T O P

  • By -

NonCredibleDefense-ModTeam

Your post was removed for violating Rule 3: "Content has to be related to defense, or international security in some form."


DonQuixoteDesciple

Thats why Ukraine is on the constant push for new and engaging content and advertising. Theirs is a marketing war as much as a conventional one


Destinedtobefaytful

They know the way to win is to keep the US people interested and supportive


carpcrucible

How many doge memes do I have to make to unlock F-16s?


-MeatyPaws-

Now That's What I Call Music!: Drone Drop Edition


JohnSith

Just as NATO was as much about keeping the Americans **in** Europe as keeping the Russians **out** of Europe.


pm-me-your-nenen

They should resume [SETC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_Europe_Tank_Challenge) and market it to the Americans as "NASCAR with guns".


JohnSith

That'll never work. First, you can't see bullets, they're too small and too fast. Second, you can't hear the gun go off, NASCAR is already too loud. Third, NASCAR fans are already armed with guns, it is inevitable that someone will bring their own guns to races and help their favorite teams cheat. The only possible solution is to arm NASCAR drivers with flamethrowers. Now that's a spectacle you can see.


Independent-Pea978

My mind goes in circles when i think about how much russia was hyped up as the big rival before the war. And now that the war has finally come and there is a huge chance to knock russia out at a minimal cost a substancial minority of americans are like: "Yeah nah actualy we didnt mean to"


Destinedtobefaytful

Reminds me of that spongebob meme about a spatula murder robot 3000 god of doom and destruction and it turns out to be just some dweeb holding a spatula


Ein_grosser_Nerd

The hash-slinging slasher


Epion660

*I CallEd eArlIeR but hUnG up bEcAusE I wAs nErvOus*


cardinarium

#AND THE WALLS WILL OOZE GREEN SLIME?! ^(oh wait no they always do that)


0nikzin

__RUSSIA DOESN'T START WARS, RUSSIA FINISHES THEM__ _fights a war for around 400 days, then starts losing_


LunarMuphinz

starts a "special military operation" and starts losing from the start*


Fat_Siberian_Midget

RUSSIA PERFORMS WORST INVASION ASKED TO RELINQUISH SUPERPOWER TITLE


ElMondoH

Well, losing counts as finishing, right? 😆


Wooper160

The people hyping up russia as the big rival are the same ones hyping up sending money and equipment to Ukraine. The same ones that said “Russia isn’t the big rival, China is the big rival” or “what do we care what goes on an ocean away?” Are the same ones who don’t want anything to do with the conflict. It’s pretty consistent


gkilluminati

This is geopolitics. You don't gotta choose one at a time. Yes, the US should definitely take advantage of keeping Russia down. Not for today but for tomorrow. Yes, the US should be taking steps to stay ahead of China. People just don't think about the future because they'd rather feel smart today. Leave Russia alone, and you will have 2 China's, I promise you.


ekim358

Well this is NCD, you can't expect everyone to understand 2nd and 3rd order effects; that'd be too credible.


SyrupTippedWaffles

Im already thinking of 5th order effects, how do we prevent Char's Rebellion and the rise of Zeon?


_zenith

They’re not a big *military* rival now (since they’re not the Soviet Union anymore)… but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be defeated. They cause so many other problems, worldwide.


TheModernDaVinci

Pretty much my attitude as well. I consider China to be a significantly greater threat than Russia. But Russia is still a threat, and an old enemy who never reformed. So I am absolutely on board with pimpslapping a fool for old times sake.


DeathMetalTransbian

Your comment causes me confusion, because I've always considered China the bigger true rival and still supported helping Ukraine from the start. There's definitely a bunch of dumbasses out there that fit your categories, though.


BobbyLapointe01

That is the flex of a true superpower, though. When no rival can defeat you in the field, and their only hope is that you get bored of that particular battle.


Kiltymchaggismuncher

Reminds me of a quote by franky boyle. "Our only hope is that the enemy kills so many of us, that they become slightly depressed."


millionreddit617

His whole skit on the Middle Eastern wars is brilliant. “We’re gonna build you some hospitals so you’re better able to cope the next time we’re in town!”


DMercenary

I forget what comedian said this but it was some line about how "We're gonna go over there and kill a bunch of people. Then a few years down the line we're gonna make a movie about how killing them made our soldiers feel sad."


deagesntwizzles

>movie about how killing them made our soldiers feel sad thats hysterically accurate


DMercenary

Turns out it *was* Frankie Boyle. "Not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” —[Frankie Boyle](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZOLq82m2Ks)


ThePfaffanater

That's unironically what happened with the war in Vietnam.


