Is the US army really that incompetent or is this just an excuse to funnel even more money into it?
A little of column A, a little of column B.
The US military is wholly dependent on the strategy of air and missile strikes and naval dominance to blockade ports/ship-to-ship combat, then sending in tanks and infantry afterwards to mop up. If the opposing force has sufficient anti-aircraft capabilities (Vietnam), can use cover to shield/conceal troops (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan), or engages in asymmetric warfare (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria), they lose their tactical advantage and will get pulled into a war of attrition which an invading army is almost guaranteed to lose because it’s not their homes they’re fighting for
In terms of cyber warfare, I’d argue that the US has superior offensive capabilities, but China has a much greater defensive capability with the monitoring of their networks and can better isolate threats. The critical infrastructure in the cyber space in the US is far more exposed by comparison. And with the exception of navy ships and a few military bases, most US military installations use civilian electrical power
These shortcomings are well-known to the US military, which is why most of what they do now is send special forces to train and equip local militias and separatists, followed up with NGOs to make them seem like oppressed freedom fighters. Nowadays the training and equipping is usually done through intermediaries to obfuscate the trail
For example:
- US supplies money, arms, and training to fellow NATO member Turkey
- Turkey gives Uyghur separatists Turkish citizenship and passports plus transport to Turkey via Turkish consulate in Malaysia
- “retired” Turkish military member trains, equips, and funds Wahhabist militia leaders in Syria
- Turkey pushes Uyghur separatists to fight in Syria
- Wahhabist militia further radicalizes and trains Uyghur separatists
- Battle-hardened Uyghur separatist recruits and trains local cells in Xinjiang
These shortcomings are well-known to the US military, which is why most of what they do now is send special forces to train and equip local militias and separatists, followed up with NGOs to make them seem like oppressed freedom fighters.
Absolutely, that’s why the cold war 2 analogy fits really well. The US only attacks when it has an overwhelming bully-like advantage, otherwise it does clandestine ops through third parties. Their strategy with color revolutions is, increasing destabilization, pitting groups against each other, then balkanization, then swooping in the aftermath and setting up a reactionary US friendly puppet… which has been working well in the ME but failing against China / Russia now.
Syria’s def one of the front lines. It could go either way, we really gotta hope Assad can fend off the US’s attempts there.
I think the Syrian war is pretty much over for the US, it will be mainly for Russia and Turkey to decide how things will play out there from now on.
Yeah, the weird thing with Syria is US policy advisors have been saying it’ll be just like the USSR in Afghanistan, like Russia doesn’t know what that looks like and haven’t planned for such a scenario
Holy fuck, the Uyghur thing is starting to come together…
Yeah, and the NGOs are total bullshit too. I saw some screenshots posted on Twitter where a guy was asking someone from the East Turkestan Government-in-Exile about their first president, and they said he was forced to resign because it was publicly revealed he was affiliated with Wahhabists
He presses, “How could you not know this, don’t you check the backgrounds of the people you elect?”
Response, “Well he wasn’t elected, he was appointed when the group was founded”
He asks, “Wait then who appointed him?”
Ghosted
It’s why the US maintains it’s war in Afghanistan and why the Bagram air base will never be vacated. The US needs power projection capabilities in the region precisely so it can flood equipment and technical support into Xinjiang in order to sever the arteries of BRI. Xinjiang is the main land route over which the trade will flow. In essence, the US presence in Afghanistan is it’s own reason for the conflict there.
These shortcomings are well-known to the US military, which is why most of what they do now is send special forces to train and equip local militias and separatists, followed up with NGOs to make them seem like oppressed freedom fighters.
Why would they stop doing this when it worked so well in Afghanistan against the Soviets? All major powers know that direct confrontation can only end in disaster for all sides so even their most bellicose hawks avoid such a confrontation like the plague. The metagame nowadays is to undermine rivals via domestic insurgency and proxy. It’s been so long since any major powers have had a P2P conflict that it’s genuinely unknown territory what will happen, no matter how much they lean on war games and simulation exercises to try and anticipate the course of such conflicts. With the terrifying weapons now currently at the disposal of all sides, the relative blackhole of real world data represents a deluge of horrifying possibilities, the biggest spectre of which is easily a renewed possibility of nuclear Armageddon.
I remember in the early 2000s, the US held the Millenium Games where they fought against not-Iraq. They got their ass handed to them as well by the “enemy” general who turned his vehicles into kamikaze weapons.
They promptly stopped the games, told him he couldn’t do that, and won by their rules.
Critics will say that in a real-life scenario, it’s unlikely a general would actually order their troops to kill themselves. I say that if need be, we have found a weakness in the armour.
The problem is this: at some point throwing money at something makes no difference.
You pay $1 for a blanket and you have a regular blanket. Congratulations.
You pay $100 for the same blanket and it’s still the same regular blanket; you did not automatically make it better.
I think this is partly what’s happening with the United States military.
Thoughts?
Ya I def agree, the US defense industry is incredibly bloated and inefficient to the point that all the money it gets doesn’t go that far anymore, and the return on investment has long since reached diminishing returns.
Exactly. Yes, I think you put it down succinctly.
Presenting the US military as lagging and fumbling is definitely a ruse to shift public opinion in favour of increased military spending. Citations Needed did an episode about it. But the US military isn’t unbeatable either. Redjoker’s comment lays it out well.
Best not to try it, yankees.
