American Super Power

Watching a documentary on Desert Storm, I never knew exactly how it all went down.

How can any nation stand against this? I know Iraq isn’t exactly a peer opponent, but even in the 90s I don’t know how anyone could have stopped Desert Storm.

Question 1: how can a peer opponent stifle such a overwhelming air and land assault?

Question 2: how the hell did guerrillas stalemate the United States military later on in the Middle East?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How can any nation stand against this?
    It can't. The US never lost it's Cold war progress. It's probably still a decade or two ahead of china still, not even talking about russia. It is still pouring hundreds of billions in its military every year.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      stalemate is easy. when the US says it's trying to avoid civilian casualties, it actually means it - about the only hard counter to that is taking your own people hostage and posing as civilians while also, yourself, killing your own civilians

      I know the copy pasta about how F16s can’t enforce edicts and how civilians are dangerous to their governments yet, but it really does seem a bit hopeless considering if they want to destroy civilians they can more than do so.

      based fellow the operations room enjoyer.

      Cheers sir. Have they released another episode about Somalia?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but it really does seem a bit hopeless considering if they want to destroy civilians they can more than do so.
        But they just don't. And it's not some random thing it's the inherent flipside. America's democracy and government and society and geography is all entangled with everything both good and bad. You can see the flipside right now in Russia or China. America is loud and noisy and argues with itself all the time, but for all their cries about corruption it's meaningful that they can even talk about it period, that it really can be investigated, that even rando citizens can post research on it and debate it. Their R&D obviously benefits from the massive boisterous independence and everyone doing different shit trying to get rich. Overall, on average, they do in fact care about values to some genuine degree.

        All of this has converses. It's easier to steal secrets from America, or suborn politics. They're liable to change their minds on a dime with a new administration which happens regularly every 4-8 years. The public can move on and completely forget about even relatively big events in a matter of years, or simply outright ignore the entire rest of the planet for decades at a time. Caring about their values can mean giving up hard when reality doesn't work with them, and also means they don't and never will fight in the brutal authoritarian manner.

        It is what it is.
        >"God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America."
        >― Otto von Bismarck

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. The chinks are so far behind in the space race too. They will forever be a regional power.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Internal and economic problems don't really help either. Their bloated real estate sector, their zero-covid policy, their abysmally high youth unemployment rate, the corruption scandal in china's chip industry and their stressed banks probably rival internal american problems. Hearing a chinese university friend talk about it, its probably even worse.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yeah the zero covid is such a bad policy, any chink experts want to weigh in on something stupid? I makes no sense, covid is always going to get back in.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    based fellow the operations room enjoyer.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    stalemate is easy. when the US says it's trying to avoid civilian casualties, it actually means it - about the only hard counter to that is taking your own people hostage and posing as civilians while also, yourself, killing your own civilians

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah you're not standing up to that but Iraq using its air force would've been a necessary first step.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You cant really counter it unless you can predict the plan ahead of time.
    That's why, during the cold war, espionage was so prevalent.
    If your enemy does something like this and you have no idea what's going on or what their next move is, you're going to lose a lot of ground very quickly.
    If you know what your enemy's plan is however, you can plan accordingly and position yourself to prevent key objectives from being accomplished, making your enemy's effort null and void, or at least far less effective.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what's the name of the docu?

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Question 1: how can a peer opponent stifle such a overwhelming air and land assault?
    You don't, because the US has no peer.
    >Question 2: how the hell did guerrillas stalemate the United States military later on in the Middle East?
    They didn't. The US could easily have genocided the entire sandpeople population and simply chose not to. They literally just lost interest in civilizing stone age barbarians and left on their own accord.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      See

      based fellow the operations room enjoyer.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They didn't.
      >They literally just lost interest in civilizing stone age barbarians and left on their own accord.
      So first you say they didn't do it, then you turn around and say how they did it. Make up your mind! You just described the manner of the stalemate, you did not disprove it

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        shut the fuck up forever you illiterate subhuman

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US lost Afghanistan because the goal was to make the Afghani government into a stable, humanitarian Democracy. Afghanis won by simply not listening to us for 20 years, shitting all over the govt. we tried to set up, and taking enough pot shots at our soldiers that we figured it wasn't worth the effort. Glassing the country would've been easy, but then why even go to war?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      hilarious cope

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They didn't. The US could easily have genocided the entire sandpeople population and simply chose not to

      A "gesture of goodwill" perhaps ?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A peer doesn't let you stage an invasion in their neighboring country for 6 months.....

