Why is the american army so horrible at winning wars?

>>35144664
But you did win in Iraq, you removed Saddam and had a democratic leader elected. It's not your fault that the democratically elected guys were baked by Iran and started genociding the Sunnis once they got in power.

>>35144706
It's still a loss if the taxpayer is having to pay for that bullshit 20 years later, with no end in sight!

>>35144664

Can't have victory without a set of clearly defined goals, even when your troops are killing 14-1 on avg.

>>35144664
>we
Don't lump me with the likes of you faggot

>>35144664
end of war is not the goal
*rubbing of hands intensifies

>>35144664
>get our asses kicked so badly
Not really though, hadjis get BTFO everytime they dare show themselves. It's just that winning turns out to be worse than leaving a petty dictator rule kebabs with a foot up their ass.

>>35144664

We obliterated Iraq though you retard. Just because we make the decision to involve ourselves afterwards doesn't mean we lost. Go ask Saddam how he feels about 'winning' because we're still there.

>>35144723
>It's still a loss if the taxpayer is having to pay for that bullshit 20 years later, with no end in sight!

>my definition of a loss is the official definition

File: torabora.gif (92KB, 383x400px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 383x400px

>>35144750
Oy Gevalt! Delet this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHcSt2GDWwo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWJSKhEwjy8

We don't even attempt to do what is necessary to win because justice equality freedom democracy hope

>>35144664
Uh, 1945 was 72 years ago.

>people unironically replying to a bait thread

>>35144664
>get our asses kicked so badly
You seem to not understand the difference between a strategic loss and a tactical loss. Iraq/Afghanistan were a case of "win every battle, lose the war".

>>35144891
>>35144758
>>35144752
>>35144706
I bet you think we won the Korean/Vietnam wars too.

>>35144664
They're not a war that can be won in a normal sense. Just like Vietnam or Afghanistan( the soviet one)

>>35144706
>But you did win in Iraq, you removed Saddam and had a democratic leader elected. It's not your fault that the democratically elected guys were baked by Iran and started genociding the Sunnis once they got in power.
It is when you explicitly ban all Sunnis from any position in politics or the police by banning anyone with previous links to the Ba'ath Party (exactly the same mistake in post-war Germany and banning anyone who was ever a member of the Nazi party, that was only reversed when the Cold War properly got going). The thing about dictators if that they force you to join their parties to get any position of relevance, banning everyone based on that just means banning anyone who actually knew anything about running the country.

>>35144664
we win wars over there all the time. its just that the puppet governments we set up crumbles and a new war begins so fast it all blurs into one big war

>>35144912
We withdrew from Vietnam with our long-term goals accomplished relatively (slow the spread of communism) and the Korean war is still ongoing.

>>35144758
Saddam's dead baby, Saddam's dead.

>>35144664
>and get our asses kicked so badly
When did this happen?

File: b9.jpg (22KB, 651x575px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 651x575px

>>35144664
yet another vatnik assad shill thread
take that proxy off, hans

>>35144964
>We withdrew from Vietnam with our long-term goals accomplished relatively (slow the spread of communism) and the Korean war is still ongoing.
The goal of the Vietnam war was to prevent more East Asian countries turning commie, not delay it by ~10 years at a huge economic and political cost (in fact they hoped to replicate the success of the Malayan Emergency which was a total defeat for the commies, the tactics used in the early period were directly copied from that previous war). Vietnam was by any real measure a complete and utter failure based on the misunderstanding of East Asian history: China and Vietnam were never going to be long-term allies and in fact went to war ~10 years after South Vietnam was dealt with. The only thing the Vietnam War delayed was the Sino-Soviet split, the one event that really killed the USSR in the long term.

File: Graveyard-of-Empires.jpg (220KB, 1411x1049px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1411x1049px

History dictates that nobody wins a war in Afghan, it's not called the 'Graveyard of Empires' for nothing. Yet the US thought they could just waltz in, throw everything bar nukes at it and secure a victory.

So, how is that going?

>>35144706
>killing sunnis is bad

Last I checked, nearly every terrorist muslim cell with eyes on the West was sunni derived and they are the ones causing massive amounts of upheaval in the Middle East.

>>35145015
>america killed the Romans
are you genuinely retarded?

