If the US cannot win asymmetric (counterinsurgency) wars (as proven in Vietnam and Afghanistan) and will not fight conventional wars, it is insane for it to spend so much on weapons like tanks, ships, subs, and aircraft. The all-volunteer force also puts some hard limits on how many combat troops the US could deploy even if there was massive public support for a costly war.
Given that the US is reluctant to take or inflict heavy casualties (that is WW2 levels), aside from nuclear deterrence, there is not much of a job left for the US military except perhaps providing intel and training to allies as seen in Ukraine. And really the decisive factor in those cases is supply: men, money, weapons, spare parts, and ammo.
It's also worth noting that there is no relevant difference between tariffs and sanctions except in perception. Tariffs are much more likely to encourage successful negotiations. Tariffs can also be easily reversed without losing face.
When it comes to direct military action, the US should not do much in addition to cyber-attacks and drone strikes, and even those have limited utility.
Historically, the US has only succeeded in changing the regimes of much weaker countries such as Panama and Iraq. Such countries were never a threat to the US to begin with.
To put it another way, there are wars America can't win because it won't fight them. And that is not necessarily a bad thing as the history of nuclear deterrence shows.
There is not much use in the US government conducting information or psychological warfare as American media has already saturated that battlefield.
No comments:
Post a Comment