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no one ever said Iraq in 1991 was a peer country, near peer would be a laughable stretch
      what iraq had was considerable manpower and a defensive position that retards thought would make the fight unwinnable for the US and eventually lead to a shameful withdrawal

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How can any nation stand against this?
    Support conservative movements in the United States to sow discord and make enemies against Americans that vote the same as them and call of killing them in the streets under the guise of being "patriot".

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Question 1: how can a peer opponent stifle such a overwhelming air and land assault?

    You really can't. I've heard of some wargames where the guy playing Iraq just attacks Saudi Arabia right after invading Kuwait, so the US can't build up forces there, but you'd just be turning it into a longer, bloodier war that probably ends with regime change.

    >Question 2: how the hell did guerrillas stalemate the United States military later on in the Middle East?

    In a counterinsurgency, you're only as strong as the government you're fighting on behalf of.

    The US was working with extremely weak, dysfunctional states in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, the war was a stalemate while US troops were in the country, and then they fell apart as soon as the Americans left. In Iraq, the US eventually found a very solid strategy and raped the insurgents, and then we left and the Iraqi government undid all of the hard earned progress the Americans had created.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US could only do this at the tail end of the Cold War when the revolution in military technology of the late Cold War come to fruition. Before that, even in the same decade, it kept fucking up.

    A great of example of that is the United States invasion of communist Grenada. While successful, it showed grave, grave flaws in the military. What should have been a smooth operation ended up much worse with failures of communications , unacceptable friendly fire incidents etc. All happened despite reforms and lessons learned from Vietnam. See Goldwater-Nichols Act which fixed a lot of the problems showed during the invasion.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have you made it to the war crime yet?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      frankly one of the sickest, gruesome war crimes of all time
      makes the holohoax look like a joke

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >At first the Iraqi's accepted the resolution and withdrew from the country but the US Government was too BRAVE to accept this. And so, without a moments hesitation their armed forces heroically rushed to their jets and massacred the withdrawing forces before they could reach their home.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >invade country
        >get told to leave
        >no
        >be forced to leave
        >OKAY WE ACCEPT YOUR RESOLUTION
        It's a little fuckin late bud, war's already started

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >massacre them while they are leaving

          Such brave warriors

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            just depriving them of future combat power Anon. Wars are not fought fairly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >be on a battlefield
            >have not surrendered
            >be a part of the military of a country that has started a war of aggression and is at war with half the planet
            >could easily turn around and invade again

            >WTF WHY ARE YOU SHOOTING ME

            the absolute state of bunkertrannies

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >air striking unsurrendered retreating enemy forces
      >war crime

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Somehow the trope got into antipatriot culture that "attacking an enemy that is fleeing is a war crime".

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is the story here?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It happened. They deserved it. And we’ll do it again.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When the Iraqi army was running away from Kuwait at the start of the Gulf War, they stole a bunch of civilian vehicles to do so and tried to make a straight shot down a big highway without any air cover. Turns out that didn't work so well and the US pilots had a good time turning them into a pile of scrap, charred flesh, and eternal butthurt.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The start

          Saddam withdrew his forces from Kuwait City and then

          >At first the Iraqi's accepted the resolution and withdrew from the country but the US Government was too BRAVE to accept this. And so, without a moments hesitation their armed forces heroically rushed to their jets and massacred the withdrawing forces before they could reach their home.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >get told to leave
            >refuse
            >okay, we're gonna make you
            >oh, you were serious? we'll leave but not before stealing everything not nailed down
            >too late, here's some nice PGMs for you though

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        F16s and A10s broke up a block party. that photo doesn't do it justice btw, that scene goes on for something like 60 miles.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        American pilots had fun.
        The end.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >war crime
      >same setup but in slavland with little Z's painted on all the plundered cars
      wowie top post of r/ukraine guys take that vatnik invaders!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most Holy Retard

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Literally fucking nobody has a good answer to insurgency and People's War style bullshit as of writing.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if I just aggressively misunderstand how every guerrila war, rebellion, civil war, and insurgency in history happened, I can pretend the chinese invented a brand new form of it!
      RETARD

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There was in fact a good way of doing it, most exemplified by Edward I's conquest of Wales: the construction of fortified towns that kept the local populace around the area, keeping them from supporting guerillas from a distance and accommodating them to the new way of things (because why live miserably in a dirt hovel when you can live in a nicer town with a job that isn't eating dirt). This starved the guerillas of support and simultaneously meant that any attempt by them to attack would have to be into heavily defended forts that could supply themselves and would require heavy siege equipment to capture. The thing is most of the time nobody wants to bother building massive fortifications to occupy land (usually because they are not planning on annexing it directly), so guerillas can operate in peace.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Question 1: how can a peer opponent stifle such a overwhelming air and land assault?