>>35145001
But we did win vietnam

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords

>>35145037
That deal lasted just slightly over two years and most of that time was just spent on the North Vietnamese switching their focus from an insurgency to a conventional invasion of the South. In what world is a meaningless peace of paper a win?

>>35145033

You're not that bright are you?

>>35145061
Piece of paper*
Though I suppose a peace of paper is somewhat accurate also, ironically.

>>35144912
I bet you think North Vietnam didn't get BTFOd at every turn

>>35145075
>>unironically believes america killed the Romans even though america didnt exist then
>"youre not to bright"
kys hans. Germany killed the Romans and should be firebombed to non-existence for it

>>35144664
why is OP so bad at making bait threads?

>>35145001
However the Vietnam war did send a message to major communist powers such as the Soviets and Chinese that we're willing to dump a metric shit-ton of resources into making sure that communism is fought.

Though I have to agree, just because they're all communist doesn't mean they like each other. China invaded Vietnam as response for Vietnam attacking Cambodia (Khmer Rouge regime) for constant invasions and massacres of the Vietnamese populace. Of course that ended relatively quickly with almost nothing accomplished but lip-service.

As for the Sino-Soviet split, I think that was there to begin with. Between the difference in interests, border wars, and desires to hold Mongolia, the Wangs and the Ivans weren't friendly neighbors.

In addition, the USSR was bound to be killed in the long term anyhow. The Sino-split was just one of many catalysts for the cracks to form. Even if they suppressed the populace, suppressed the worker unions, suppressed the disdain for their pipe-dream, the Soviets would feel the collapse.

>>35145115
That picture was saying Afghanistan killed the Roman Empire. Which is still dumb.

>>35144964
How did "slowling the spread of communism" help anyone in america?

I would say korea was closer to a win, but i still don't really see how it benefited the average american, investor, taxpayer or company.

>>35145140

No it's not, it's saying that the Roman Empire was defeated in Afghan, not completely destroyed. The Roman Empire as a whole just sort of crumbled in on itself over time, then again a few defeats on home soil by the Vizigoths and Vandals and then a massive defeat by the Ottomans in the East didn't help matters much.

>>35145132
>However the Vietnam war did send a message to major communist powers such as the Soviets and Chinese that we're willing to dump a metric shit-ton of resources into making sure that communism is fought.
The Korean War really already covered that.
>As for the Sino-Soviet split, I think that was there to begin with. Between the difference in interests, border wars, and desires to hold Mongolia, the Wangs and the Ivans weren't friendly neighbors.
My point was more that the split was delayed by cooperation on things like Vietnam, if Vietnam had been allowed to form 'naturally' it would have actively started to play the Chinese and the Russians against each other. Thousands of America lives, Billions of American dollars and god knows how much political damage (internal and external) could have been saved with the same end effect.

>>35145187
Are you saying that the Vietnam war was a redundancy at best and a waste of resources at worst? Yeah, I could agree to that to an extent. We did have some tech progress ironically from the war, but otherwise a loss of life without good reason.

>>35145184
Then why are the Mongols there, they ran through Afghanistan and completely wiped out the Khwarezima dynasty.

>>35145238
>Are you saying that the Vietnam war was a redundancy at best and a waste of resources at worst? Yeah, I could agree to that to an extent.
Pretty much.
>We did have some tech progress ironically from the war, but otherwise a loss of life without good reason.
Well yeh, to a degree all wars drive technological progress.

>>35145174
The goals of the war was more in the interest of the government than the common man. As for the Korean war, South Korea is a prosperous nation with company interactions to and fro the USA, as well as preventing another launch pad for North Korea.

Personally, it'd be in the best interest for China to eliminate the North Korean government, or at least its leaders and set up a puppet who listens to them.

>>35145264
Wars don't drive tech progress, businesses do!

>>35144741
This
For every 1 we lose we kill at least 14 combatants. Not to mention the civilians or the ones we can't confirm because they were on the wrong end of a bomb

Without clear goals of course we can't win

File: rule_two.gif (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>35145238
>>35145282
>being this naive

>>35145313
Yah, government really invented search engines, electric cars, spread sheets, computer displays...

Jesus christ, you think government workers invent shit?

File: '.jpg (80KB, 720x704px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 720x704px

>>35145264
They still were our allies, and running away from the war would've looked bad on America. That isn't say that the Vietnam war didn't look bad as it progressed, but abandonment also say something. I suppose it could've been handled with different tactics and management but still.

