Who perceives us as winners in Vietnam and Iraq, and who will think of us as winning in Afghanistan once our withdrawal is complete and the Taliban is there?
Korea's geography was the key to getting an armistice.
Having a policy that allows sanctuaries in neighboring countries like Laos and Cambodia for your enemy to retreat, regroup and resupply in Vietnam was nuts. We repeated that in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't allow sanctuaries when the enemy's strategy is a war of attrition.
Our "peace" party just about guarantee's any future enemy's strategy of attrition.
You’re making my point. Americans like to win. Korea followed the same goofy pattern of all US wars. The geography made a significant difference, but so did slaughtering so many N. Koreans. They’ve never ventured another invasion of the south.
America got lucky with Germany and Japan. The people there would rather switch than fight, but we also treated them as conquerors should. Our failures in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq all have the same source - the Democratic Party and liberalism.
They undermined our ability to conquer, despite winning. I’m using conquer in the sense that the subject population isn’t resubverted by the enemy, becomes a stable ally and remains so through a long transition period from imposed control to self-management. I don’t believe Islam is so different from Japan as to not be conquerable. What’s different is the hydra of competing interests created by liberals in government.
We don’t have a logical or coherent foreign policy. Therefore our military can win wars, but America loses the peace. That’s stupid and wasteful and why I’m against war, particularly undeclared wars. Not that war in and of itself isn’t useful, but that we blow it.
I’m tired of watching our blood and treasure go for naught. We lose too many heroes we could use here at home, leading and raising the next generation of Americans.