5 ms·

You go to war because you want an strategic outcome you can't get with other means. I doubt the strategic outcome of the USA in Irak or Afghanistan was "kill a

You go to war because you want an strategic outcome you can't get with other means. I doubt the strategic outcome of the USA in Irak or Afghanistan was "kill a lot, lose not that many, leave the country in shambles, achieve nothing in return". The strategic outcome in both wars was to replace the goverment for a friendlier one, and in both cases the USA didn't get it, not even close. But if you view wars as an sport where people kills other people and the winner is the one who kills better/more, then war is declared over and "teams" look for another war to "play", indeed USA won both wars in a walk.

0xDEAFBEAD 12d ago
"The strategic outcome in both wars was to replace the goverment for a friendlier one, and in both cases the USA didn't get it, not even close." The current Iraqi government is considerably more friendly to the US.
- srean 11d ago
  Yes it showed in the ongoing US Iran conflict. /S
red_admiral 12d ago
We achieved "get the Iraqis out of Kuwait" back in the day.
- wood_spirit 11d ago
  Not alone
- otherme123 9d ago
  There were 2 wars in Iraq: the first one main objective was "get Saddam out of Kuwait", which was a success. The second one, much diffuse in its targets (remove WMD that didn't exits in the first place, remove Saddam from power and leave behind a quasi-anarchy, replace Saddam with a puppet government...?). In any case, Saddam was removed in 2003, but the war protracted well into 2011 against insurgents. The US left he country declaring "war won", but war continued until 2017 against the Islamic State. Is not like the US left behind a democratic friendly country in 2011, like South Korea, South Vietnam or Japan decades before. Since 2017 and still ongoing today there is a war between Iraqi army and the Islamic State, albeit much less intense than 2012-2017. Gulf War, it was a walk in the park. Second Iraq War, not so much, and you can't barely say US won anything.

0xDEAFBEAD 12d ago

"The strategic outcome in both wars was to replace the goverment for a friendlier one, and in both cases the USA didn't get it, not even close." The current Iraqi government is considerably more friendly to the US.

srean 11d ago
Yes it showed in the ongoing US Iran conflict. /S

red_admiral 12d ago

We achieved "get the Iraqis out of Kuwait" back in the day.

wood_spirit 11d ago
Not alone
otherme123 9d ago
There were 2 wars in Iraq: the first one main objective was "get Saddam out of Kuwait", which was a success. The second one, much diffuse in its targets (remove WMD that didn't exits in the first place, remove Saddam from power and leave behind a quasi-anarchy, replace Saddam with a puppet government...?). In any case, Saddam was removed in 2003, but the war protracted well into 2011 against insurgents. The US left he country declaring "war won", but war continued until 2017 against the Islamic State. Is not like the US left behind a democratic friendly country in 2011, like South Korea, South Vietnam or Japan decades before. Since 2017 and still ongoing today there is a war between Iraqi army and the Islamic State, albeit much less intense than 2012-2017. Gulf War, it was a walk in the park. Second Iraq War, not so much, and you can't barely say US won anything.