this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
471 points (98.6% liked)

People Twitter

9764 readers
1532 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 37 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Given how well they did in Afghanistan and Iraq, sure.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 27 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

And Vietnam. Our military isn't great with boots on the ground because that's not the point. This is for making military money and that's it.

[–] just2look@lemmy.zip 13 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

That isn't quite accurate. The US military is very good at killing people and destroying things. To win you need a strategy that goes beyond those things. It involves aspects outside the military. You need diplomats to coordinate and negotiate with allies, diplomats to meet and negotiate with the opposition in conflicts where that is feasible, a strategy that has end goals and a reasonable way to get to those goals, political entities to explain to the US citizenry and the world at large why the conflict is necessary, and a bunch more. The military doesn't really do most of that, and the US hasn't bothered with having any of those things for a long time. The problem is the US government keeps just saying to 'conquer' some country and giving no real sense of what that even means.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

Pretty sure at this point we know what it means.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

And making Petrobarons* spelling richer and maintaining USD hegemony through petrodollar. We invaded Iraq because Hussein was trying to convert Iraq's UN Food-for-Oil account from petrodollar to petroeuro.

[–] just2look@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

That's kind of my point. The US military is pretty good at doing what militaries are for. Its other parts of the government that decide where to point them. And where they have been pointed has been stupid/destructive/dictated by oligarchs for a long time.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

It's an attempt to distract from the Epstein files.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

They conquere Iraq and Afghanistan quite fast, what they half-heartedly tried and failed at was building a lasting regime that they didn't directly control.