I guess it's you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, all because you're playing the cards that someone else handed off to you 30 years back. I reckon you can keep reshuffling, but for what? Maybe it'll pay off, but how?

>>35145313
FYI: you're responding to multiple anons.

Also, you'll be surprised by the number of boomers and millennials who can be that way. Actually, no it isn't surprising, despite the easy access to thousands of terrabytes worth of data.

>>35144664
Real answer? You don't win wars against terrorism or nonpolitical entities. You can't defeat "ideals" with better aircraft or more advanced infantry footwear. You win by making your opponent afraid of death, or dead.

Our current military is still setup to fight a nation with borders, rules, leaders, etc. We're just now getting to the point to where we've learned enough to fight a faceless enemy.

>>35144664
I'm getting real tired of these idiots who can't tell the difference between military incompetence and political incompetence. Our military performs extremely well. But our politicians are idiots who still think nation-building and this hearts and minds crap works when it's been repeatedly proven that it doesn't.

We shouldn't even be there tbqh.

>>35145383
If the military can't do the job, their told as in "build a nation" then they suck at their job...

>>35145431
It is not the military's job to "build a nation".

File: 1501859336346.jpg (115KB, 1200x628px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1200x628px

>>35145300
>For every 1 we lose we kill at least 14 combatants

Which is absolutely meaningless when your enemy literally breeds like fucking rats.

>>35145061
>be fighting war
>sign treaty ending war
>a few years later second war starts
>not worth getting reinvolved
>Italy losing ww2 doesn't mean Italy lost ww1

>>35145174
It benefits us immensely to have another close ally in the region, one that has a good indigenous arms industry and a pretty good economy. Furthermore, we can station troops there and increase our force projection.
>>35145431
They were given no clear goals/objectives and told to play cops instead of being soldiers. "building a nation" is a meme and a waste of time and a role that isn't suited for our military.
>>35145061
Because we weren't there anymore outside of embassy people, and therefore didn't care much outside of the final evacuation. We essentially washed our hands of the problem, and left. While we did not "win" in the traditional sense in Vietnam it wasn't like the 1st Indochina war since there was no Dien Bien Phu or any decisive single battle, it was a drawn out slugfest where we eventually realized it wasn't worth it and pulled out while essentially closing the book on Vietnam for several decades. They wanted to re-open diplomatic channels and establish embassies, we refused to acknowledge them. They were willing to open trade, we embargoed them. They wanted reparations, we told them to fuck right off (we still haven't). Ultimately the war was very damaging for us, but it was for us a momentary setback as by the 80's we were rocking and rolling once more.

File: A new type of bait.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>35144664

File: cpusa_longtermgoals.jpg (57KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 403x403px

Politicians, public opinion, and anything above E6

It's the bullshit a formal military has to deal with. For example, a guy empties an AKM at us, we have to call it in, report where and when it happened, wait because the officer on the other end wasn't at his desk, request permission to chase the enemy, wait for that permission, report where we were going and why, wait for that to go through, report back to the battalion commander, wait for him to respond, and so on and so on.

If we could just run after the motherfucker we could chase him down and kill him. But instead we have to wait 40 minutes fucking around on the radio by then he is gone anyway, and then we have to file a mountain of paperwork.

Reminder that bureaucracy kills.

>>35144664
This is why we need flags. Europoors talk a whole lot of shit when their piss poor country can't even make their 2% defence spending quota.

>>35146562
OP here
Sounds like DMV, but I guess the military should be more like the DMV than the DMV; due to how huge it is.

If only there was a good way to make the military more like FedEx Ground than USPS.

>>35144664
Because modern wars are for profit and spreading western neoliberal influence, not actually winning anything.

File: 1428719138866.jpg (225KB, 1280x2500px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1280x2500px

>>35145015
>nobody wins a war in Afghan

what about Second and Third Anglo-Afghan Wars?

of course back then the british weren't afraid to massacre entire villages and blow people from cannons to secure victory

the moralfaging over all the inhuman war crimes in the Boer War kind of ruined that tactic for all time though

A military just does what it's told. A better question is why can't our politicians figure out how to utilize our military?

>>35146741
"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."

>>35144866
This place needs flags.

