> will still likely lose against the US military in any conflict.
The US couldn't beat Vietnam or Afghanistan.
The US couldn't beat Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> What they can't do is force people at gunpoint to adopt American and/or modern or western values
The Soviets didn't have to do it. They were acting in support of an existing Afghan state which was fighting a war against Pakistan and US funded Mujahideen which wanted to overthrow them. Plenty of people in Afghanistan were open to modern values. The issue with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is that the USSR fell, and the issue with the American invasion is that there was no pre-existing state and that the US didn't have a compelling value proposition for Afghans to die in defence of after they pulled out.
Afghanistan is not some kind of bizarre land where everyone hates the concept of modernity. The Americans just didn't figure out how to organize an Afghan state, and didn't figure out how to win militarily either. The Soviets figured out the former, but they collapsed. Though their state survived the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan until the collapse of the USSR and the end of economic aid.
There are no examples of this ever happening, but multiple examples of the US retreating in shame, creating opportunities for very dramatic photography as we leave our allies to die.
When at first you don't succeed, redefine success?
And for the people talking about Vietnam.. a lot has changed in 50 years. America got stronger while most other nations, except China, got much weaker. China is the single plausible refutation to my claim above.
No army is perfect, can you list the retreats? We left Afghanistan after a decade? We didn’t outlast the NVA? We lost the Philippines for a few years. That’s it?
Taiwan will be in a defensive conflict if they are attacked. Who has said that the US will attack China??
Chinese policy is that Taiwan is part of China and has a separatist faction of rulers. Talking about the US attacking China, which isn't going to happen, does nobody any favors.
The Chinese are very unlikely to attempt a landing in force as the first line of attack. They are most likely to try to blockade Taiwan using air assets, naval mines, and submarines. Therefore the most likely US scenario is going to be breaking a siege, which is an offensive action.
If the siege doesn't work China will have to land forces in Taiwan, but even if we are assuming they can't get a beachhead despite holding a siege, they can still deploy and supply an estimated 300,000 troops from the air. This ought to be enough to establish a beachhead from the ground, or at least secure/improvise airfields.
For the US to be able to defend Taiwan, being able to attack and destroy Chinese naval assets is absolutely necessary. It is not possible to defend Taiwan otherwise.
There's a lesson about wars of occupation with ill-defined objectives in there.
I don't see anyone having that long of a timeline wanting to do it. The US did it for 20-ish years, and clearly that wasn't long enough.
The US and Europe aren't "the world," and the actual world has plenty of theocracies.
Compare to Pakistan or Iran if you want.
"Losing" a war, in this context, means you surrender to the enemy, or at least quit and sign some kind of treaty to end hostilities formally. The US has never done that. The US has never lost on the battlefield. With Vietnam, it was too unpopular and was fighting with one hand tied behind its back anyway. With Afghanistan, it won military, but gave up on trying to prop up the Afghani government and pulled out.
Giving up and going home is a loss where Taiwan is concerned as it was in Korea.
The more astute observers understand this war is already over. More Chinese people are willing to die to maintain their country's integrity than Americans willing to do the same for an island on the otherside of the planet.
The US will lose twice if it continues down this path. It will secondly earn the hate of the vast majority of Asian countries as an outsider bringing yet another uneccessary war to their neighborhoods over what the majority of Asians consider a settled topic.
You also completely sidestepped the issue of India, whose current government dislikes that of China.
The US got distracted from Afghanistan for a war in Iraq.
But both of those demonstrate the limitations of outside military superiority in establishing stable rule against domestic resistance, especially (as in Vietnam) with strong outside military support.
Which, in a PRC-invasion of Taiwan, doesn't cut against the US.
Again, conventional warfare. Keeping countries occupied or forcing a certain regime in you favor? Totally different ball game. You can not force other people to adopt your values, even if you think they are THE GOOD VALUES(TM).
When David has the popular support and stands against your oppression, they can even beat the US Goliath.
FTFY.