    That the cool part, they can't. The USA is unrivaled in SEAD/DEAD and organizing logistics, and with both of those the USA is capable of a non-stop onslaught of air attacks and highly mobile armored assaults.

    >Question 2: how the hell did guerrillas stalemate the United States military later on in the Middle East?

    Politics and morals. After the US military had conquered both Iraq and Afghanistan they had to switch from warfighting mode to policing mode, which is historically a difficult task. An occupying nation can take two routes: 1) attempt to stop the insurgents with as little collateral damage as possible so you can win over the population or 2) wipe out the populations and the towns you think are responsible for the insurgency without remorse. The 1st option is very difficult and labor intensive, which means its very expensive, and it also must take place over a very long time table. You can find examples of this 1st option as it was attempted by European colonial powers late in their history as they tried to keep their empires together, but ultimately their attempts ended in failure as it is very difficulted for outsiders to justify their rule. The 2nd option is historically the more successful of the two, but it comes at a great human and moral cost. A modern example of the 2nd option is the 1982 Hama Massacre. The 2nd option is a fear based tactic and is usually also supplemented by the occupying power brining in their own people to help control the conquered lands.

    In the end the US's withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan has less to do with being defeated military and more to do with the US realizing that the native population wasn't becoming any friendlier and that they had no reason to continue sinking money and lives into countries that would ultimately have to be ruled by fear, a tactic that the US would never use.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The rest of the world should be on their knees kissing our dick for being so benevolent.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s very simple. Just don’t start shit with the US or any country that’s friendly with it

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When the United States fights in the Eastern Hemisphere, it fights at great distances, and the greater the distance, the greater the logistical cost. More ships are needed to deliver the same amount of materiel, for example. That absorbs many troops. The logistical cost of fighting at a distance is that it diverts numbers of troops disproportionate to the size of the combat force.

    Regardless of the number of troops deployed, the U.S. military is always vastly outnumbered by the populations of the countries to which it is deployed. If parts of these populations resist as light-infantry guerrilla forces or employ terrorist tactics, the enemy rapidly swells to a size that can outnumber U.S. forces, as in Vietnam and Korea. At the same time, the enemy adopts strategies to take advantage of the core weakness of the United States — tactical intelligence. The resistance is fighting at home. It understands the terrain and the culture. The United States is fighting in an alien environment. It is constantly at an intelligence disadvantage. That means that the effectiveness of the native forces is multiplied by excellent intelligence, while the effectiveness of U.S. forces is divided by lack of intelligence.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The United States compensates with technology, from space-based reconnaissance and air power to counter-battery systems and advanced communications. This can make up the deficit but only by massive diversions of manpower from ground-combat operations. Maintaining a helicopter requires dozens of ground-crew personnel. Where the enemy operates with minimal technology multiplied by intelligence, the United States compensates for lack of intelligence with massive technology that further reduces available combat personnel. Between logistics and technological force multipliers, the U.S. “point of the spear” shrinks. If you add the need to train, relieve, rest and recuperate the ground-combat forces, you are left with a small percentage available to fight.

      The paradox of this is that American forces will win the engagements but may still lose the war. Having identified the enemy, the United States can overwhelm it with firepower. The problem the United States has is finding the enemy and distinguishing it from the general population. As a result, the United States is well-suited for the initial phases of combat, when the task is to defeat a conventional force. But after the conventional force has been defeated, the resistance can switch to methods difficult for American intelligence to deal with. The enemy can then control the tempo of operations by declining combat where it is at a disadvantage and initiating combat when it chooses.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Question 2: how the hell did guerrillas stalemate the United States military later on in the Middle East?
    In Afghanistan, the Taliban were supported and retreated to Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons and was a "frenemy" to the US and played the real politik game fairly skillfully for much of the 00s. That's the basic reason. You see a lot of shit on PrepHole and elsewhere about "morals" etc and sure that's a thing too, but the absolute core reason for the "stalemate" is simply that the US wasn't willing to pursue opponents into Pakistan beyond a few special ops (which were genuinely rare and special, bin laden being the most important and public one obviously). So the Taliban could in fact just sit in safety and however much they died if they entered Afghanistan they couldn't be truly uprooted.

