly 3 years desperately pounding the Chinese lines to try and reach the Yalu.
Ask yourself what can any man do against this kind of firepower?
The Iraqi army against Iran was completely propped up in that war by the U.S., ounce you understand that you can much better understand how the U.S. could sweep aside their army so easily, because they were actually supposed to lose the Iran-Iraq war instead of receive bottomless funding and the opposite of sanctions
Please actually think about what "taking on the rest of the planet without breaking a sweat means". America literally wasn't able to beat and pacify third world guerilla movements because of huge unrest at home and the financial drain. How the fuck are you going to take on the rest of the world when your population is fucking rioting in the streets? America simply couldn't sustain a war like this. There are clear constraints dictated by the willingness of the population and the financial situation that limit the american capability to wage war. America isn't the third reich and could never sustain a offensive war against serious foes without a justification the population accepts (talking about stopping the Holocaust tier).
I am again and again astonished about how a lot of americans undertake serious mental gymnastics to establish a narrative of victory regarding wars they clearly lost. There were clear cut political victory conditions that weren't reached even by resorting to overwhelming military surpremacy. Low casualty and every battle won means javkshit when you can't capitalize on these successes. America surely didn't come to Iraq to establish a weak shiite regime thats now allied with iran and trying to win a civil war against other extremists that arose due to american occupation policies. No military victory is meaningful if the underlying political objectives aren't reached. Stop jacking off too muh surpremacy and actually see the poor strategic decision making by america that led to so many costly and unnecessary wars.
You're frustrated because you are unable to separate military victory from political victory.
When Americans say they won, they're talking purely about the former.
When you say that they lost, you're talking purely about the latter.
>US troops end up at the N.Korean/Chinese border because they got lost trying to find South Korea
>Hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops invade and start fighting dozens of battles against RoK/UN forces across North Korea
>"They didn't want to be there anyway and anger China!"
>After ignoring angry Chinese threats about invading North Korea
>And sending a fleet to interfere with an invasion of Taiwan
>Then killing tens of thousands of Chinese troops in several battles over several years
Dude the americans were deep in north vietnamese territory and were aiming to unify korea by dissolving the north korean aggressor. The chinese intervention got them and they had to retreat in the face of the massive chinese offensive. They simply underestimated the chinese threat overextended and very narrowly avoided military desaster. Do you think they acted so careful in vietnam because they could have easily repent a chinese intervention? No they had very vivid memories of the bitter fighting in korea. They weren't able to defeat China with the forces they could invest.
It's MacArthur's fault, though. He gets told "Don't invade the north, dumbass, you'll get china involved". He does that, gets most of his forces encircled, and nearly sent the USMC to die trying to break out of encirclement by advancing towards China.
Dude, read my post. Seriously what worth has a military victory if you don't reach your objectives? You invested tons of money material and lives... for what? So that some neckbeards on 4chan can jack off to it? Its wasted effort simple as that?
Also to say america won military victories is plain wrong. They weren't able to pacify the territory and stop the insurgency. Apart from that its plain retarded to differentiate military from political victory. War is the continuation of politics with other means.
>It's MacArthur's fault, though. He gets told "Don't invade the north, dumbass, you'll get china involved".
Nah, as much as the whole disaster WAS MacArthur's stupid fault, Truman on down wanted to roll back North Korea. He never received any orders to stop at the 38th parallel or avoid the Yalu.
And those are American estimates, too, which makes the original statement about retreating because the US just 'didn't want to escalate' the war even more ridiculous.
What, was MacArthur supposed to say "It's just a prank, bro!" after the millionth Chinese casualty?
>if the US didnt care about consequences or getting nuked or public opinion or anything like that and just wanted to conquer the world for some reason...
>if my grandmother had wheels she would be a bike
The tactic used was not the human wave attack but the "short attack".
The key difference is that in a human wave attack, the attackers are lined up along the enemy line and do a frontal assault hoping to penetrate the weakest points.
The short attack, the weakest point is identified by the commander and a fireteam (squad or "ban") is assigned to crawl within throwing range under cover or darkness, and using shock to breakthrough. if they fail another fireteam does it and again until it caves, and then the entire regiment flows through and they attack from the rear.
To the enemy it seems like the entire line is suddenly filled with enemies from behind, and it's much more effective than a human wave attack.
The reason for using a short attack instead of human wave attack is that communications had improved since then, and General Peng De Huai was wont to not throwaway lives of his troops, and the troops were significantly trained by then to not have to be coordinated in such a manner.
Yeah, I know about all of this. You still haven't substantiated your ridiculous claim that Chinese Forces in Korea never ammounted to more than 30k troops. The fact that you're under basic chronological failings of the Korean War doesn't help the case.
How did 30k troops defend against determined offensives, outnumbered more than 25 to one, under total airpower. Oh and especially since two thirds of their forces were captured.
Norks invade S.Korea
S.Koreans and a handful of U.S. troops pushed back to Pusan
Norks swept back to the Yalu
Just as suddenly; Chinese
U.S. back at original border
Chinese utterly spent zerg rushing into American firepower
The Pentagon tell Truman now is the time to counter-attack
He cons dumbass pussy Truman into a cease fire and “negotiations”
Chinese able to reinforce and resupply their devastated forces
The war then becomes a pointless WWI-style stalemate
The Iran war was a whole different dimention compared to the us one.