OP is definitely a leaf or europoor.

>>35144664
The US has won every conventional war it's been involved in since Vietnam. The only issue is that leadership thinks that they can actually fix the ungovernable shitholes they invade.

>>35147178
Eh, the military performed brilliantly when fucking up the Iraqi military. Then the insurgency kicks in and it all falls apart.

File: stop_falling_for_it.jpg (8KB, 326x179px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 326x179px

>>35144664
Obvious b8 is obvious.
Anyway there were W's.

>>35144723
Stop being sushabish and enlist.... ive been to afg 2x iraq and syria.... prob another here soon, living in shit, fucking shit up and kiling fucks is where its at

>>35144664
Winning is hard, point at another army that has won a conflict like Iraq or Afghanistan without burning the entire country to the ground. Mostly the fault of politicians who get the military involved there imo.

>>35145015
>Yet the US thought they could just waltz in, throw everything bar nukes at it and secure a victory.

Do even have a concept of half of the U.S capabilities. We don't spend more money than the next 7 countries combined on fucking coffee machines.

>>35144664
>We have not a war in the past 80 years

Well, not since Korea, if you call it a war.

>>35144664
ur adorable

>>35144723
>loss to the taxpayer

That shit is going straight back into the economy. People have to make all of those bombs, guns, ammo, tanks, planes, trucks, and gear. Those tax dollars don't just vanish into thin air. These people have to be paid for their work and these people live lives and spend that money which again goes back into the economy. Its basic fucking economics.

>>35146562

the US Military is a colossal disastrously bloated mess that would either be forced to shed the red tape in the event of a war with another global power or get fucked unless they resorted to IG/Zerg rush tier tactics..

File: image.jpg (45KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x500px

>>35151283
Hehehehe
Good goy

>>35144664
>Why
The goal was never to "win." It's an endless war to keep the Arabs fighting amongst themselves instead of ganging up on Israel.

>>35146562
Man, the air force doesn't have do deal with this bullcrap. They just need to ask whether to engage the fucker and get a swift "permission granted".

>>35145174
Imagine South Korea, with all the same manufacturing industry, infrastructure, and weapons minus the K1 and other NATO-lease/standard equipment. Now, imagine it with an active nuclear programme and aligned with China. That is what would have happened if we ignored Korea.

>>35144664
You even get a medal if you get shot.

Nice bait faggot name one war in which we lost . No one will ever attack the mainland.

>>35152819

bullshit.
Worst Korea was actually POORER and had a SMALLER economy than Best Korea up to early 60.
It was general Park Chung-hee who proclaimed himself president after miltary coup in May 1961 that pull Worst Korea out of the economical shit it was sinking (google "miracle on the Han river"). He got massive amount of loans from Western Europe and USA and use it to modernise his country according to western standards. At the same time Best Korea got even more money and economical aid form China, SU and other communist countries - and stayed at absolute shithole level, because communism is complete retarded and ineffective both politically and economicaly.
So Worst Korea minus capitalism will never get even slightly similar level of manufacturing industry, infrastructure and other shit that it have today. It will be just bigger Best Korea, aka millions of half starved, sick and barely educated peasants dying from pneumonia at the age of 55 for so their groruis reader can got fatter and build another copy of russian missile from 1955 which explode 15 second after launch.

Because muh human rights.

>>35144664
We lost the gulf war? We lost the conflict in Serbia? We lost Grenada?

OP dies in a jizz avalanche again.

>>35144664

It's the horrible track record of the last 4 US presidents we have had. This new one should be different and Kim Junk Uno may be the first to find out.

File: 1499704787056.gif (536KB, 381x512px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 381x512px

>>35144664
We're not in the business of winning wars. We're in the business of perpetuating war...

>>35145015
>Macedonian empire died there
>Mongol empire died there
>Roman empire died there
>British Empire died there

Yeah bullshit. They took over the area known as Afghanistan and ruled it for generations. Greece especially. They were never defeated in any sense of the word. They eventually become mixed in with the native population. "Afghanistan" never defeated them. You could call japan or Saudi Arabia or Italy or any number of places the graveyard of empires by that retarded logic. There's nothing special about afghanistan. They've been taken over and ruled by foreigners and fucked in the ass like virtually everyone else.