    With a touch of irony the same dynamic is playing out a bit in Ukraine, the US doesn't want Ukraine using its weapons to strike into Russia itself. Which if you think about it is historically really fucking weird, normally if a country goes to war with you striking back at said country is the natural move ASAP, hit their base just as they're hitting yours. Instead Ukraine can launch some strikes purely with its own stuff but it can't simply use HIMARS to nail the entire Russian train network with 180 miles or whatever of the border and fucking end the fight. Of course the flipside of that is that they get this utterly ginormous backing of intel and weapons and tech they'd never have been able to do otherwise, so on balance obviously they'd rather have that. But there are still these rules imposed by US concerns over anything that can reach their own country.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let’s begin with the first question, the answer to which is rooted in demographics and space. The population of Iraq is currently about 32 million. Afghanistan has a population of less than 30 million. The U.S. military, all told, consists of about 1.5 million active-duty personnel (plus 980,000 in the reserves), of whom more than 550,000 belong to the Army and about 200,000 are part of the Marine Corps. Given this, it is important to note that the United States strains to deploy about 200,000 troops at any one time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many of these troops are in support rather than combat roles. The same was true in Vietnam, where the United States was challenged to field a maximum of about 550,000 troops (in a country much more populous than Iraq or Afghanistan) despite conscription and a larger standing army. Indeed, the same problem existed in World War II.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How can any nation stand against this?
    Why do you think any nation should be able to? The US and its allies were battle hardened by WW2, the largest conflict in human history. This is simple natural selection on a societal level. The Middle East and Africa never had to engage in warfare on this scale. It is utterly inconceivable to them the powers that NATO can conjure. Just remember that this is just America's conventional military as well. If the US wanted, they could have glassed all of Iraq and still had nukes to spare.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Question 2: how the hell did guerrillas stalemate the United States military later on in the Middle East?
    As well as what everyone else has said: the thing about being the "world police" is that the US simultaneously cares about stuff happening all over the entire world. They didn't just drop everything when they were in the middle east. They were still doing operations in the Pacific and South America and still doing NATO duties etc etc etc. So that crazy huge overall army is almost never bringing its full force against anyone, and in fact the weaker the target the less they'll want to tie up. They'll use as much as they think is needed, but no more. Only another real world order existential peer fight ala WW2 would bring them fully into it.

    Domestic politics also means that nobody wants to lose or spend THAT much on a fight which isn't that important. In a WW3 you'd see all the stops pulled out, but short of that there is constant pressure to minimize American casualties and bad PR and expense once the initial fervor dies off. America's highly adversarial domestic politics also means that within a year or two as the glow fades the opponents tend to start bashing any fights in an effort to win power themselves.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: OP asks questions he's already prewritten answers for.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US spent the entire Cold War learning and perfecting the art of this kind of warfare, which is why operations like Grenada and Panama in particular were so important even if they weren’t all that big. What America and by extension NATO has that virtually nobody else does are people on all levels who have decades of active combat experience who were also mentored by people with decades of experience too, some from the largest conflict in history. On that front the US is so far ahead of the rest of the world its laughable.
    >Q2
    An interesting part of our national consciousness is that Americans at large aren’t too big on the idea of active imperialism, even if we practically do it already. As such instead of taking a page from our Anglo roots and flat out subjugating these peoples as a full part of our realm we prefer to coerce and build them up with the idea that we get a friendly state in the end. Obviously reality is much different because it turns out a people who are inbred and all too often legally retarded at large don’t exactly make very good statesmen or well functioning societies in general, which makes the whole hearts and minds thing rather pointless. If the US wanted it could utterly wipe states like Iraq completely off the map, but doing so would cause an international uproar as well as being hugely unpopular at home even for your bomb a muzzie for Christ crowd. So the US is in an interesting spot where it has the potential to make the British Empire look like a joke but doesn’t have the will to go that route. Even as far back as Versailles the US was blatantly against such harsh penalties on Germany, nevermind its postwar attitude with Japan, who were considered below subhuman savages during the war. America would much rather reform something into a self sufficient and friendly state than completely take it over.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair, it has worked out exceptionally well for the US on the times it doesn't fail. Hearts and minds is a very high risk, high reward strategy for imperialism, but the US as a whole has judged it worth from both a moral standpoint, and the results in countries like Japan, South Korean, and even Germany before they absorbed Eastern Germany's populace and politicians who spend decades under the USSR's propaganda, even discounting the actual KGB/FSB assets.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think the biggest problem is the fact it doesn’t exactly take cultural differences into account. Hearts and minds can absolutely work in regions like Europe or Asia, and it has phenomenally. The Middle East however is an entirely different animal. You can’t pull that same thing in the Middle East exactly as you did in Europe or Asia, and I think we’re going to see entirely different routes taken in the future to succeed where the previous policy failed. And to give the alphabet fans the benefit of the doubt, all they’ve mostly dealt with was Europe and Asia, so they were essentially going into places like Iraq and Afghanistan, who are entirely different to anything they’ve dealt with before even counting the Muj, completely blind.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think that even in the Middle East, it's entirely possible but unlike the Asia and Europe, it was a much messier situation after the invasion and we picked the wrong horses to back. The US has a pretty strong ally in Jordan of all places, despite also being an ally to Israel, so it can be worked. However, when it became clear that we'd picked the wrong side to try to civilize in Afghanistan, we still stuck out out for far too long because of sunk cost. Meanwhile, while Iraq isn't a shining garden gnomeel like the Asian countries we've rebuilt, it hasn't collapsed like Afghanistan did either, so possibly going 1 and 1 isn't that bad compared to Asia where we went 2 and 1 with SK, Japan, and Vietnam.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Again, you idiot Americans think you did it on your own.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How can any nation stand against this?
    They can’t. The United States has the first second and third largest Air Force in the world (Air Force, Navy, Marines, in that order), and as we’ve seen with all conventional wars since the second world war, air power is everything.
    >Question 1: how can a peer opponent stifle such a overwhelming air and land assault?
    With an equally massive defense and similar resistance in the air and on the ground.
    >Question 2: how the hell did guerrillas stalemate the United States military later on in the Middle East?
    The United States and other democracies suck at occupations and nation building because of the political realities of democratic nations. Namely that no populace wants to be seen as “the bad guy“ and the things that are necessary for occupation and nation building invariably get it into the head of the voting populace that the United States is acting in an unjustified manner in its occupation. So the US ended up spending a lot of money, materiel, and manpower for a cause that the American people didn’t really support, that being a continued occupation in Afghanistan which was necessary because the US couldn’t win hearts and minds and wasn’t able to act with the necessary brutality to suppress local resistance. An example of the US actually acting with the necessary brutality is the Philippine-American war, and that helped push the US into isolationism for several decades after because of the measures that American occupation forces took in fighting the Filipinos turned off the American public to the whole “overt imperialism” business the great powers like France and Britain were getting up to. The only instance of the United States really being successful when it comes the nation building was West Germany, Italy, and Japan, and that’s only because there had been a pre-existing democratic tradition and set of values prior to the rise of the fascists, weak, though it may have been.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Japan
      >Democratic
      Japan was never democratic even into the Taisho "democracy" and I'm tired of historically illiterate retards spouting this.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just imagine if the United States military stopped fighting with its hands behind its back and stopped caring about civilian lives/damage. Who could stop such a bloodthirsty army?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Russians and Chinese.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fuck you read like the vatniks and their holding-back idiocy

