The Gulf War

With all the US and Western military fuckups before in Vietnam, the 1980s, and after in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. how did it go half as well as it did?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (960x540, 750.43K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_School_of_Advanced_Military_Studies#Operation_Just_Cause_and_beyond
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It was an actual conventional force-on-force conflict between two "modern" armies, an arena that U.S. military has unquestioned dominance in.

Is that still the case?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (600x400, 537.06K)

Conventional warfare over large open areas with are superiority, it was basically the situation US doctrine was written for. Seeing they couldn't fuck it up militarily they chose to fuck it up politically and destabilise the region for 28 years and counting.

*air superiority

I missed saddam
Fuck Hitler. Saddam was the most Zig Forums dictator ever.

The real question is why did the others go as bad as they did

Prolonged occupation, even if the general public once thanked you for overthrowing their government after a decade of you hanging around and stealing resources even moderates will start considering insurgency.

The US cannot into guerilla warfare and propaganda necessary to justify occupations

I would like to object. This insane motherfucker:
a) overthrew a government
b) purged the entire military
c) then got into a defensive war against a military superior enemy
d) while opposed by both NATO and PACT forces
e) resorted to the use of child soldiers and human wave attacks
f) managed to make progress into enemy territory

Armies designed for cheap open large scale combat aren't necessarily the best for operating in small numbers and in confined spaces.

Attached: Inshalla hope you dont do this.jpg (491x662, 70.19K)