[adventured]

> 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).

[meiraleal]

10 trillion dollars to "win" against Iraq and Vietnam. I guess it is still debatable.

[ceejayoz]

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.

[rbanffy]

Did the Allies win WWII? Not sure, because nazi flags keep popping up everywhere, including presidential rallies in the United States.

I wonder whether conclusive victories against the worst of our natures isn’t feasible.

[esafak]

Remind us, who's running Afghanistan today?

[Dalewyn]

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.

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/us-navy-yemen-houthis-israel-war-...

[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.

[3]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/24/red-sea-houthis-...

[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.

[aguaviva]

The US hasn't won a war ever since WW2,

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.

[triceratops]

> 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?

[rbanffy]

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.

[Dalewyn]

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.

[triceratops]

> > Maybe that's a good thing.

> Be very careful what you wish for.

I meant that every military that has successfully defeated a guerrilla resistance has done so by resorting to cruelty and mass human rights violations. The US military's relative lack of success in these conflicts could mean they haven't done that. Pax Americana is great but so is good conduct in war.