> 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.
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.
Currently, the "we'll liberate you, you're welcome" approach is not working.