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can't really do much. The main thing about this is that it is the setter of US expectation, so perhaps that is kind of a weakness. The US public seems to have no stomach for losses, hiding the repatriation of coffins for example, so all you can do is to make it expensive.

    Iran is quite a good example. I have no doubts the US could defeat Iran, probably following half a dozen distinct approaches. I have extreme doubts that any of them would be acceptable to the American public. This obvious might change if there was the perception of real threat perhaps. Its kind of like the US has beaten the game so it has to tick the Ironman mode box.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Iran is quite a good example.

      Arabs can't fight Anon.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Iran arent arabs anon

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Iran arent arabs anon

          Is this the Persian larp? they've been Arabs for 1000 years Anon.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US main weakness is that it is a democracy.

    The Roman used to have absolutely brutal reprisals on occupied territories that rebelled. Normally the Romans would be quite hands off and not bother locals much as long as they paid taxes and usually built a bunch of roads.
    But when the locals started guerrilla warfare killing entire towns was the norm. Crucifixion of hundreds of people along main roads with signs saying why it was done.
    Generally that either lead to the guerrilla warfare to end or a full out revolt.
    In the case of a full out revolt than time "make a desert and call it peace" aka as genocide, everyone sold into slavery and replacement.

    The US can't use this brutal tactics because they would get massive backlash from their own population that does not have the stomach to accept victory trough brutality.

    The Germans in WW2 used to pick 10 civilians from the nearby settlements for every 1 German killed by guerrilla fighters.
    Most often the local village was forced to try to find the perpetrators and if unable 10 people, generally people with some ties to the resistance movements (even if minimal), were picked.
    This worked moderately well, as it was very formal and it made locals rush to the Germans to tell them about resistance fighters in the area if spotted to avoid being shot themselves later.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    be a rice farmer or goat fucker and you'll win against the US
    their military is just a scam that drains their tax money into pockets that they'll vehemently defend as support da troopz npc behaviour

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because there was no clear objective. If they were told to annex a part of Afghanistan, they'd do it in a few days. Instead their objective was nation building, which is impossible there.

Your email address will not be published.