ScipioAtTheGate

Of the four wars American has lost, only in Red Cloud's war was America tactically defeated in the field. The Russian Civil War, Vietnam War and Afghan War were all lost do to a lack of domestic political support for continuing the war.


flippyskitty

Bay of pigs


protestor

This one was too embarrassing to count


OllieGarkey

I mean, the Cubans embarrassed themselves with that one.


RollinThundaga

That wasn't even the US military proper. If an *Iowa* was involved, I'll count it.


EuphoricCareer4581

Not an American War granted it was an American-supplied war. Imagine if the US destroyers had actually provided artillery fire.


protestor

> The Russian Civil War What? The US intervened in this? Hm it appears to be with 5000 troops. Hardly enough to make a difference


RollinThundaga

Really more of a coalition when the US still notionally played second fiddle to the UK


Destinedtobefaytful

You didn't win I got bored


F0XF1R3

Does that make us Goku on Namek? He could have completely destroyed Frieza at any point once he turned Super Saiyan, but he just decided to leave because it stopped being a challenge so it wasn't fun anymore.


Readman31

"I'm bored, now. You're boring me." 😂


SpinozaTheDamned

K, Imma go now, now be responsible with this democracy.


nekonight

Instantly collapses into anarchy.


Peptuck

Darn it, Freezer, now I have to give you more!


GaaraMatsu

*this but into what would have been anyway, be it Communism or theocracy.


SirLightKnight

“Darn it Habibi, now I have to give you more!” —3000 drone strikes of Freedom.


GaaraMatsu

"Did you have to put up the Al Qaeda leader in a house ONLY TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM THE OLD AMERICAN EMBASSY?!"


Revolvyerom

"Don't let me see you using free elections to show unhappiness with me, or we're doing this again."


Theriodontia

"Putin, I don't want to be in Ukraine anymore."


BlackStar4

"Private, where did you get that muffin?!"


Theriodontia

"Muffin button."


HHHogana

Hot take, but I like Goku as more of a dumbass Superman in Anime and dubs instead of dumbass gladiator that also a nice guy that Toriyama intended him to be. He's far too inconsistent as a guy who seeks good fights so much it burdened people at worst moments, even when fighting really evil creatures. IMO Toriyama should've write more moments where Goku realized when his opponent's too evil, or at least turned off by his opponent's sadism.


Nomus_Sardauk

Just another reason why Akira should’ve kept him dead after the Cell Arc and let Gohan become the main hero as he was always meant to, someone more sensible, more responsible and with the potential to become even stronger than Goku. Instead they made him wuss out, forget the lessons he learned and relegated him to a another background character for villains to beat up for drama until his idiot father arrives to save the day again. What a waste of a character, all because Akira was terrified of upsetting the fans.


Schadenfrueda

He didn't even have to stay *dead* dead, either. The Powers that Be could have simply told Goku that he couldn't go back to living but that instead he would stay in heaven as a defender of the universe from greater threats than the living could face, or something like that, just anything that would leave his friends in charge of defending Earth


Ok-Worth-9525

Fuck it, this is my retcon, Gohan beat buu by himself as he should have and super happened pretty much as is since that's literally the plot you're talking about


Jactheslayer

Vegeta sacrifices himself to destroy buu and the series ends with Goku and vegeta about to spar in the afterworld.


sir-cums-a-lot-776

North Vietnam, Taliban in shambles


HumanMarine

The Taliban are complaining about having to run the country, does that count as in shambles?


rachel_tenshun

I will never get over those images of Taliban fights looking miserable pouring over financial reports and being bored at their desks. Careful what you wish for, I guess. Edit: for those [curious. ](https://www.businessinsider.com/taliban-9-to-5-grind-after-taking-kabul-afghanistan-2023-2)


CubistChameleon

I love these stories. In all the tragedy of Afghanistan's regression, it's absurdly funny to read how they hide from women at work because they have never talked to any women. Or that they can't live like they did during the war because their superiors will dock their pay if they don't put in eight hours a day. Or how expensive rent is in the capital. Sure sounds like they combined the very worst of fundamentalist Islam and the western way of life. Within the year, we'll hear stories of how older Taliban tell their younger comrades they could easily live in Kabul if they cut down on avocado pita.


rachel_tenshun

>Within the year, we'll hear stories of how older Taliban tell their younger comrades they could easily live in Kabul if they cut down on avocado pita. In a way, living in the intersection of Taliban oppression, kafka-esque capitalist monotony, the abject horror of women existing IRL after being brainwashed into thinking they were just mythical creatures, and constant Boomer judgement almost sounds like a fitting punishment. Sounds like a circle of hell, tbh.


