The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party back in April became the latest in a long list of groups to conduct a wargame examining a potential U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan. Yet the most important question about such a conflict is the one none of these organizations ever ask: What is the vital national […]
The US literally couldn’t achieve their goals in Afganistan. If they couldn’t beat the Taliban, what makes you think they could win against a super power?
Idk, comrade. They got plenty of money from opium trade, not to mention stealing government funds. Plus they ensured the region is destabilised and deindustrialized. Sounds like mission accomplished
You’re not entirely wrong, but you have to understand that there a couple levels to US foreign policy. One the material base you mentioned, where the US wants to take out possible competitors all over the globe. The other is that of the “idealists,” the neoconservatives who are the US foreign policy establishment. In what sense they are “conservative” has always been a little unclear, because their understanding of geopolitics is in a lot of ways ultra-left: the US is an armed base for freedom and liberalism, and if the country does not continually export, via war and color revolutions, its own version of “democracy,” that same democracy at home will wither away and die. During the Bush years, I thought it was just rhetoric, but the sheer suicidal stupidity of their actions in Ukraine has since convinced me they actually believe all of this. They tend to be opposed by the Brzenzkyites, who favor a much more hard-headed approach to foreign policy – the divide-and-conquer game essentially, such as Nixon played with China and the USSR. The Brzenzkyites were once the foreign policy establishment, but since the 90s their place has been mostly taken by the neoconservatives.
The neoconservatives have been enabled by US corporations and mega-conglomerates who, for the sake of immediate profits, want global competitors taken out; without this base, the neocons would never have risen to power. But because they are idealists, the neocons regularly go above and beyond all rational neccesity, promoting sanctions when diplomacy would have worked, wars when sanctions would have been sufficient, etc, all with a goal toward toppling “undemocratic” regimes and ushering in “democracy” – the latter never happens, but here we have the madman’s dilemma, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This cycle of escalation creates mass death abroad and social and economic problems back at home, which latter do end up hurting the US ruling classin some degree. The long range goals of US corporations would probably be better served by the slow, methodical approach of Brzenzkyite foreign policy, but capital is by nature short-sighted and geared toward immediate profit. Thus, the US ruling class has created a monster it cannot well control, leading to a sort of prisoner’s dilemma. When neocon wars fail, as they always do, to achieve the objectives set out by their ideologues, capital profits; but that same failure makes the US populace disillusioned with the neocons, and creates political pressures that put the US ruling class in danger of losing their attack dog in Washington. That is why a big portion of the US elite were freaked out about Trump. His policies were not much different from those of his predecessors, but his election articulated a kind of right-wing populist distrust in the mechanisms of global American power, which many members of the US ruling class took as a sign of things to come.
But that’s the thing, isn’t it? The supposed disillusionment with the ruling “elites” (hate the term tbh, there’s nothing elite about those bastards) doesn’t lead to the population abandoning the espoused ideals. Instead it leads to supporting the same kind of filth, but in a different coat of paint. So now we’re stuck between neocons high off their own fumes, willing to nuke the world “in the name of democracy”, and cynical bastards who don’t bother pretending it’s all for profit. And both are deep in the pocket of the ruling class, and protected by the spook apparatus. Wunderbar.
Yes, but it isn’t sustainable. The US nowadays is mostly deindustrialized, without any substantive economy. Everything, and I do mean everything, is based on either financial speculation or the entertainment industry. The fact that the dollar is still the global currency has long insulated us from the worst effects of having an economy like that, since the governent can create “growth” via debt and by printing money. But for real wealth, the US is entirely dependent on production in other parts of the world, mainly China. As US actions undermine the dollar as the global currency, the day of reckoning for the US economy comes closer. And when enormous sectors of the US population start facing real grinding hardship – I mean “Russia in the 1990s” levels of grinding hardship – the propaganda will cease to be effective. To a certain extent, it is ceasing to be effective now, though the system is mostly working as intended. But cracks are showing, and those in control are starting to worry. The thing might ultimately be salvageable, if we did the sort of major political restructuring we did during World War II. But I promise you, there are no Roosevelts anymore.
Meh the US is usually pretty bad against an insurgent force using guerilla tactics (Viet Cong, Taliban, insurgents during Iraqi occupation). It’s great at engaging in large scale battles where there are clear targets though.
When was the last time the U.S. was in a war like that? WWII?
Edit: hit post mid sentence.
US failed in their push to the Yalu River against 1950s China. That was China at its weakest point when it was poor and unindustrialized. It was literally less developed than Sub Saharan Africa back then.
Now that China is the host to the world’s largest industrial sector. The Chinese make the best hypersonics, the best drones, and the best surface combatant ships. All produced in numbers impossible for US industry to match. What makes you think that the US will fare any better?
The Iran was the one the that dealt the mortal blow to Iraq. The Iran-Iraq War, the First Gulf War, and the sanctions left Iraq as a powder keg of religious and ethnic tensions. 12 years of sanctions on Iraq contributed to the defeat of their regular army more than anything the US military itself did.
The US never fought in the large scale operations that the Soviet Army did in WW2. No US operation rivaled the size of Operation Bagration or the Manchurian Strategic Offensive.
If the US loses or has severe trouble winning in every war they have been in for years even against small groups of farmers then I really don’t think they stand a chance against the PLA and its allies.
When did this happen?
Like?