[chasd00]

> In the first Iraq war, they went in and won. In the second one, it took years to sort of occupy the country.

The scope of the first Iraq war was to force them out of Kuwait. That is very different then the invasion of 2003. If you just think about it this should be obvious.

[duped]

I mean the lack of clear goals in American wars just reinforces their point

[ACCount37]

Nope. An ability to set and accomplish sensible war goals and an ability to overpower enemy's armed forces are not the same thing at all. As US has demonstrated repeatedly.

A fleet of AI-controlled F-16s? That contributes to the latter.

[stingraycharles]

A lack of clear goals is a symptom of bigger, organizational issues is what I’m reading. The problem isn’t as much raw firepower as it is strategy and execution.

[ACCount37]

Clearly, the technical solution to that is to remove the command over US armed forces from the US president, and hand it over to something more sensible - more capable of setting and executing military strategy. Like Skynet.

[greenlemontea]

Braindead take. The scope is always narrow up front whether it's "15 days to open the strait" or "15 days to slow the spread" - not all of us fall for that.

[derektank]

>The scope is always narrow up front

The scope of the second Iraq war was not narrow, it was regime change. At the beginning of the war the George W. Bush administration explicitly demanded that both Saddam and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours.

By comparison, the only demands made upon Iraq during the first gulf war was that they withdraw from Kuwait and rescind their declaration of annexation.