The World's Greatest Fighter Jet: The F-15 Eagle

[HGV]

Vietnam, militarily the US was winning, however the VC still inflicted A LOT of damage on the US and its ally the South Vietnamese.

This is a good example of tactical victories and overall defeat. Despite various US tactical victories, the US did not achieve any of their objectives in launching the invasion and withdrew. A clear case of a military failure (to achieve wider pre-defined strategic/political objectives).

 

[Trango Towers]

None of those (except for Korea) fought the US conventionally.

We need to have a honest discussion about the parameters of "military victory" for the US in these (illegal) invasions. For example, when the US illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, they basically achieved their military goals within 4-6 weeks (capture Baghdad, overthrow Saddam's regime). If they then withdrew from Iraq, it would be impossible to call it a failure in purely military terms. But they then decided to occupy Iraq until 2011, and an insurgency began against them. They failed to build a stable new regime to replace the one they had invaded to overthrow and by the time they withdrew, they had turned Iran's biggest enemy into a very divided territory fertile for the pursuit of foreign (primarily American, Saudi and Iranian) and sectarian interests, ultimately leading to the rise of ISIS. Is that a strategic military victory worth $2 trillion and thousands of American casualties? Arguably not.

Your argument is very fair. American pretty much has the ability to destroy any military on the planet but modern wars are not conventional. They turn to asymmetric very quickly. America is not good at that and hence struggles. America has no idea how to rebuild nations. Afghanistan and Iraq were wars to make money. Wash dirty money and save their economy from a total collapse. The war against Iraq was for no reason. Saddam had notjing to do with Sept 11. Neither did Afghanistan

 

[gambit]

100% true.

Pakistan with its tiny defence budget kicked Taliban out Pakistan into A-stan.... the Taliban threw the back the Americans where they came from...

I agree. The US military is the worst. PDF have it on record that American forum members said so. In the meantime, our military industrial complex (MIC) is STILL waiting for when other countries stop emulating the US military and starts cancelling contracts.

 

[jhungary]

None of those (except for Korea) fought the US conventionally.

We need to have a honest discussion about the parameters of "military victory" for the US in these (illegal) invasions. For example, when the US illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, they basically achieved their military goals within 4-6 weeks (capture Baghdad, overthrow Saddam's regime). If they then withdrew from Iraq, it would be impossible to call it a failure in purely military terms. But they then decided to occupy Iraq until 2011, and an insurgency began against them. They failed to build a stable new regime to replace the one they had invaded to overthrow and by the time they withdrew, they had turned Iran's biggest enemy into a very divided territory fertile for the pursuit of foreign (primarily American, Saudi and Iranian) and sectarian interests, ultimately leading to the rise of ISIS. Is that a strategic military victory worth $2 trillion and thousands of American casualties? Arguably not.

Wars in modern term is an extension of Policy. It's not like in the old days when War and Politics are separated and you simply goes into a war with the sole aim of slaughtering everyone not flying your flag. The last war that did this is World War 2. Afterward, we can't call any war after that a sole "Military Engagement"

Problem with Iraq, Afghanistan is (or to some extend Vietnam) is that, unlike Military Engagement, you don't have a clear Strategic/Operational/Tactical goal (also known as THE Trifactor) that you can follow and chart progress, you don't have a Phase line that tell you where your troop were and where the enemy are, you don't have a frontline anymore. In political term, nation building have no ends. I mean at what ends you finish building a nation? It would have been a forever project without a clear defined victory condition. Which mean a war with political objective in mind can never be won, because you don't win that war by military conquer, but rather with an absurd mean of political goal.

As they say, we are good at fighting war, but sucks as nation building.

 

[Trango Towers]

I agree. The US military is the worst. PDF have it on record that American forum members said so. In the meantime, our military industrial complex (MIC) is STILL waiting for when other countries stop emulating the US military and starts cancelling contracts.

Emotional damage @gambit

 

[gambit]

Wars are typically fought to achieve certain objectives (usually political), not just to kill more of your enemy forces than they can kill of yours. You can also achieve a tactical victory but ultimately suffer a strategic failure.

When people talk about the $8 trillion the US spent in its multiple invasions and acts of aggression across West Asia, the almost 20 year Vietnam War which cost $1 trillion etc, these are the things they are referring to when they talk about victory or losses.

The US military has (by and large) a very good record of achieving tactical military victories, no one can deny that.

Actually, that is when people starts to deflect.

There are two complementary components in a war: Political and Military.

The Politician said: We need to defeat X country.

The General said: To do that, we need to blockade that harbor, take that mountain, control that airspace, and so on.

This thread is about the General or the TECHNICAL component of war. Then once American hardware cannot be challenged, people switches to what the Politician said. Get it? It is an intellectually dishonest tactic, but it usually works on the shallowest of minds.

Emotional damage @gambit

So when will the Pakistani Air Force stops working to fly like US? We are the worst, remember?

 

[HGV]

This thread is about the General or the TECHNICAL component of war. Then once American hardware cannot be challenged, people switches to what the Politician said. Get it? It is an intellectually dishonest tactic, but it usually works on the shallowest of minds.

This thread is about whatever the people posting in this thread decide it is about, your shallow mind notwithstanding.

 

[gambit]

This thread is about whatever the people posting in this thread decide it is about, your shallow mind notwithstanding.

I will admit to that: the US military is the worst. That is what the people decided upon. So when will other air forces stops emulating US?

