Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by MengerSponge 13 days ago
Counterpoint: it would be a three-week special operation a lot like invading Iraq, in that after minor victories the administration would declare "Mission Accomplished" before burning trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting an insurgency.
2 comments

It wouldn't even get to that point, because in order to be fighting an insurgency, you have to actually win on the ground and occupy the country.

Without a coalition of fools, the US has zero odds of success in that first step. It wouldn't be a long war of insurgency, it would just be a long war.

Iran is far bigger, far more capable, and far more difficult to wage war in than Iraq ever was.

not saying this should be a tactic we should employ, but the us has never invaded a country with the intent to conquor(except mexico). like, as in, iran is now part of the us.

the world would be aghast... but they already are?

It couldn't do it without switching to a war economy and full mobilization. And that would spell the end of the current US regime long before it would end the Iranian one.

Trump's approval rating has a floor of 40%, but that would likely send it to the 30s, and turn MAGA into a 30-seat party.

I completely agree. I guess i should say it vice a versa. It will be impossible to win Iran and has been proven by everything from vietnam to the middle east escapades...

If you go to war with a country, you cannot allow the country to exist in any form if you truely wish the 'win a war'.

It's a modern, wierd, primarily US based 'design of war', we learned from the cold war. Go in, destabalize it enough, ensure a coup every couple of years, so that region cannot ever be a material threat to you (like the ottoman empire)

(except mexico)

and Canada

and Hawaii

The fact that we've invaded every bordering country with the intent to conquer kind of invalidates your argument...

well.. those are the ones we won?
The United States did not win the invasion of Canada during the revolutionary war.
The US also did not win the invasion of Canada during the war of 1812. I'm sensing a theme.
The death toll was several orders of magnitude more (300k?).
If you're counting Iraqi deaths (which you should) it's probably past 500k. 600k if you count excess deaths. Ghoulish.

My point was what the American administration would burn and care about, and they clearly didn't/don't care about civilian deaths. TBH they only care about American military losses as far as it hurts their political capital at home.