Trump is now caught in the oldest trap of modern warfare – believing a swift, surgical military operation will yield quick, enduring political results. The Soviets did it in Afghanistan; the US in Iraq in 2003; Putin did it in Ukraine, and is still fighting. Whatever force a military fails or succeeds in applying at the start, the people it is attacking have greater commitment to defending their lands and homes.
The White House may have rushed into this, seizing the opportunity for a decapitation strike, provided by Israeli intelligence. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has very different objectives regionally, and a long US involvement against Tehran suits his desire for an Iran in rolling collapse that is no longer a threat. But the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on February 28 has caused as many problems as it has solved.
How did the Iraq war yield quick results? Wasn’t the U.S. military there for like 9 years?
Nevermind the article, are you seriously so lazy that you won’t even read the summary? You don’t even have to click on anything. It’s right in front of you! Just read it!
The military collapsed in a matter of days. Yet the conflict didn’t end for years, which is the whole premise of the article and every conflict mentioned.
Because the entire army went home, the US wouldn’t allow them to work in security, fired many of those that were working in security, and then did a big ole surprise Pikachu when the army just kind of became an insurgency.
Ah, so you’re talking about the benefits we reap after the dust settles following the initial military actions.
That makes more sense, admittedly I did skim.
This will end the same as every other middle east conflict. We destroy the government and make 12 new terrorist organizations. But they keep trying to cut the heads off a hydra.