It wins by default because the best anyone else can hope for is for the USA to leave. The nations they attack can’t really chase them back home. You need a different military for invasion vs defense. Plus whoever the USA just retreated from is going to be battered and financially precarious after their defensive war. In theory, someone could invade them. The USA is optimised for invasion, so if they can’t win wars of conquest they’d lose even harder when defending. But is anyone going to be in a state where they can risk testing that after being attacked?
Then there’s the non-military aspect. Naïvely it might seem that the USA’s goal is a military victory. Achieving their stated goal. Or perhaps subjugating the target. But in reality, the USA obeys people who optimise for their individual gain, not the nation’s gain.
For the citizenry, and therefore the nation, it’s bad if the USA has all their war equipment destroyed and has to buy a whole new arsenal at ridiculous inflated prices. But for everyone who is contracted to make that stuff and gets to eat the profit of the inflated price, it’s great. The more stuff they use up or lose, the more they’ll need to replace. And since it’s paid for by the state, it just means that wealth is being moved from workers to owners. Those owners then share their profits with politicians, who see no negative consequence from starting “unwinnable” wars.
Chasing them out of Iraq is not the same as chasing them back home. Chasing them back home would mean that Iraq goes on to invade the USA, which I don’t find likely. I’m not disagreeing that the USA are terrorists.
Has the US ever actually won an engagement, or has it been humiliated every single time?
The French won for us that one time
It doesn’t try to win, it’s aim is to destroy and destabilise
I guess WW1 and WW2 don’t count? Everything after that really seemed insignificant.
Turned up late both times and you were busy trying to decide if you liked the brownshirts more than democracy before the japanese spat in your eye.
It wins by default because the best anyone else can hope for is for the USA to leave. The nations they attack can’t really chase them back home. You need a different military for invasion vs defense. Plus whoever the USA just retreated from is going to be battered and financially precarious after their defensive war. In theory, someone could invade them. The USA is optimised for invasion, so if they can’t win wars of conquest they’d lose even harder when defending. But is anyone going to be in a state where they can risk testing that after being attacked?
Then there’s the non-military aspect. Naïvely it might seem that the USA’s goal is a military victory. Achieving their stated goal. Or perhaps subjugating the target. But in reality, the USA obeys people who optimise for their individual gain, not the nation’s gain.
For the citizenry, and therefore the nation, it’s bad if the USA has all their war equipment destroyed and has to buy a whole new arsenal at ridiculous inflated prices. But for everyone who is contracted to make that stuff and gets to eat the profit of the inflated price, it’s great. The more stuff they use up or lose, the more they’ll need to replace. And since it’s paid for by the state, it just means that wealth is being moved from workers to owners. Those owners then share their profits with politicians, who see no negative consequence from starting “unwinnable” wars.
The united states is a terrorist nation. The sooner we all realise that and come to terms with what that means the better.
Chasing them out of Iraq is not the same as chasing them back home. Chasing them back home would mean that Iraq goes on to invade the USA, which I don’t find likely. I’m not disagreeing that the USA are terrorists.
It decisively won the Indian Wars
It won in the same kinda way a fungus spreads across a sandwich.