Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan all also exposed the weakness of American might? Was the last big war that the US won WW2?
The US was better at getting what they wanted through either soft power or threat of military action than as a result of actual intervention. Which is why it’s really counterproductive when the government does not believe in soft power anymore. It’s the one thing you did well and that allowed you to get your way most of the time.
These were not wars! These were American offensive aggressions against sovereign countries that lasted years if not decades for the people in power to suck resources into and out of the military complex andfor their own agenda. Interest peters out after a while when people realize the true nature of the offensive.
A war has two or more participating countries and a dialect between the two to resolve the conflict. A war has casualties and losses on both sides of the border (preferably not from local flight equipment but actual military hardware).
I don’t entirely disagree. But they were large scale military operations, however one-sided. They were expeditionary wars for all intents and purposes, just like Russia’s occupation in Ukraine is, even though no war was formally declared.
> A war has two or more participating countries and a dialect between the two to resolve the conflict.
That was how it worked historically between peer countries, a kind of gentlemen’s agreements. Asymmetric warfare is not so clear cut. Colonial wars were messier. So can be civil wars, which can spread across borders (just look at the Balkans).
> A war has casualties and losses on both sides of the border
Coalition soldiers died in Afghanistan. Many American died in Viet Nam as well, which contributed to the US finally losing in both cases.
No matter the size, they remain manufactured conflict. Those conflicts were created in order to make money and change policies to make money, terrorism at its core to those who have to live through it.
> Coalition soldiers died in Afghanistan.
You didn't get my comment.
Casualties on both sides of the border°1.°2. Anyone going to bomb mainland America will signal the end of the American "expeditionary" one-sided conflict causing ways that have been going on since its inception.
°1 A one-off event a la 9/11 is an outlier and should be considered an attack by terrorists, (causing terror in the middle East and around the world for decades), and not an attack by a sovereign nation that another nation should retaliate against. Refer to policy change comment above, the war on drugs, the war on terror.. manufactured conflict.
°2 Coalition learned this time around, were not duped into joining the latest manufactured middle east conflict.
They didn't do a great job of nation building afterwards, but the actual war part was very successful.
You might make a case for increased control of and importance in the middle east for Iraq, sure - that declined somewhat after a forced fumbling backwards out of Afghanistan and tanked on contact with Iran, so if that was the take home stuffed panda prize to write home about it's been well and truly run over by a road train and left in a ditch.
Clearly big wins for the USofA PMCs, but that's a little more narrow than "America".
The strategic outcome in both wars was to replace the goverment for a friendlier one, and in both cases the USA didn't get it, not even close.
But if you view wars as an sport where people kills other people and the winner is the one who kills better/more, then war is declared over and "teams" look for another war to "play", indeed USA won both wars in a walk.
The current Iraqi government is considerably more friendly to the US.
Gulf War, it was a walk in the park. Second Iraq War, not so much, and you can't barely say US won anything.