[geraneum]

> The answer is obviously yes.

Of course it isn't. In reality, being able to resist requires power. Power that's gained more or less independently such as Iran's. Gulf states should be in a position of power to able to resist US presence. The power they have right now is mostly gained through the help of USA and its allies. It's not the same as Iran. Not even close.

[guerrilla]

> Of course it isn't. In reality, being able to resist requires power.

I gave examples of it actually happening. If sandal-wearing Houthis can resist, then well-funded oil states can as well. The Taliban beat the US. In fact, very few people have failed at ejecting the US from the country when they tried if you think back. The US tends to lose a lot.

[geraneum]

> I gave examples of it actually happening.

Ironically Yemen (Houthis) are fighting not only with US but against other gulf sates like Saudi Arabia as well. It's not really an example that demonstrates unity in gulf.

> The Taliban beat the US.

Taliban, brought to you by US of A to combat Soviet Union's influence! Well, it seems they are done beating US and are now busy beating Afghan women.

> The US tends to lose a lot.

Do they really? After the war is over and US is beat, how does the life of an average American compare to someone's from your list. It is the people of Middle East who pay the biggest price. That's the real loss.

*edit: typo

[toyg]

> Do they really?

Vietnam. Afghanistan. Iraq (it's an Iran proxy now). Korea was a stalemate.

Pretty much every time the US goes alone against a medium-sized country, it doesn't end in victory.

[MagicMoonlight]

Korea was wiped off the map… until the Chinese arrived with nukes and millions of soldiers. That wasn’t a Korean victory.

Vietnam was wiped off the map… until the Chinese arrived with millions of soldiers. The Vietcong had something like a 99% yearly casualty rate. They were completely obliterated every year of fighting, but more villagers were simply conscripted and sent forward into the napalm.

[Starman_Jones]

Despite that, the war ended with the Vietnamese achieving their strategic objectives, and the US failing to achieve their strategic objectives.

[genxy]

The US military is the world's best killing machine, but the US as a country cannot win a war. These are different things. Hell, I'd say it didn't even win the first civil war. And with the bullshit that has been perpetrated on the world in the last year, it might not be possible for the US to ever win another one.

[bdangubic]

this would be very funny if you added /s at the end

[guerrilla]

> Do they really?

Yes, really. The US has rarely achieved its objectives.

[geraneum]

US objectives are rarely as they are portrayed on TV.

[surgical_fire]

You are very wrong.

To keep a military base in a country you either need to be allowed to do so, or you have to do so by force, by occupying the country.

Occupation is doable, but very costly. The US did it recently in Afghanistan (which is barely a functioning country itself).

So yeah, it keeping military bases abroad via occupation is doable for some time, but not very feasible. It is more realistic to have a system of allied countries.

It's sort of a meme how people in the US imagine all middle eastern countries to be a bunch of mud huts in the world's largest gravel quarry.

[geraneum]

> To keep a military base in a country you either need to be allowed to do so, or you have to do so by force, by occupying the country.

There are all sorts of levers US, China, Russia can pull to in order to put pressure on a country for such things. There's occupation, mutual benefits, long standing agreements post wars, soft power, sanctions, etc. Geopolitics is complicated.

[surgical_fire]

And this is all is part of what "allowing" means. If a country is unwilling to allow for it, the only thing is left is either accepting is as a reality or trying to do so by force.