[nickik]

Again, the win the traditional military conflict and that is their primary responsibility. They are not equipped to do Nation building and they don't have the political support to do it. That's why they never exit a conflict very well, but they always crush in the beginning.

Korea was the last time they had a real problem winning the traditional military conflict.

[jessaustin]

"In the beginning" is when there are no reporters or other observers on the ground, so we have to just take the military's word on everything. If we just asked the Cleveland Browns how they did last season, they might tell us they played pretty well.

Besides, is it supposed to be hard to use billion-dollar stealth weapons to kill a few malnourished soldiers equipped with 1960s-era Soviet surplus? The worst part about the upcoming war with Russia that we're determined to have might be that we're going to get our asses kicked, from the beginning. Expect to see more airports completely operational within hours of multi-million-dollar missile attacks.

[nickik]

There were actually reporters on the ground and you can listen to interviews with them. Also, I never said it was very hard, I simply said they did it, and they did it quickly. Nobody can claim that Kabul and Baghdad did not fall quickly.

There is not gone be a war with Russia. If there was a war you can be damn sure that the US would whip Russia armed forces of the map. Also, Russia official defense doctrine is nuclear response to a lost in conventional conflict.

Again, yes the military is expensive. They do a good job of fighting traditional military conflict. The reason the US never wins is because of defunct politics, not defunct military. The military is just bloated and expensive, but not defunct.