You gotta be a bit ballsy attacking the US military. Sometimes they may be a bit sleepy and not do anything. Other times they may get excited "Oh boy a legitimate target" And spend a few million dollars ruining some lives.
The US has been fighting an undeclared war against the Syrian government 2014, occupies part of the country, and has military bases in that country, and you think they are "sleepy", as if they are quietly minding their own business'.
> You gotta be a bit ballsy attacking the US military.
Lots of people are ballsy then. People (or terrorists) have been attacking the US military and its bases for the last 70 years or so without stop. Many (most?) times to the disadvantage of the US (Vietnam, Iraq, and recently Afghanistan).
Police are a grey area. As an armed uniformed force they are a legitimate military target. However as they they operate in such close proximity to civilians means any attack will cause heavy civilian causalities.
Disadvantage is a strange term. I would have used "operate more efficiently in cost/operation category but loosing in the causality/territory numbers. persisting until the US gets tired and goes home" But that does not exactly roll off the tongue.
Specifically, at no point in those conflicts was the US military at a disadvantage. Iraq or Afghanistan were unable to operate as an independent nation after the first week. You know the infamous 2003 Bush photo of him on a carrier with a big "job done" banner. we all laugh at how incorrect that claim was, but he was not entirely wrong ether. At that point there was no real Iraq military left, it was all insurgents, un-uniformed guerrilla troops with no infrastructure that could project no power. The North Vietnamese were more successful, maintaining a government. But could do little to prevent US air superiority. or gain territory until the US left. Korea was perhaps the most successful, managing to restore territory to the original demarcation line. But not past that, leading the the stalemate left in that area today.
A lot of it comes from one particular incident in Syria where a contingent of Wagner troops + local Syrians were on the receiving end of an overwhelming application of US air support. Around the same time, we killed the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani after "credible" evidence he was planning attacks on US forces in Iraq. So those were two high-profile "FAFO" incidents that have had Americans thumping their chests for years now.
I'm looking for Deliberate and knowingly bombing civilians.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/09/world/yemen-airs...
https://time.com/4528393/yemen-saudi-arabia-strike-wedding/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/09/yeme...
https://quincyinst.org/report/the-yemen-war-in-numbers-saudi...
But as a matter of fact, I think that is still different than deliberate and knowingly bombing civilians by the US- let alone killing them for target practice and fun, as some claimed.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/10/13/...
If there was a time to attack, it's now.