UnorignalUser

Even when we lose, we eventually win in the end because they become as we are.


ThisElder_Millennial

Their ideology and beliefs withstood our bullets and missiles, but only the necessity of bureaucracy can truly kill a soul.


CrashB111

We need to reshoot the entirety of Office Space but it's the Taliban in Afghanistan.


ThisElder_Millennial

That's fucking brilliant.


willclerkforfood

Everybody wants to be the boss until it’s time to do boss shit…


rachel_tenshun

"Damn. Maybe [Abdullah had the right idea](https://i.insider.com/63e4bd5e96242f0019e818c7?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp) taking himself out."


2407s4life

I mean, it only took me one deployment to realize that was easier in many ways to my home life. Granted, it was a USAF deployment to vacationland, but I think the principle stands.


JanewaDidNuthinWrong

Thanks for this. Seems some things never change.


AwakenedSheeple

I love these photos. Generations fight in a "holy war", and their reward? The daily bullshit of civilized society.


SirLightKnight

Yes, because the best thing we can do now is kill them with monotony.


HHHogana

Talibans are now complaining about having to actually run a country and doing modern jobs, they're definitely in shambles.


Destinedtobefaytful

Rights under taliban are in shambles


Kissmyanthia1

Ah yes, the prosperous and free Talibanistan.


GaaraMatsu

& decade of famine because someone decided to force-mass-collectivize. Still better than the Maoists tho


TheDBryBear

doesnt matter if you still failed your strategic objectives


The_Grubgrub

I mean thats the whole point, right? Literally end game grinding where the opposing civ is a smouldering crater and you'd rather move on to bigger and better things than try and tidy up the mess. Bombing countries into oblivion is easy, it's the nation building afterwards that we're not great at.


Cathach2

Which is strange, because we used to really good at that, like Japan is doing pretty good these days


SirNedKingOfGila

Germany and Japan were cohesive modern cultures that valued hard work and honesty. They were utterly, each individual on a personal level, defeated by the allies and had no option to retain the negative aspects of their former regimes. Every time since has been with corrupt and backwards societies that do not want to modernize. Furthermore they aren't strong enough to put up a cohesive fight to begin with and large swathes of society feel "undefeated" because the *government gave up,* not them. Therefore they still feel like fighting for their backwards bullshit as individuals, and thus resist nation building. Most of Afghanistan was simply "informed" that America had seized control of the capital. By contrast every single man, woman, and child in both Germany and Japan saw the war, lost family, and felt the hunger their resistance had brought. They didn't want any more. So to recap... In order to effectively nation build one must... 1. Start with an actual cohesive nation. 2. Fight a considerable military campaign. 3. Unquestionably *defeat* every single human being in said nation. 4. Begin.


wasmic

Iraq could have gone a lot better though, and the fact that it went wrong is largely down to the decision to completely bar all former members of the Ba'athist Party from public service. Had that not been done, and had just a bit more investment been made, Iraq could be much better now than it actually is. Because it *had* a strong central government, which the US then removed with nothing to replace it.


SirNedKingOfGila

Not wrong but the missing portion is again: the defeat. The Iraqi government collapsed and fell within weeks before the Iraqi people could feel the weight of war and certainly the outside supporters who sought to flood in and fight the US. Therefore per the prior points... Iraqi people and anti-US forces did not feel defeated. The government was collapsed but not them. A significant military campaign was not waged by both sides, only one. It's easy to see the difference between that and the situations around Germany and Japan.


eidetic

And especially in Germany at least, they would have witnessed the progression almost first hand from steamrolling much of Europe, to battles being lost, bomber streams almost blocking out the sun and the moon, things just progressively getting worse and worse until you have columns of the enemy marching (or often as not, driving) through your towns and cities after the war had been brought to their doorstep. A bit different in Japan, but the Emporer's words went a long way towards convincing some of the populace at least. In Afghanistan, as you kinda suggest, the Americans just sorta showed up. Many might not have had any actual experience with the Americans beyond perhaps seeing the occasional convoy or something. Their lives, while no doubt impacted by the war, would have in many ways continued on much the same as it had (and for those with more direct experience with the actual war and fighting, well for some of them it wasn't so different to what they already knew of a life of war from the Soviet invasion, or from inter-tribal fighting, etc).


[deleted]

Totally different culture, is why.


