[kasey_junk]

Has anyone “won” a war in the recent past? In the old fashioned sense that they conquered something and used the newly acquired resources to make their own citizens lives better?

The problem with the post ww2 world is that the old definition of winning a war no longer holds. You just don’t see wars of conquest very often and they don’t seem to work when they happen.

The closest I can think to winning off hand is a few of the colonial civil wars. Vietnam for instance won in the sense that they outlasted the US and have a nominally communist government but it is not an outpost of the Soviet Union and it’s a major trading and tourist partner of the US.

Iraq is not led by a belligerent to the US dictator and Afghanistan isn’t home to training camps for terrorists dedicated to attacking the US (yet).

These were all extremely stupid, expensive and inhumane military actions. But the US never went into them to hold territory. So “there until we got tired of it” is as close to winning as it was ever going to be.

[H8crilA]

Yes, winning a war means achieving your political objectives. For example Iran wins this war even if they maintain the status quo. And they are on track to get even more, like obtaining ownership over the strait.

[kasey_junk]

Then by the stated aims going in the US “won” both wars in Iraq.

[dlisboa]

Some of them. These were the stated objectives as per general Tommy Franks:

* Depose's Saddam government

Accomplished.

* Identify, isolate, and eliminate Iraqi WMDs

Failed. They were never there.

* Find, capture, and drive out terrorists from Iraq

Failed. Iraqi-based terrorism increased in the aftermath.

* Collect intelligence related to terrorist networks, and to "the global network" of WMDs

Failed. North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, years after the invasion. The US accuses Iran of trying for them to this day. Chemical weapons were used by ISIS.

* End sanctions

Accomplished.

* Deliver humanitarian support to the Iraqi people, including the displaced

Failed. There were more displaced people due to the war than before and a higher need for humanitarian support which took years to complete.

* Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people"

Accomplished. Somewhat, US and UK based companies, plus China, now runs a lot of their oil fields. Iraqi GDP per capita is one of the lowest in the region.

* Help the Iraqi people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government"

Arguable. Parts of the country want to secede and have armed groups. Representation and turnout is not amazing, but I guess not even in Western countries it is.

[abenga]

> Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people"

The cynical read of this statement (extract resources from the invaded countries in order to enrich the American capital class) is the primary aim for all these conflicts.

[dlisboa]

That's not cynical. Trump has done the world a great benefit by transparently saying out loud what was hidden US policy for decades.

[dlubarov]

The notion of owning or monetizing an international waterway is fundamentally incompatible with customary international law. Iran can try it anyway if they're not worried about international law, but that was always an option for them, war or not. The timing of performing this extortion now seems to be mainly about scoring war propaganda points.

[kelipso]

Panama Canal and Suez Canal require tolls, granted not exactly the same thing.

[throw-qqqqq]

The Panama and Suez Canals charge fees because they are artificial passageways, created by the blood and sweat of thousands. Both were huge investments.

The Panama Canal had cost 400-500 million USD and 25-30k lives to construct, when it opened in 1914.

The Suez Canal cost around 100 million USD and 100-120k lives to build in 1869.

Charging for transit through man-made infrastructure is fundamentally different from charging for passage through a natural international waterway.

[jacquesm]

> fundamentally incompatible with customary international law

So is bombing countries on a whim.

If you want to take the high ground you have to make sure you don't first poison it with your own stupid mistakes. Iran can make a pretty credible play for reparations, and if the belligerents are unable or unwilling to pay up then Iran can selectively blockade the strait for their vessels and cargo. It is one of those little details that was 100% predictable going into this.

[dlubarov]

Not exactly "on a whim" after Israel has been attacked by at least a hundred thousand Iranian rockets and drones.

[jacquesm]

Yes, and before you know it we're at the Balfour declaration. But none of that matters in the context of the situation on the ground (and, crucially, in the water) today which was entirely predictable (except by Trump, Hegseth & co). You either plan for that eventuality or you don't start the war.

Note that we're talking about the US and Iran, not about Israel, though obviously they are a massive factor here it is the US that is in the hot seat, both Israel and Iran were doing what they've been doing for many years.

[dlubarov]

Why would we look back to the Balfour declaration? Israel has been attacked by tens of thousands of Iranian rockets and drones just since Oct 7.

After all their aggression, it seems absurd to paint the Iranian regime as a victim that was attacked "on a whim" and is owed reparations.

[xorcist]

> except by Trump, Hegseth & co

Do not underestimate the current administration. They have other reasons for this conflict, and so does Netanyahu.

[NikhilSharma812]

US doesn't have the cards as Trump likes to say. "International Law" is the last word coming out of mouth of Americans I want to hear. US kidnapped Venezuela's leader. It is currently blockading Cuba. It blockaded Venezuela recently. Where was the so-called "International Law" back then? Losers can't be choosers. US lost the Iran war strategically. Now pay the piper. There is no second option. Welcome to the "Might Makes Right" world that US opted in for.

[Noumenon72]

Azerbaijan invaded Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 and now all their enemies are gone (disarmed and Armenians expelled) which presumably makes their citizens better off once they move into the empty territory.

[kasey_junk]

Yeah and I suppose Sri Lanka won against the Timor rebellion.

So I shouldn’t say it never happens.

[senderista]

And the left didn’t make a peep about 100K+ people being ethnically cleansed from their historical homeland. Contrast with Palestine.

[WaxProlix]

Two things to note there. One, many did make a peep; I have friends, coworkers who both ardently discussed and even pointlessly protested in small groups with signs.

The other - I don't pay taxes to the Azeris, every moment of my productive life doesn't support the genocide there, and my soul is in some way not as blackened by the atrocities there. I think people care about Palestine because they rightly feel complicity. Maybe Russian citizens - whose labor indirectly goes to supporting Azeri atrocities - are up in arms?

[senderista]

Well, given that the Azeris are armed by Israel, there might be some indirect US complicity…

[roncesvalles]

The Gulf War was a decisive victory, if you consider that recent.