[flagged]
Sure looks like Denmark was on the sideline, having suffered more deaths per inhabitant than the US.
Second - that's not the point I was making. I have a lot of respect for the military members that served alongside us during our time in Afghanistan.
But just as though the United States military can be apolitical and is largely treated as such in the United States, we can criticize the broader actions by the governments of those who sent troops without criticizing the valiant efforts of those troops who fought alongside us.
Besides that I’m really unsure why you think that more military power would have helped. I really do believe that in a general sense this is true: since WWII the US has won every battle but lost every war. And that’s not down to an inability to be tactically extremely successful. It‘s down to taking on war aims that are impossible to achieve or at least extremely difficult and (most notably currently) being strategically totally lost.
More troops on the ground means more resources to help keep the peace. I think that's just something we can take at face value to prove more military power would have helped.
But the issue was political power, not military power. The US performed exceptional - we kept at it in Afghanistan for 20 years, through a financial crises, and more. But without the rest of the world signing on to help politically and even militarily, instead choosing to jeer and strut their rooster feathers from the sidelines, there was only so much we could do. And now even today folks seem to like to cheer that the US "lost" Afghanistan without realizing what the repercussions are for those who live there.
The US actually won quite a few wars since World War II. Iraq being a very good recent example. That one is kind of funny because for a long time the consensus has been America screwed up, but the last I checked Iraq is doing much better, has a functioning parliamentary style government, and the only real negative thing to say is to ask whether it was worth it or not to have that come to be. I would say yes.
> It‘s down to taking on war aims that are impossible to achieve or at least extremely difficult and (most notably currently) being strategically totally lost.
It's been like 2 months and we've decimated Iran's military, killed a lot of their leadership, and neutered their nuclear program and the best they can do is threaten to lob missiles at oil tankers like the Houthis. It's unfortunate but time will tell whether this was a "strategic failure", and it's even more so unfortunate we can't in real life run the counter-factual where Iran continues to build missiles until we actually can't do anything, then they close the Straight and that's the end of maritime trade as we know it.
Unlike the Iranian regime we don’t intentionally kill or murder people. How do you know? Because they take their own people and at the point of a gun force them to stand around on bridges and stuff because even the Iranian regime knows that we don’t kill civilians. Something that, for some reason seems to be solely lost on you.
We could pose it as a simple question and examine what the answers would be:
Do western powers bomb civilians intentionally?
US -> No
Israel -> No
Other westerner powers -> No
Iran -> No
Hamas/Hezbollah/Other terrorist murders -> No
It's a strange thing when you aren't even on the same page as your Iranian friends.
And intent matters. I for one support a form of reparations paid to the families of those who we mistakenly killed. Will Iran pay such reparations for those they've murdered inside and outside of Iran? Of course not. There's a difference - we're morally superior.