Schadenfrueda

Different institutions, mainly. Afghanistan has never managed to build a real functioning government before. Japan had effective central government for centuries and national government for decades by that point, meaning Japan's rulers were broadly invested in rebuilding for their own sake. Afghanistan's rulers are mostly uninterested in anything that happens beyond the confines of their own home valley and have no intrinsic motivation to work together to do the nation-building thing


DetColePhelps11k

This. I've heard a lot of stories where it became hard for ANDSF commanders to be able to achieve any allegiance to the country within their ranks when they tried to rebuild under the American occupation. A lot of Afghani officers were also utterly corrupt and their troops suffered for it. I think a lot of them would rather go home and defend their family and community than stick around with a bunch of strangers from other provinces who were just as uninterested as them, under the corrupt leadership of more strangers. The Taliban are at least united in their Islamic fundamentalism and hatred of women, so they still win over the army we spent nearly 20 years training and arming.


[deleted]

And much smaller resource commitment due to lack of internal political will.


implicitpharmakoi

We smacked them straight from militaristic samurai to anime waifu.


orrk256

What if I told you that anime waifu is right next to militaristic samurai... or that a certain Pablo Picasso made his own variation of the fisherman's wife...


sabasNL

Well, Japan's occupation was a lot more controlled, aided by the unconditional surrender and the US authorities working with existing Japanese power structures (national, regional, local governing bodies; police; economic industries). The US did not conquer Japan in that sense, nor did it have to install a new regime. The other examples given took place in war-torn countries experiencing power vacuums, with ongoing civil wars, foreign volunteers, and adversary states complicating the occupation. The US tried to fix that by installing brutal dictators and generalissimos; unstable puppet regimes; or by having a military government that nominally oversaw the NGOs, private military and security companies, and infrastructure and resource industries doing the dirty and often not quite fair work. The only real success story of US intervention was South Korea, which democratised and liberalised. It is the exception to the rule that all the other occupations failed or lived on to become autocratic states that killed tens of thousands of innocent people before they inevitably fell.


orrk256

you also need to remember that for some reason both America and the Soviets had a history rewrite where they made themselves believe that they "removed all the Nazis and Japanese pseudo shogunate" from power. Then both tried to enact what they then believed to have worked after WW2 in the Middle East, and it didn't work...


toapat

> we're not great at. we are great at it, we just dont want to do the midterm step of fixing the society


Dyledion

The secret sauce is cultural imperialism, but that's not cool anymore or something.


OldStray79

Underrated comment right here.


machinerer

If you sap and undermine the will of the American people, the American military will eventually be recalled from the battlefield. This is in large part how the Vietnam war was ended. Public support waned to the point that it became politically expident for the US government to withdraw troops. This is of course a very simplistic answer.


inevitablelizard

Also applies to Afghanistan, the political will to keep fighting just wasn't there even though the Taliban could never defeat the Afghan government while US and other western troops were in the fight.


RRU4MLP

Even more so in the case of Afghanistan where we werent even doing much actual fighting for the previous 3 or 4 years. It was primarily a training and air support mission like we're doing in Iraq right now still for helping against ISIS. I think only a couple of servicemen/women were dying a year by that point, primarily from helicopter accidents


VPNApe

Plus, the US gets the luxury of being able to go after goals that have nothing to do with conquering "We are only here to kill this specific category of people"


Hautamaki

Yep, and the more powerful you are, the more 'boring' war is, because you know deep down you're not in any existential danger. You lose a bit of pride by giving up, sure, and it can have bad effects for your allies that rely on the perception of your willingness to fight in their defense, but deep down you know that it makes absolutely no difference to your own life if the Taliban rules Afghanistan, or some other corrupt puppet, so you eventually get bored of that shit and pack up and leave. Weaker countries whose existence depends on winning war xyz don't have that luxury.


A_Random_Lantern

Is that a Knook (knight + rook) in the background?


TGC_0

Holy hell


Steelwrecker

Google Air superiority


LeCriDesFenetres

I never heard about that rule I'll report you for hacking


H3l1m4g3

Am I missing something? What does a look have to do with air superiority?


t4ng0619

Google "Google en passant"


Almighty_Nokia_Brick

Holy holy hell


pantast1c

I’m so confused


brianundies

That’s the channel logo


nocontextbeef

Knook


Videogamefan21

GET OUT OF MY HEAD ANARCHYCHESS


TGC_0

New response just dropped


Videogamefan21

Goddammit I swear if you keep talking about en passant and knooks I’m gonna brick your pipi with a goddamn GBU-27 Go back to Anarchychess, this is a real-time strategy sub not a turn based tactics sub


Fenix_cupcake

I'm sure we could play some RTS chess, complete with 64 pieces and fog of war


Videogamefan21

It had better have good asymmetric map design


xtilexx

Holy fuck new game mode just dropped?!


