US military spends $20 billion a year on air conditioning. Just because we outspend everyone and have for decades doesn't mean we're the best, it just means we're the rich kids who can fail upwards in life
> USPS is very good, better and cheaper than UPS or FedEx.
Indeed, it's a lesson on how all universal services should be managed by democratically elected governments according to clear charters that ensure universality and affordability.
> That is debatable. What was the last war it won?
Iraq in 2003. Trivially stomped what was left of the Iraqi military and Saddam's entire government. There's a difference between a war and attempted nation building. And worth noting that nation building Iraq has not failed as of yet 20 years later. Iraq's GDP per capita is higher than Vietnam, Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, Philippines, India, etc - which isn't horrible given what they have been through.
What was the last war it lost? It didn't lose in Vietnam; it won every major engagement and along with South Vietnam held ~85% of territory when the US and South + North Vietnam signed a peace treaty and the US left. North Vietnam promptly ignored the treaty and resumed its conquest. Funny to pretend the US lost a war years after it left. It didn't lose in Afghanistan, the primary mission was to destroy bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (which was fully accomplished and bin Laden was killed). Nation building failed in Afghanistan, although the US was able to easily hold the core of the country with sub 30,000 soldiers and could have technically stayed forever (but it was pointless).
Endlessly debatable what counts as a win, and over what timeframe.
Did the North win the Civil War? In 1865, that answer was fairly clear. In 2024, perhaps less so. I suspect 1870s Americans would be a little surprised that Confederate flags and monuments pop up all over in the 20th and 21st centuries.
May I remind you that an entire US Navy Carrier Strike Group can't handle[1][2][3][4] a bunch of deranged desert goat herders lobbing explosive tin cans at them and the shipping lane they're supposed to protect?
The US hasn't won a war ever since WW2, and our top-of-the-world military has always lost to guerillas armed with nothing more complicated than an AK-47 and a Toyota pickup. Our best jet fighter's sole kill is a fucking balloon.
No, the US's track record is French levels of trash and I fear more for ourselves than the enemy in an actual peer war where they will be armed with something better than AK-47s and balloons.
[2]: >“This is the most sustained combat that the U.S. Navy has seen since World War II — easily, no question,” said Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “We’re sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the U.S. can’t stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage.
[4]: >There isn’t a Prosperity Guardian ship within 500 miles. Back in May when the carrier USS Dwight D Eisenhower was present, the US had 12 warships on station providing a mix of missile picket and escorting duties. Now they have zero. ... There can only be one conclusion: that the US has given up on Operation Prosperity Guardian. It wasn’t deterring the Houthis and it wasn’t reassuring shipping so they might as well go and do something else.
The 1990-1991 Gulf War, and the US-backed campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan were major armed conflicts that the US unequivocally won.
The conflict against ISIL ("AK-47s and Toyota pickups") was essentially won (the Daesh still exist, but the ISIL no longer exists as a territorial state). There've been several smaller lesser-known conflicts post-WW2 that Wikipedia considers to be US victories ("operational successes"), as well.
> our top-of-the-world military has always lost to guerillas
Maybe that's a good thing. Can you name any military that won a guerrilla war without resorting to concentration camps and total war against the entire populace?
I guess the point is to prevent a guerrilla war from starting without committing crimes against humanity. This implies other action complementing brute-force military incursions has been taken and that the people don't see you as an enemy.
Currently, the "we'll liberate you, you're welcome" approach is not working.
What good is a top-world military if we can't win wars without resorting to ancient barbarism?
I'm serious, our absolute best loses to some AK-47 manufactured over half a century ago that's seen shit and a beater Toyota pickup that's seen more sand than sense, operated by someone shouting something about chocolate bars. We have 11 nuclear aircraft carriers and we can't protect a single shipping lane.
>Maybe that's a good thing.
Be very careful what you wish for. When Pax Americana ends, whatever succeeds it won't be kind to us.
> That is debatable. What was the last war it won?
Because war is the continuation of politics by other means, the objectives of a war, and thus the criteria by which we can determine if it was won, are set by politicians.
Unless your country's politicians are the military this means that your military has no way to win wars unless politicians have chosen winnable criteria.
Corporate - the British operation to take back the Falklands is an example of a clear political objective, set by a politician (Margaret Thatcher, the UK Prime Minister) and achievable by military force. If the British kill millions of Argentinians, but must fall back and cede the island, Corporate fails. If the Argentinians shit themselves and run off once the carrier fleet sets sail, Corporate has succeeded with little loss of life. As it happens the British invaded the Falklands on foot, at considerable cost in men, but they won the day, the Falklands remains very much British.
When American politicians set vague objectives, or none at all, it is not the fault of the military when the war does not succeed.
> The only thing it gets from the government is a monopoly on putting things in people's mailboxes.
In exchange for that they have to attain some service levels others would consider unprofitable. Remember they need to be absolutely universal, however inconvenient for them.
Interesting. It's clearly complicated. The tl;dr appears to be that Congress loves meddling in USPS affairs but requires it to pay its own way, and uses it as a political punching bag when it falls short. From the article you posted:
"While state government workers and teachers have their pension and retiree health funds invested in a mix of stocks, bonds, and other quality assets, USPS, by law, can invest only in government bonds. USPS had $298 billion in such assets at the end of fiscal year 2022. Its inspector general estimated it could have had up to $1.2 trillion if it had diversified its investments as states do for government workers."
So USPS is $900b short because of laws Congress passed, and now needs $100b in taxpayer assistance.
USPS is very good, better and cheaper than UPS or FedEx.
Wish antigovernment types didn’t lie and had actual complaints.