>>35146562
problem is no formal declaration of war, rules of engagement, etc etc. The USA is fighting a limited war to pursue political aims while the sandniggers are fighting for their survival (or at least have been brainwashed into believing they are) so one side has to take bureaucracy and due process in hand doing anything and the other does not

File: 1502415418650.jpg (46KB, 692x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 692x600px

>>35145174

I'm with you anon, I count Korea as a clear win. The US secured a capitalist Korea for those that wanted it, without the US it would be one communist Korea. Vietnam was a loss, not enough people were willing to defend capitalism or at least not in the right places and it didn't help the US had to fight with their hands tied behind their back and werent allowed to engage easy targets because of hippies. Iraq, we will see, things will be chaotic for essentially a new country for a while until it goes one way or another. Afghanistan, I can't see US making much of a difference but it would help to drone known Isis groups fucking with the locals.

>>35144664

US kills a shit ton of the problem but the people want to have to rebuild they're country right. Many do not, these are poor, industry lacking, backwards countries to begin with, how can you expect them to suddenly reform into a first world country?

Even after world war 2 there were rebel Nazis still killing and they were a first world country, it took time and extreme brutality to fix it. For example, every time a Nazi killed a Russian soldier they'd take 10 German boys and execute them

>>35144664
They don't lose wars though. We just stay after the war is over because leftists like to try and rebuild countries that have no concept of democracy or republicanism. Then while this is going on, they accuse other politicians of war profiteering when they are the ones allowing it by trying to push their unicorn and rainbow beliefs on a population that is 80% inbred and barely understands how to tie their shoes.

>>35154285
>>35145140
>>35145184

Holy shit you guys are stupid. There's no indication that it's fucking middle east.

>>35145033
Shut up if you don't understand political cartoons.

>>35151283
Thank you for helping the economy by breaking a window and then asking money to repay said broken window. You're a fucking genius, keynes.

>>35144664

Because all new US wars (except for possibly Korea) are fought for the Jewish interest.

>>35144664
>and get our asses kicked so badly

An "ass kicking" would involve more deaths, injury, and prisoners taken than your enemy, but that's never what happens at all.

Regardless, the U.S. loses because our civilian leadership are cowardly pussies. They refuse to provide the military resources needed to complete a task, and they refuse to allow the military to kill and destroy enough of the enemy human and logistic resources to break the enemy will to fight.

War is all about will, and if you don't have the will to make your enemy submit, then you'll never win, regardless of any superiority you may have.

File: zzzerea.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

(you)

>>35156893
What about our ginormous military budget? Isn't that all the resources the military could possibly need? Like, in the trillions? What do you mean they don't have the resources they need. (Note: Actual question)

I grant your other points.

File: 1496587114437.png (23KB, 800x188px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 800x188px

American soldiers are inferior to European soldiers

>>35144664
>We have not a war in the past 80 years..
Grenada, Panama, Libya twice, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Gulf War 1, Shaba 2, Dominican Civil War, Simba Rebellion, the Lebanon Crisis in 1958, the Communist Insurgency in Thailand, the "Tanker War" with Iran during the Iran/Iraq War.

That's 13 victories out of 24 wars that the US has been involved in since WW2. (13 out of 20, if you do not want to count the ones currently going on until they end.)

>>35159083
>What about our ginormous military budget?
That money is being pocketed by political cronies to fund shit we'll never use, or shit we'll use that's intentionally overpriced.

The resources I'm talking about are manpower. General "A" is given a task to accomplish and says he needs "B" resources to accomplish it, but Civilian politician "C" says that's too much and only allows him to have "D" amount of resources. General "A" tells him he can't do the mission with that shit, and either quits, or gets fired and replaced by general "E", who is more than willing to half-ass the mission because he knows it'll be good for his career. Then, when the mission doesn't get completed, he'll go running to civilian politician "C" for more resources, who will grant him SOME of the resources in order to save face from the public, but not ALL of the resources needed to accomplish the task. Then after a long enough period of half-assing the mission, wasting lives and money, politician "C" will say "we tried", and quit supporting the mission entirely, and general "A" and "E" will retire and get high paid jobs as military lobbyists in the defense industry.

>>35159118
Europeans are giant pussies, and so are your military "men".

>>35159204
>That's 13 victories out of 24 wars that the US has been involved in since WW2
That's a pretty embarrassing winning ratio.