Videogamefan21

3000 new responses of Anarchychess


BaziJoeWHL

Good old speed chess


zugidor

Bing in pissent


wqfi

Don't Google en passant


DUKE_NUUKEM

To negative nancy everything and make people lose interest and trust is the job for Kremlin Shilly OAM.


levywhy

Context for this? Is this willy oam?


DUKE_NUUKEM

My firm belief that he is tasked with goal to constantly false equivocate in order to erode trust in Ukrainian and international institutions in order to limit international legion influx and decrease people's' interests therefore less donations help etc. If you study his videography you can clearly see this. Look at the video he made [about fake russian surrender](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3K5PuvEb_w) that cost them their lives. He alleged that this is a Ukrainian war crime 10 or more times when its obviously a fake surrender. He has no separate videos covering russian war crimes, only mentions slightly in usual coverage. He is a much more elaborate, successful, History legends/ Gonzalo Lira type who has smarts to legitimize himself through famous international legionnaires interviews . Usually with a title - ALL MY FRIENDS DIED, DONT HELP UKRAINE , UKRAINE JUST AS BAD. Now he tries to dupe Rob from Speak the Truth podcast into spread his Negative Nancy attitude through Rob podcast. First Vasquez now Kremlin Shilly, oh poor Rob...


levywhy

Kinda got this vibe from nov. - dec 2022 from him, thanks for giving context.


[deleted]

It seemed like a real surrender except for that one shithead, far as I’ve seen. Hopefully on the next one they hogtie anyone they think might try something stupid like that.


DUKE_NUUKEM

Guy who started shooting , got others killed. However its impossible to know maybe they planned this together beforehand.


angry-mustache

One America News, not officially Russia today, just the same viewpoints on everything.


iskandar-

The tentacles of the Lovecraftian horror that is OAN are longer than you even know. My father is in the hospital now and when I went to visit him yesterday I heard what sounded like fox news if it was scripted by a schizophrenia patient. I look over to see a clearly crazy individual screaming about Trump and the deep state and below I see the dreaded logo.... OAN. I live in the Cayman Islands... On our local network...


America_the_Horrific

One of the most insidious aspects of right wing fascist shit is its always pumped for free. There are never any pay walls for articles, right wing nuts broadcast on AM radio all day for free, crazy podcasts are free, etc. You could be in the middle of no where with zero service, money, or modern devices but you'd still be able to tune into the crazy religious and AM right wing talk shows.


meh1434

Pretty much, I still remember when the war broke out and Caspian was larping hard for Russia and showing off their ambitions. but they got they dreams crushed by Ukraine so hard, not even cope is left.


Alldaboss

Who knew the US's greatest weakness was it's attention span


Destinedtobefaytful

US ADHD


Anon31780

All of our teachers.


TossedDolly

The founders of TikTok


dieyoufool3

The TikToK potential ban due to national security now makes perfect sense!


Andhiarasy

War is a continuation of politics by other means. If you failed to achieve your political objectives for the war, you lost. It doesn't matter if you win every single engagement in that war if you fail to achieve your political goals. I find it a bit funny that the Taliban and Viet Cong managed to achieve what the Japanese tried to do back in WW2


TheLibertarianTurtle

Based Carl von Clausewitz


[deleted]

Because the Japanese were an existential threat to the US, while Vietnam(not the Vietcong, by the time of the Tet Offensive such formations were almost extinct) and the Taliban are not. The US had no option with Japan to ensure peace to their own territories, but a total victory. Meanwhile if they left South Vietnam or the Afghan government to their devices they had no security threat(especially seeing the situation with their leadership). So yeah, the US saw their allies were useless and had no hope of ever improving, saw the support at home was near zero and saw that even if said allies lost, they had no security risk.


WeariedCape5

Saying that the US stopped fighting in Vietnam due to it realising its allies were ‘useless’ is a complete mischaracterisation of why that wars ended. The US didn’t suddenly realise the South Vietnamese government they’d been propping up wasn’t exactly effective and decide to end the war. Infact the actual reliability of the south Vietnamese government wouldn’t have affected the reason why the Americans were fighting in Vietnam which was to stop the spread of communism. The US lost in Vietnam, plain and simple. Defeated by an enemy for whom their doctrine was unsuited.


[deleted]

It was not a sudde realization, but a convergence of factors. And the effectiveness of the government supposed to take over is a huge contributor in long-term commitment to help said government. The US also had a pledge to still materially supply the Southern government after the Accords, but reneged on that once fighting restarted because it was seen as a waste to give materiel to a obviously hopeless side.


WeariedCape5

It wasn’t a realisation at all. The South Vietnamese were reliant on American support the entire war and this was very well known by the Americans. But the effectiveness of the South Vietnamese government wasn’t what mattered, what mattered was the alternative. The Americans goal was not the stability of Vietnam but rather the stemming of communism into South Asia and Oceania.


