Why do massive militaries and supposedly highly trained soldiers blunder and lose (or at least a pyrrhic victory) so badly when forced to fight against untrained, quickly formed insurgents, rebels, and armed citizens?
I'm starting to think veterans are just big LARPers and basically anyone can do this. I just laugh at former marines who fought in Desert Storm and all of 01-21 just because of how easily they got BTFO'd by a bunch of sandal-wearing sandjaas.
>I'm starting to think veterans are just big LARPers and basically anyone can do this
as active duty, I agree, anyone can do this.
a lot of the training seems moronic. like do 20 pullups and jog 20 miles with some shit on your back and and team up with three black guys and one other gay white guy and shoot a gun. okay now go walk around the barracks for five years.
at least with guerrilla warfare, you're constantly trying to survive and doing things that are needed
A lot of the training is moronic on purpose. The point is to condition you so that when someone tells you to do something that doesn't make sense, you'll just do it without asking questions.
seems to not be working
russians are failing because their commanders are killed and have all the knowledge, or refuse to adapt to changing situations properly because it means going against another officers orders.
their entire structure is very rigid and poor at reacting unless the top level is a micro GOD with instant communication with everyone.
>like do 20 pullups and jog 20 miles with some shit on your back and and team up with three black guys and one other gay white guy and shoot a gun.
Bet you still can't do it though
Lmao look at this boot. At my MMA gym, we'd get guys like you fresh out of bootcamp or a deployment. They walk in thinking they can beat everyone up. They end up challenging a fighter and get their asses handed to them. We would even sometimes send the smallest guy to fight them, just to make the humiliation sting even more.
>mma
Bruh.
Too big for their own good.
Early Iraq was pretty gangster combat. 03-07 or so.
2021 was better because everything we did for 20 years was all in futility and it was hilarious
>politicians disregard that propping up a puppet government has historically required military presence
>leave country
>puppet government falls
>HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?
>hurr behaving like slav Black folk would have changed things
How does that keep them going back to their old ways once you leave?
>How does that keep them going back to their old ways once you leave?
corpses rarely go back to their old ways. you can count the examples in written history on one hand
yuo can kill the memer, but yuo cannot kill the meme.
Worked in the Civil War. If Sherman were leading Afghanistan, the locals would have to fall in line because any village not controlled by us would be razed to the ground (the village, not the people inside) giving us a monopoly on shelter.
If you actually read up on the history of the war in Afghanistan. That's pretty much what we did with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban; just assraped city after city with airstrikes and let the NA run wild with war crimes all the way to the Pakistan border.
>Worked in the Civil War.
The US didn't leave the South after the civil war though, so how is that relevant?
>Worked in the Civil War. If Sherman were leading Afghanistan, the locals would have to fall in line because any village not controlled by us would be razed to the ground
Yeah but then that would be racist
it was the changing of withdrawl date that let al quaida recruit regional warlords, believe it or not ones word means something to these tribal people.
>it was the changing of withdrawl date that let al quaida recruit regional warlords
How massively moronic do you have to be to believe Al Qaeda wasn't just biding their time until the agreed withdraw date, and that the people totally would have supported the puppet government the US put in place otherwise when that puppet government wasn't even invited to the negotiation for the original withdraw date with Al Qaeda?
Why do massive corporations and supposedly highly skilled executives blunder and lose (or at least a pyrrhic victory) so badly when forced to fight against new, quickly formed start ups?
Why did Xerox have a wysiwyg interface but do nothing with it. Why did newspapers lose to Craigslist?
In a a big organization, the leader in charge is there due of connections, not proficiency
It has always been this way
There are only really two ways of defeating insurgencies; out-guerrilla them, or wipe out their support base. Hence why in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we did nothing but presence patrols to build "hearts and minds" without ever daring to doing anything at all in regards to proper light infantry tactics (squad based operations in a decentralized manner) since we are way too risk averse, was such a wasteful clusterfrick.
tl;dr if you're not willing to line up men women and children in a village against the wall on a 10:1 basis for every man you lose in their area to IED's and sniper fire whilst also only doing very basic overt patrols in a moronic fashion, you're not gonna get shit done - other than make the MIC a lot of money.
Whatever you say, General McMahon.
this, the only way you're going to win a guerilla war is by winning over the people or rounding up the people and killing 1/10th of the population to instill fear. But America can't really do that as a member of the global community so the whole thing was a massive fricking waste of time.
> without ever daring to doing anything at all in regards to
Understanding what the people even wanted.
Iraq was a war to help Bechtel, and the Saudis, it had nothing to do with helping Iraqis.
>Cost to deploy a soldier to Afghanistan for one year: $2M
>Number of soldiers in Afghanistan: 20000
>Total deployment costs: $40B/yr
>Afghanistan GDP: $15B (about half of which was foreign aid also provided by the occupiers
This is all you need to know. Occupying some dirt-poor shithole is like hiring a lawyer to mow your lawn. Eventually you'll run out of money and the grass will still keep growing.
1. because in the age of firearms, you don't need to spend years training to swing a halbred or shoot a bow to fight effectively
2. in the chaos of a full-on battle, the advantages conferred upon better armed, armored, and trained soldiers may be worthless in the face of any number of changing conditions - weather, terrain, tactics, logistics, enemy composition and number, etc
>I'm starting to think veterans are just big LARPers and basically anyone can do this
most veterans
most veterans think CQB is a kind of radio and that room clearing is what happens after a barbecue. If you know about entry styles, cutting pie, and the difference between centerfed and cornerfed, you probably know more than most ex-military
>most veterans think CQB is a kind of radio and that room clearing is what happens after a barbecue. If you know about entry styles, cutting pie, and the difference between centerfed and cornerfed, you probably know more than most ex-military
Why the frick would you think most veterans would be trained on this shit when most veterans aren't infantry and therefore don't deal with this shit?
