... maybe. maybe not. the same army lost against stubborn Afghan shepherds. and before that against Vietnamese farmers.
Now that didn't translate into accomplishing the political war goals of nation-building, changing cultures, and counter-insurgency without massive troop presence; but that wasn't a failure of the armed forces.
What's that line: the US doesn't lose wars, it gets tired of them?
In the broader context of the discussion, the post I was replying to made it sound like US military might would be rendered ineffective against drones, just the same as it supposedly would against IEDs. That isn’t the case.
While IEDs accounted for losses, the US didn’t fail to accomplish war goals in Afghanistan because of technology, power, or IEDs, but just because of simple politics.
How would you propose the armed forces act differently in Afghanistan to change “hearts and minds” among a people that quite clearly support Taliban values and the existing way of life?
If you take that as a large variable then all the US wars of a last 50 years were mission accomplished.
I don't see the point in judging the wars from the obvious sideshows of "spreading democracy" or something of that nature.
It's like the opposite of a Pyrrhic victory: you lost and squandered trillions while tarnishing your reputation, but your sheer economic and geopolitical power made it so you didn't feel pretty much anything, nor did you learn much.
That might be okay if the national hobby is airlifting a BK to some forsaken land every 30 years. What happens when the technological gap is smaller and your opponents have access to a substantially higher manufacturing capacity? What happens when you have multiple conflicts and coincidentally suffer an economic slowdown? Being able to casually outspend your enemy is a nice luxury, not an advantage.
I suppose in a sense you are right: superpowers never lose; they just get tired, and more tired until they become Russia or the UK.
"They declare victory and run away."