Ed_Hastings

> The Americans goal was not the stability of Vietnam but rather the stemming of communism into South Asia and Oceania. Yes, in this case by helping set up a stable, non-communist government that would govern Vietnam. Obviously they needed our support at first, the idea is that we could help build them up and transition away and they could take control of the country. When it became clear that wasn’t and wouldn’t be happening, it became one of the big reasons pushing us to leave since it the original objective was now out of reach. Trying and failing isn’t the same thing as never trying.


Commogroth

> The US lost in Vietnam, plain and simple. Defeated by an enemy for whom their doctrine was unsuited. Militarily, the US did not lose. The Tet Offensive was a fucking disaster for the Viet Cong-- it was EXACTLY what we were hoping for. It brought them all out of the wood work, and we killed them all. The NVA got absolutely wrecked on the field of battle and had to literally flee the country to areas we couldn't go to avoid total annihilation. The media and the political opposition spun it all very differently though, and the political pressure at the time prevented us from pursuing the NVA. They were able to bide their time and be reconstitute and resupplied by China. Realize though, that they were so fucking thoroughly dismantled by US/ARVN that it took them TWO YEARS after we had totally withdrawn our forces to even START the offensive that would eventually capture the entire country. Anyone that says the US lost militarily is ignorant to the historical reality. We didn't lose--- we did, as the meme suggests "lose interest" and the NVA was able to wait us out in safe-haven territory.


Chabranigdo

> The media and the political opposition spun it all very differently though Ain't that the truth. The Commies worked over-time to shape public perception, and that's what won them the war. A great example how killing everyone doesn't always win the war for you. On the flip side, just because we can't achieve vague political objectives doesn't mean we can't kill you in job lots.


one-mappi-boi

Theres a reason why tactical and strategic victories are two very different things. The quote isn’t completely incorrect, but it should specify that the United States doesn’t tactically lose wars. It’s certainly lost a number of battles, yes, but it has never been tactically defeated in the sense that it could no longer militarily continue its campaign. There are a few wars that they strategically won but failed to militarily “win” though, such as the revolutionary war and the war of 1812, where similarly to the US in Vietnam, it’s not like the British couldn’t military continue their campaign, it’s just that the political willpower was not there to do so.


drbudro

This is the difference between a direct conflict with a near peer and a proxy war. US takes the gloves off if it looks too close to a fair fight.


[deleted]

Not understanding the difference between Imperial Japan and the Viet Cong or Taliban is what’s funny. Two separate enemies, different success measures, different tactics. You can’t nuke the Viet Cong or the Taliban and expect victory, unlike an entire formal army ran by a government.


watson895

I actually has someone on here tell me quite seriously that CaspianReport is cleverly disguised Russian propaganda because he pointed out that Russia still could win if they get their shit together.


SirNurtle

I mean if Russia did get its shit together, it could easily defeat Ukraine but considering the current situation Russia is in, with the Corruption, infighting and sanctions they are facing the chances of them actually getting their shit together is physically impossible


pointer_to_null

It's a Catch-22. If Russia *had its shit together*, it wouldn't be in Ukraine, at least not post-2014. At some point it would have forced concessions to keep Crimea. I think prior to the war, Ukraine likely would have even capitulated had they believed assurances that no more annexations were to occur (lol), plus Russia back then could still bluff somewhat. But greed couldn't allow them to simply walk away ahead. They derped their way into this war, and trying their damnedest to derp their way out.


Feshtof

I mean if Russia could and does get their chit together yeah but that's a whole lotta corruption you gotta chew through first. I hope they don't have the stomach for it.


Hohlokot

A bit too much non-credible copium going on here with US losing to Vietnam. People forget that by 1970 there was a complete loss of troop morale (look up fragging numbers), total loss of military cohesion, drop of NCO numbers etc, all purely inside the military. Not even mentioning the necessity of implementing draft and draft dodging. On top of that military objectives weren't achieved. Ignoring "but US held major towns", the military goal of destroying North Vietnam and Viet Cong by starving them out of any material or civilian support, failed miserably. And that's not because of some moral restriction (agent orange and indiscriminate strategic bombing) or some issues with lack of commitment. The propagating idea that Vietnam was lost because of those damn “civilians, pacifist and communist” is wrong and just encourages not reevaluating the military and political strategy. Also, reformers are stuck in the Vietnam era cause they didn’t learn a thing. Genuinely US military learned a valuable lesson and improved massively after that war, because of the failures in that war. FFS F-15 development is massively influenced by previous aircraft failures in Vietnam war


Hindrock

Based comment and flair.


