We also have to destroy their infrastructure to make new tanks, ships and aircraft.
The we have to destroy the infrastructure that would let them build up the infrastructure to build up tanks, ships, and aircraft.
Then we have to monitor them, and destroy any infrastructure they try to build in the future.
Again, “we” don’t necessarily have to; it depends on the war. The UK defeated Argentina in the Falklands War in 1982 and that was that. There was no further subsequent British campaign to attack Argentina’s home industries to prevent Argentina from re-arming up again.
But argentina was not the contested territory, the falklands were.
Argentina attempted to occupy them by use of military force, and britain pushed them out.
Britain also did not attack argentina itself, but all fighting was restricted to the territories that ended up being in britain’s possession at the end of the conflict.
This was a defensive war, where an occupation is not necessary, because the population is already friendly to you.
If the question of the OP was, “Can the US repel an attack, or defend an ally from occupation?” then using the falklands as an example would be a decisive answer. As there are many other sorts of wars that could be fought, many of them requiring the holding of territory that is currently in hands that is not friendly to us, it is not a comprehensive example.
There is very little question as to whether we could destroy pretty much any object or any number of objects on this planet that we wished to destroy, but many wars require more than just destruction in order to “win”.
Any time we are in a position to put regular troops onto the battlefield, the war becomes much more uncertain.
In any case, if Britain had been following the advice of the OP, they would have attacked argentina itself, reducing or eliminating their war making capability.
How about this for a hypothetical?
Let’s say we tell a Middle Eastern dictatorship “hey, don’t start building some kind of nuclear weapon.” And say they respond by – working on a nuclear weapon.
We don’t want that getting anywhere near our country in general, or our capital in particular; so we bomb the crap out of – well, yes, out of the work-in-progress that is their nuclear program; but also out of their capital, because, well, screw those guys; if they die in a fire, maybe their successors will realize they should listen when we’re talking, or else die in a fire? Failing that, maybe those successors die in a fire the next time around, and serve as an example to their successors. And we get to keep the status quo in place, which is a pretty nice arrangement for us.
Sounds like a plan?
Yeah, like I said, we can blow stuff up, we are really good at that.
Is that winning a war, or is that just maintaining hostilities with a foreign power indefinitely?
Well, see, that was the point of my bit at the end; imagine one scenario where we periodically bomb a revolving-door enemy head of state to death whenever the latest one starts that program back up from scratch – because, man, those guys just don’t learn, I guess – and a scenario where we do the merry-go-round of decapitation to
kill off a couple of decision-makers until we get a guy who makes the right decision.
We don’t try to occupy the land in either scenario; do both of those scenarios count as “maintaining hostilities with a foreign power indefinitely”, or just one?
It helps teach people that they really need nuclear weapons, is what it does. And manufactures lots of potential “terrorists”.
Well, in this hypothetical they already got told not to get to work on one when they got to work on it anyway, so I figure they already felt like they really need 'em.
So “bomb” them.
But then we’d have to stop deploying the military (which is fine by me) because the situations we have lately been sending them to are not situations that call for total warfare like WWII.
Our military has been called to places that need more of a police presence than a “kill anything that moves” presence.
[Bolding mine]
Does GCC stand for Gruyere Cheese Crucibles?
More importantly, you have to destroy their will to defy the USA. A bit harder than most people imagine.
Now I want you to flip that plan around and imagine some other country bombing the shit out of Washington DC because…whatever. Do you imagine America will have “learned our lesson” or demand righteous retribution?
What happens if the “successors” decide to not stay in various obvious targets in the capital and launch an asymmetrical war against us?
Do you imagine you could bomb a country so far into submission that it can’t assemble half a dozen guys to hijack a jumbo jet and crash it into a skyscraper?
I don’t think “winning a war” can or should be defined as “securing a good post-war peace.”
The Israelis won a smashing victory in the Six-Day War in 1967, yet certainly didn’t solve the “Arab problem;” they had to repel a strong attack just six years later in the Yom Kippur War. But the Arab tension and threat that continued to simmer after 1967 didn’t make the Six-Day War any less of a victory.
Every war should be evaluated individually in its own right.
The thing is, we can project power on the other side of the world. You know, with subs and aircraft carriers and whatnot; so we can do “righteous retribution” right then, as it were. By contrast, if we bomb some other nation’s capital while bombing their local facilities, they’ll – what? Sail a fleet of warships across the ocean at us? Send a squadron of bombers on its way, thousands of miles through the air?
Seemed to me the consensus here was that we’d smash anything of the sort with ease; we’re awesome at winning the submarines-and-stealth-bombers part, we’re just not great at winning the boots-on-the-ground follow-up. So I was asking about a situation where we’d stick to the part we’re good at, and not bother with the other part: in my hypothetical, bombing another county is easy; it’s easy to do first, and it’s still easy to do if someone somehow hits back.
In your hypothetical, how did they hit back?
Where? Again, it seems to me that our big problem of late has been, we smash the other side’s conventional military while bombing their country, and then we don’t do so hot when asymmetrical forces hit our boots-on-the-ground types over there; which is why I ask, okay, so what if there are no boots on the ground?
Well, you know, you reinforce cockpit doors, and make it harder to bring weapons onto a plane, and chuckle ruefully at the days when people thought ‘hijacker’ meant ‘some guy you let run amuck’, and you probably institute some kind of travel ban, and so on. By contrast, what do you do when folks telling you to knock it off can rain bombs down on you from up on high? Do you ban them from your country? That’s, uh, not really a thing. Do you scan them for weapons? Well, no; anti-hijacking policies can just be put in place, but the defense against bombers is – what?
Also, it seems we have yet other options for ‘winning the war’.
Let’s say that Country A and Country B are at odds, but are pretty well-matched when it comes to their military forces. And so those hated rivals maybe have some border skirmishes, but neither goes for a full-on invasion because it’d be hard to go for the knockout punch they both crave.
What happens if we tell Country B to knock it off with this or that, and they don’t hear too good? Well, consensus here seems to be that we do a great job of smashing their conventional forces from a safe distance with push-button convenience; but then we bungle it when we try to put boots on the ground. So let’s say we do the “smashing” part, and then put no boots on the ground; will they want to retaliate against us? Hey, for the sake of argument, let’s say: sure.
But they’ve got more pressing problems – in the form of County A – right?
Country A might just be in a boots-on-the-ground mood; and they might be better at it than we would be. And they wouldn’t be up against an evenly-matched military first, which was the part that kept them from trying it sooner.
So say that happens, and we get what we wanted. Did we win our war?
tbf, the Soviets pretty much won the war in Europe, the rest just helped them out.
US military engagement is as much a need to validate the insane investment to its public as it is any Geo-politcal goals: rah! rah! look at that beautiful carrier group. It’s all dressed up and stuggling for places to go.
Eh? This was a defensive action. It wasn’t intended to solve anything except to nullify the attacks
This has been US foreign policy for decades.
Because that has worked out so very well for all involved in Libya.
As I said, it depends on the war.