 

[gambit]

People never served a single day in their countries' armed forces, then on the internet, they start using complex sounding words like 'asymmetric' and thinks they know WTF they are talking about.

 

[PradoTLC]

I agree. The US military is the worst.

True... just like the Wehrmacht three army of Groups of operation Barbarossa lost to the Russians...


I mean seriously who loses from the Russians?... Ivan loses from Afghans , Israelis, Chechens and Ukrainians..

and yet the US military essentially copied ... wait was "inspired" by German doctrine and weapon systems.

 

[gambit]

True... just like the Wehrmacht three army of Groups of operation Barbarossa lost to the Russians...


I mean seriously who loses from the Russians?... Ivan loses from Afghans , Israelis, Chechens and Ukrainians..

and yet the US military essentially copied ... wait was "inspired" by German doctrine and weapon systems.

So when will the Pakistani military hire PDF Pakistanis as consultants to transition away from the US model?

 

[PradoTLC]

So when will the Pakistani military hire PDF Pakistanis as consultants to transition away from the US model?

Our only dream is when will pentagon stop to puppet the Pakistan military

 

[gambit]

Our only dream is when will pentagon stop to puppet the Pakistan military

I am sure that the Pakistani military is monitoring this forum and is 'impressed' by all the 'experts' here, even though these 'experts' have never served a single day in uniform and never had any education in military affairs. Am sure it is soon that Pakistan will see the errors and hire you and others to help transition the Pakistani military to the Taliban model.

 

[Trango Towers]

So when will the Pakistani military hire PDF Pakistanis as consultants to transition away from the US model?

Ahh looking at your advisors and leaders like Ronald Reagan geroge Bush and crazies in the Pentagon I don't think you have a leg to stand on have a nice day in your bubble

 

[LeGenD]

True but when they last they win

Afghanistan
Korea
Vietnam
Iraq

Bro,

The notion of victory or defeat is decided on the basis of the fulfillment of the CORE political objective of the war. Any war is fought in pursuit of a political military objective.

Afghanistan

Why US invaded Afghanistan? To punish those deemed responsible for 9/11. To dismantle Al-Qaeda Network.

(1) Do you see Osama Bin Laden alive and suicide attacks in American cities? OR (2) Osama is dead and much of the Al-Qaeda Network is gone? (1) is true.

Many of the Afghan Taliban also died in this war. But Pakistan saved these people. Pakistan had provided US access to Afghanistan so Pakistan wanted to have a say in Afghan Affairs.

Donald Trump was fine with finding a political solution for Afghanistan that was acceptable to Pakistan. But Afghan Taliban were allowed to return to power in Afghanistan because they agreed to not allow Afghan soil to be misused for plots against US. This clause is in the deal that was signed between US and Afghan Taliban.

Americans have accomplished their CORE political objective in Afghanistan but Joe Biden created embarassing optics of a very rushed withdrawal process from Afghanistan. An incompetent political coward at the top is responsible for this embarassing development.

Now Biden is showing spine in Ukraine to rebuild his reputation. Funny.

Nevertheless, Pakistan continues to find and fight terrorists in Afghanistan. And Pakistan's economy has gone to the dogs lately due to ill-advised political experiments. If Hamid Gul had been alive to see this....

Korea

Why US invaded Korea? To liberate South Korea that had fallen to a well-prepared North Korean military machine in 1950.

How this war concluded? It concluded with liberation of South Korea and the communist bloc had to come to terms with this reality in writing. This is straightforward battlefield victory.

It is true that China saved North Korea (an achievement that the Chinese have every right to celebrate) but China will not tell you about defeat in Seoul and other regions of the war which led to restoration of South Korea in the end. In fact, South Korea absorbed some parts of North Korean territory in its restoration.

Don't draw conclusions about this war from a Chinese movie. It caters to domestic audience and consumption. Read my historical guide instead.

Vietnam

Why US invaded Vietnam? To preserve South Vietnam.

But Vietnamese geography made it impractical for US-led forces to conduct WW2 style armored thrusts and sweeps in this region.

US-led forces eventually adapted to Vietnamese conditions and began to produce results on the ground.

But Lyndon B. Johnson showed weakness in the face of American military victory in the strategically important A Sau valley in 1969.

And Richard Nixon showed weaknes in the face of a brilliantly executed Operation Linebacker in 1972 - a military operation that almost shattered Vietcong and brought it to the negotiation table. Nixon chose to withdraw and South Vietnam fell in 1975.

Vietnam also shows that incompetent political cowards are responsible for defeat in a war that could be won in the battlefield.

Iraq

Why US invaded Iraq in 1991? To liberate Kuwait.

How this war concluded? It concluded with liberation of Kuwait. This is straightforward battlefield victory.

Why US invaded Iraq in 2003? To dismantle Saddam regime and reboot Iraqi political system.

How this war concluded? It concluded with defeat of Saddam regime and reboot of Iraqi political system. This is straightforward battlefield victory.

Iraq wasn't easy to tame and reform but Americans showed commitment to this front and it paid off eventually.

Iran also have some Iraqi elements in its pockets but this is the price to pay for a country that has internal faultlines and only a strongman like Saddam could put a lid on them.

-----

US has ample military muscle but American leaders are very mistaken in assuming that democracy can be exported to every country out there.

Democracy works in some environments, not everywhere. A strongman can be the right leader to bring to power to secure a country at earliest. Iraq could be much better managed by "restoring" Iraqi army for example.

The alternative is to be brutal like the Wehrmacht to secure a country. This would be possible if US scrap its "Theory of Limited War."

@gambit