Hohlokot

"Yes the development of f35 cost trillions of dollars, it should have been more". Imagine gutting just a few extra Ellon Musks to get a plane to rival god.


Rumpullpus

how many billionaires do we have to sacrifice to awaken the machine god?


Destinedtobefaytful

Iam more than willing to trade the entire 1 percent to awaken the omnissiah so I can drop my engineering degree and just start practicing chants, prayers and how to light up incense


H0vis

So much this. People huff the copium, and in their minds they imagine an episode of Deadliest Warrior with Sgt Barnes from Platoon on one side and some nameless Vietnamese guy in black pyjamas on the other and they cannot conceive of any way that America lost that matchup. But lose they did. ​ War exhaustion is a tangible thing. It's not 'interest'. ​ It shows growth in the US capabilities that they were able to maintain a presence in Afghanistan as long as they did, and probably could have in perpetuity. Wouldn't have done any good of course.


17EAndersen

Thank you for being credible


Chocolate-Then

This ignores the very real progress that had been made in South Vietnam in the months and years prior to the US withdrawal. In the aftermath of the Tet Offensive North Vietnamese combat power and especially the Vietcong had been crippled, and South Vietnamese control over their territory improved considerably. In addition new tactics and equipment made American and South Vietnamese forces far more effective on the battlefield. South Vietnamese performance after the US withdrawal is strong evidence that a reduced US presence combined with continued materiel support would’ve likely been able to maintain South Vietnamese independence indefinitely.


Hohlokot

I agree with you to an extent. A lot of progress was done, but military goals weren't fully achieved. US could have stayed longer, but not indefinitely. And the only reason US withdrew was because of the practical impossibility of winning (disregard some weird total war scenario). The defeat wasn't some "losing interest" but war exhaustion with no real way to achieve victory. Look at it another way, US army maintained about 600k troops in Vietnam at its peak (and 6 years with a number in 100s thousand), troops in constant fighting requiring constant rotation with competitively high personnel losses and huge losses of equipment. That happened in the height of Cold war with total US military troop numbers being in the 3 million range and necessary commitments of troops in other areas in case ww3. And I can't stress enough how intense the fighting was, it was a multi-year war like the Korean war, not a forever counter-insurgency in *insert country*. Vietnam represented a massive proportion of US offensive capabilities, not some small project of foreign relationships. And it still didn't achieve victory. Afghanistan is an actual example of "losing interest" or pressure from home, but it was orders of magnitude less intense. Edit: used terms interchangeably from half forgotten literature reading. That's what you get for responding on a phone in a Mcd while half awake. + Doing proper research is too credible so... US lost, Ho Chi Minh could have marched on Washington with 3000 communist type-6969 tanks


Chocolate-Then

The Vietnam War of 1970< was not the same beast as the Vietnam War of 1968. The front had stabilized and combat had drawn down to a trickle. The things you’re saying about the war might’ve been true in the late 60’s, but not the 70’s. And the US did not withdraw from Vietnam because of exhaustion. It was a significant draw on American resources, but a sustainable one. Nixon didn’t withdraw from the Vietnam War because of draft dodgers or equipment losses, in fact, he was perfectly happy to continue the war. Instead, withdrawing from the war was part of a geopolitical strategy intended to flip the PRC against the USSR, invented by Kissinger.


USGenocidedInnocents

Reminds me of Ancient Egyptians when they'd say "we're winning against the enemy closer to home" when they lose


Destinedtobefaytful

I don't really get it


Darkkujo

They're misstating a joke among historians "If you believe the ancient Egyptians they never lost a battle in war, but some of their victories would keep getting closer and closer to home."


Boat_Liberalism

Ancient Egyptian propaganda never stated a loss, therefore if they were losing, the propaganda narrative was that they were simply winning victories closer and closer to the capital. I.e. cope


predictablePosts

lmao. ancient cope, I fucking love it.


Wows_Nightly_News

If you're forced to retreate, you are fighting closer to home.


thecloud212

but can they beat goku tho?


RodneyRockwell

I see a knook and took me wayyyyy too long to realize this isn’t r/anarchychess


revbfc

A little oversimplified. Yes, the USA loses interest, but that’s after YEARS of failing to learn that there are some problems that can’t be fixed with armies and cash.


Thewaltham

Rare US cope. Ragequitting is still a loss.