On one hand you have poorly trained human waves, a poorly mechanised opponent with rapidly dwindeling resources, with most of their equipment being late 70s tech at best.
On the other the US had every single consiavable advantage, with the added bonus of not being internationally boycotted.
Its retarded to claim to have won a war if you haven´t reached your wargoals. You wouldn´t claim that rhodesia won just because they won on the military level. Try to be more objective here.
Iraq was way better armed than the Iranians.
The US was massively better armed than Iran, and most ground troops didn't see any action. The Gulf War is pretty much responsible for the US military believing that air power can win wars singlehandedly. I don't think this mentality will survive long in any war against Russia or China.
Middle east is perfect theatre for the kind of warfare US prefers.
Arab armies are notoriously shit(think about it - Iraq had the least shitty army out of them).
Gross majority of Iraqi soldiers were drafted not too long before the war started. So even for arab armies they were horribly trained.
Iraqi commanders and tactics was braindead.
Saddam thought they would just give him Kuwait as a reward for opposing Iran, so I guess that no plans were ready.
There are several other reasons but these are the most important. Overall it's kinda like Russian invasion of Georgia - it's not like Iraq(Georgia) had any chances.
American's army biggest problem is the power public opinion has when it comes to waging the war and Harris' "let's bomb it will win the war" shit that probably resulted from the first problem.
If they'd deal with Taliban like Soviets did with drug cartels there, Afghanistan may have had a chance to rebuild seeing they don't have any big-scale international support from anybody. But they cant do it because that would require a sacrifice of much, much more soldiers, sob stories write themselves.
And bombing doesn't work for shit against any semi-prepared enemy. Even for Germans it was just a factor that led to their defeat rather than sole reason for it.
>In Vietnam the US stayed out of North Vietnam for the same reasons and the war became increasingly unpopular at home.
In Vietnam they didn't wanted to conquer NV because they thought that every East Asian is Japanese so you have to kill all charlies because they won't surrender. Also because they though that they got it right and mass bombing will will the war.
Not him, but everyone and their brother knew that Saigon was helpless without a constant U.S. presence to prop them up, and that the treaty wasn't worth shit.
By that logic, the Soviets won in Afghanistan, when they left, they had a puppet government in Kabul.
I wouldn't be quite so sanguine about that.
It would have been very hard for the North to conquer the South when the US was bombing the North and supplying the South.
Prior to 1974, that's exactly what would have happened. The Ho Chi Minh offensive was a conventional armored thrust, and it wouldn't have been possible without the military environment suddenly created by Watergate.
The interesting part is that the DRA lasted until the Soviets stopped paying them.
The best way to control Afghanistan has always been just to pay people not to fight you, which is essentially US strategy too.
Exactly what he said : >>655705
Yeah, the offensive failed because the US brought its overwhelming air superiority into play and destroyed the logistics needed for a conventional armored thrust. The south vietnamese army was only able to operate effective ( if you can call it that...) when it recieved massive american aid because it was trained for an american way of warfare which was immensly demanding in material and ammunition. In short: America could have continuedwith its massive air campagne and military support to delay the conquest of the south in the short and midterm but i wouldn´t call that a win. A win would have been an actual piece or a south vietnamese state able to effectively fight the war with the north. If the ARVN was halfway competent it would have been reasonable to supply them but they simply weren´t.
Then you have a distorted view of victories. The soviet puppet in kabul was way more effective i fighting the insurgency than the south vietnamese and still the soviets clearly lost and payed a price way to high for what they achieved.
If I had one of Asimov's positronic brains, and I could waste it's time giving it what-if scenarios instead of revolutionizing economics or some shit, the first historical scenario I'd give it is the Vietnam War without Watergate. By 1974, Nixon had been pursuing his own policy in Southeast Asia, essentially over the protests of the anti-war movement, and he'd done a creditable job with it.
I wonder what would have happened if he had until 1976.
After that, I make the little fucker tell me who killed Kennedy.
My brain is telling me Lee Harvey Oswald, but there's that voice in the back of my head.
I give you that ; If Nixon had more time or won against Kennedy Vietnam might have played out different. LBJs restraint actually hampered the war effort. With a more ruthless politician america could have maybe won.
Also Kennedy was killed by extremist circles of exile cubans and intelligence services who thought him to be to soft on the commies. Oswald might or might not be the person who actually killed him.
You see, Oswald is what makes this complicated.
We know that 3 months before he shot Kennedy, he was in New Orleans working for the Cuban-American Friendship Organization.
From there, the mob could have gotten to him, either the Cuban exiles or the Cuban government could have been involved, the KGB, the FBI, the CIA, the Girl Scouts.
What makes me think it was one wingnut is what a fucking loser Lee Harvey Oswald was.
When he went into Dallas to kill Kennedy, he had to hide his rifle in a carpet, because he didn't own his own car, and he was getting a ride from two of his coworkers at the schoolbook depository.
I like to think that if it was a setup, they would at least pick a guy who owns his own car, who wasn't totally dependent on having Kennedy travel down to the town he lived in, and take a motorcade past where he worked.
Everything that Oswalds friends and family tell people about his life, and his conduct leading up to the shooting makes him sound like an Adam Lanza.
Also Nixon was a pretty clever foreign politician. He actually was the first one to see and exploit the sino-soviet split. If that happened earlier the north vietnamese government may have recieved much less support.
Its all pretty fishy tbqh.Hard to know what happened and who is responsible a lot of important people had an intrest in covering the truth.