>entry styles
>implying there is any other proper entry style beyond chucking grenades in and mag dumping around corners
NGMI
no no, there are plenty of styles,
>the ol, walk in like you own the damn place talking in the native language of the occupants to put them at ease
>the ol'er grab a civilian and use as bait checking corners for you
>the ol'est just knock twice and when they ask who it is, say its the pizza delivery, then choot em
You forget that fighting in an insurgency has a high price. You’ll probably win, but you more than likely won’t survive to see victory.
>I'm starting to think veterans are just big LARPers
The military is paid LARP. Nobody can dispute this
Why does /k/ ignore the fact that every major insurgency has been backed by larger nations that help support them and give insurgents arms, training and safe havens?
last war USA fought in legit USA's interest (not even at the time even "interests of The People" at that moment) would be MexAmerican War.
All USA's wars since have been in some other interest, nearly entirely israeli.
This can be stuff like "just start shit, because War Profits" as well as Long Term undermining of USA with blow back of Turd World Immigration, and of course clearing way for World Govt Zionism.
WTF would a legit war for US interests look like today? Clear out top 400 miles of mostly desert in Mexico to create new "Security Zone" and deport all "LatinX" to remaining Mexico. Overthrow "Crown Colony" of Canada and force them to have valid elections and a Bill of Rights.
Nice try you dreaded Anglo. Imperialism goes both ways. If you think conquering land by force is okay, then so does having those mestizos outbreed you. Your birth rates are lowering every year.
>he doesn’t know about the pacific theater of WWII
>He doesn’t know about Korea
>He doesn’t know about Granada
>Or Panama
>Or the first Gulf War
It must be hard to be that fricking ignorant anon.
>WWII wasn't in the US's interest
>fighting back after other countries declared war on the US and staged a surprise attack on US soil wasn't in the US's interest
/pol/tards are the ultimate cucks.
Right, and Fort Sumter and the USS Maddox were surprise attacked as well. Oh, don't forget the USS Maine.
and the USS liberty
WW2 was over Poland and it was gifted to the USSR. The US chose a side by supplying weapons, the axis was more honest about their hostility. Also the US handed over German airmen and sailors they found in the Atlantic to the British before war started.
Fort Sumter was a military base that refused to leave from a state that legally seceded. It by existing was an invasion.
The USS Maddox sailed into territorial waters of North Vietnam. Its a no shit what did you think would happen incident.
The USS Maine was legit justification for war because frick Hispanic people and we annexed land by fighting that war. If we did the same in Vietnam i would speak positively for that war.
>Fort Sumter was a military base that refused to leave from a state that legally seceded. It by existing was an invasion.
>legally seceded
>legally seceded
It's in the fricking constitution dipshit.
wrong
Perpetual Union, motherfricker. Statehood has no escape.
States can vote to let a new state join the union. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting a state to secede.
This is the only correct post.
>t.ZOG
Nice counter argument
>not knowing about MI6's knowing about Pearl Harbor
>Roosevelt's illegal 3rd term
>Korea
ZOG
>Panama
ZOG
>Kuwait
ZOG
id be down to blow up the canadian coastline. im tired of the idea that they can just own the land between us and alaska. it proboballly makes beef up there way more expensive than it needs to be. we should carve a path. 25 miles east of that highway, stretching all the way west to the coastline.
im normally anti war, but you know. i think id really be alright with this.
Midwit post
>Why do massive militaries and supposedly highly trained soldiers blunder and lose (or at least a pyrrhic victory) so badly when forced to fight against untrained, quickly formed insurgents, rebels, and armed citizens?
Behind every successful insurgency & """""armed citizenry"""" is a military advisor from a massive military supplying them with training & arms.
>*laughs in Taliban*
The Taliban were supported by the ISI. Why do you think Osama was in Pakistan?
they were also supported by america
Because war is a means to an end. When the means to an end is "get the islamic fundamentalists to support a western government and embrace western values, also genocide is off the table" no amount of military action will work. You can indeed use force to convince people you are right, but killing each and every one of their men of fighting age and enslaving their entire remaining population is one of the tools needed in your toolbox if that's your goal. Since that's no longer acceptable, war no longer works.
>Why do massive militaries and supposedly highly trained soldiers blunder and lose (or at least a pyrrhic victory) so badly when forced to fight against untrained, quickly formed insurgents, rebels, and armed citizens?
opposite is true
poorly armed rebels almost always take massive casualties even in victory
part of the switch away from militia who only trained on weekends to professional armies is because the basic standard of discipline required to stand in battle without routing has only ever increased
we have reached the point where a platoon sized element with support from air and artillery can engage and defeat battalion sized elements armed only with small arms
>btfo
Yes, because American soldiers and Marines got slaughtered by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan. The actual reality of both countries would be the equivalent of Chad breaking into your house, beating you into a bloody mess and fricking your mother in every hole until he gets bored and then leaves. Then you pick yourself off the floor and scream how you kicked Chad's ass and you're the ultimate badass.
In the case of the US it was mostly assisting moronic governments without support of their citizens, doomed to fail no matter what. In actual combat the US dominated, but it doesn't matter if the government you support can't sustain itself.
It's funny that when you actually read on guerilla warfare, there are many moments where the American had ways to win again a insurgency, but they fumbled it either due to corruption in their puppets that they never fix or doing the bare minimum in their goals.