As has pretty much every modern war fought by America.
US military is designed to funnel public funds to shareholders, not to win wars, and it shows
I don’t think lack of military prowess was the reason those wars were lost. Quite the opposite actually: the thought that military prowess was all it would take was.
This was neither a war of necessity, nor a war of choice. It was a war of whim.
That wouldn’t have mattered much if there had been a good plan. “We’ll bomb the shit out of them and they’ll surrender” is not much of a plan, and nobody seems to have thought of what happens when the plan doesn’t have the desired outcome.
It does feel a lot like a repeat of the good old, “We’ll invade Ukraine and they are going to greet us with flowers and in three days, three weeks tops we are going to take Kyiv.”
You only have to look at history to see bombing campaigns alone have never won a war (excepting the use of Nukes). They’re such arrogant schmucks. I wonder how many of the staff they’ve dismissed over the past year told them how stupid this idea was
Even victory over Japan was not achieved with bombing alone. The US had boots on the ground on basically every island in the Pacific, and a full naval blockade. And the Soviets were on their doorstep in Manchuria. A land invasion of Japan was imminent, but neither side wanted that. The emperor preferred a negotiated surrender to the Americans.
Before the bomb was dropped, Japan was already defeated and (perhaps too slowly) coming around to surrender. The crazy thing to me was how the strike on Nagasaki was so ill conceived, and amounted to a bullyish “two for flinching”.
True. A case could be made for Serbia I guess but the threat of NATO invasion was there too
On a tuesday