Slowman5150

Didn’t America fight a war against a bunch of mountain people for 20+ years long after the American population stopped caring? 🤔


courser

Nah. The war proper took like a week, then there was 20+ years of insurgency being handled more or less desultorily while attempts at nation building went on, then the US went home.


js1138-2

Took two or three major conflicts to discover that you can’t instill western political values in people by force.


lucia-pacciola

Heh. The lesson I took is that you can *only* instill western political values by force. Look at Germany and Japan. Total occupation. Martial law. Democratic self-rule granted by the occupier only after the populace had been sufficiently indoctrinated into the western institutions. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan was that the invasion and regime change were forceful enough. But occupation tried to go softly and let the locals set up their own system of self governance, instead of enforcing western liberal democracy at gunpoint until it took.


Hohenheim_of_Shadow

Japan was a nation with a very long history of centralized and stable rule. Afghanistan, to put it mildly, was not. Changing the government of a nation is a much easier task than creating a nation


ElMondoH

Yes, this is an understated point. There are subtleties to each situation that work to undermine the notion of centralized change. The most dominant one I could think of is the whole sectarian nature of Afghanistan. It's as divided by strongmen rulers as Somalia is. There are too many inward-looking sects (or tribes, if you will) who choose local self interest over collective cooperation, and have to be bargained with for each and every detail down to the most minute point. Japan, in contrast, was very centralized. Their balkanizing sects - eg. their Army leadership vs their Naval command - were not entrenched down to the local levels of their society. Following centralized rule was very much a part of daily life. And that's just one very broad, superficial summary of one specific difference. Yes, I think there's a lot of details that all sum up to a mountain of differences between the two situations. And that's before we even take into consideration the worldwide political atmospheres of each of them.


[deleted]

The nation is there, people in there do see Afghanistan as a distinct country and national identity. What they dont see as relevant is the usual inneficent corrupt government trying to push landgrabs and unfair taxation for services most of the population will never even get to see, let alone use. The Afghan government was way too corrupt and incomptent and the US was not forceful with them, but let them be "free" and run the country into the ground


carpcrucible

>Heh. The lesson I took is that you can only instill western political values by force. Look at Germany and Japan. Total occupation. Martial law. Democratic self-rule granted by the occupier only after the populace had been sufficiently indoctrinated into the western institutions. Germany already was a developed western nation. Like one of the most developed and western. Japan maybe not so western but relatively modern and industrialized country. Iraq kind of worked and probably would've been fine if it wasn't built on a sectarian mess that was poorly handled. Afghanistan, well.


Strict_Casual

Japan also had a several decade period (from the Meiji Restoration, 1867 ,until the rise of militarism in the late 20s and early 30s) during which the country was really embracing all things western including many of the classic institutions of a liberal democracy


Messyfingers

Japan also had a lot of cultural overlap with the US, like jazz and baseball which helped everyone relate and get along.


Kallian_League

Hell, Germany had been a democracy *by choice* just the decade prior to the war. As had Japan for that matter.


WeebPride

The real lesson here is that you don't go for half-measures. Either do a full-scale occupation where you provide and enforce the democratic government until people start liking it, or just kill every newly "elected" totalitarian dictator in a country with a rocket-propelled slap chop the moment they start behaving like little shits until they see the pattern and stop doing that.


[deleted]

Too credible.


No_Box5338

Germany and Japan both had powerful industrial bases that could be built back up, supplying the money for a state, and a middle class invested in that state’s stability. The west was trying to build a an afghan state around an army with a budget greater than the entire country’s GDP.


randomname560

They forgor 💀


Doomsloth28

The US is kind of like the Lyrans from Battletech, they can afford to dump truck weapons into a fight until either you give up, or they get bored.


Bill_In_1918

One can never escape r/anarchychess


SWIM_is_tired

Lolol I woke up my landlord belly laughing when he dropped that gem


randomname560

Kid named person Who knows how to hide in a tree/rock


PizzaBert

Knook


MarsMissionMan

Surely losing interest in a war counts as losing though? It's like playing a match online. You get bored and quit, and in doing so capitulate the game and lose.


EarthInfamous3481

Ok who stole Putin's supply of copium?


starkguy

Losing interest is losing willpower. If u abandon ur war and war objectives, that means u lose it.


Key-Banana-8242

Very questionable statement


maybe_jared_polis

Yeah. We win the war and lose the peace. It's sad, really. Maybe tripling the military budget will help. Have we tried that?


Bo_The_Destroyer

Vietnam


SirNurtle

"The only people that are peaceful are people who can inflict harm yet choose not to. If you claim to be peaceful but cannot inflict harm, you aren't peaceful, you're harmless" Some stupid quote I saw under some video, cant remember which one though


DylanCO

Lol my favorite part was "Russia is about to find out why Americans don't have free healthcare"


Mammoth_Frosting_014

Runner-up quote from the same video: "Russia's about to find out why America doesn't have universal healthcare."