[QUOTE=RedFury]
And if you don’t have the time and/or interest, read Pochacco’s and glee’s posts if you haven’t already. Pretty much say it all in a nutshell.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Impressive but not unexpected. The United States had tremendous advantages going in. It’s not surprising that the Iraqi army whithered almost immediately under an attack by an overwhelmingly superior force. Pretty much the same thing happened in Gulf War I.
[/QUOTE]
I agree…not unexpected, still impressive. Some folks in this thread seem to think that bringing that ‘overwhelmingly superior force’ to bear thousands of miles from our own shores (and our own logistics heads) is a walk in the park. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to make is that it LOOKS easy…just like a professional athlete makes things look easy. Or like Stephen Hawkings makes cosmology look easy.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Of course, war isn’t an end unto itself. The true measure of victory isn’t whose army prevails on the battlefield, but who attains their strategic goals when it’s all over. The war in Iraq has been a victory for Iran and a defeat for pretty much everyone else.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I agree…but that wasn’t really the point of the OP (at least, not as I read it).
[QUOTE=glee]
Since the Taliban are back in large chunks of Afghanistan, heroin production is at record levels and Bin Laden is still at large, what would count as ‘victory’ for you?
[/QUOTE]
What does this have to do with how impressive or unimpressive the original military OP was? The Roman empire no longer exists…its been swept away. Same with the British empire. Does that make them less impressive? Yes, the Taliban have made a come back…however, they haven’t retaken the country by any means. Yes, heroin is being produced in Afghanistan…and the sky is blue. I don’t think capturing Bin Laden or not capturing him (or killing him) has much to do with victory myself.
All this is beside the point…because its not what the OP was ASKING. The OP was asking about the initial military campaigns…not the aftermath. If the OP had asked “How impressive was America’s invasion of Iraq wrt how things have turned out today” then you’d be right. Same if s/he had asked the same thing about Afghanistan and how things have progressed to date. But that isn’t what the OP asked.
[QUOTE=glee]
You could compare the military budget of the US and Afghanistan to get some idea of how impressive that victory was.
[/QUOTE]
This is simply a stupid comparison IMHO. What difference does the comparative budget make? The British during the revolutionary war had probably a GREATER disparity in military budget between them and the American revolutionaries…and still managed to not win. The reason? Because we were closer to where the fighting was than they were…which has a tendency to even the score considerably. Ask the Vietnamese if relative budget makes that much of a difference…or the Afghani’s during the Soviet invasion. Or the Russians when Napoleon invaded.
[QUOTE=glee]
You’re certainly not the ‘best-led’ Armed Forces. George Bush is certainly no Hannibal.
[/QUOTE]
This is barely worth a :rolleyes: …though on the plus side you probably scored major points with Red on it.
[QUOTE=glee]
But are you seriously comparing the US conquering Afghanistan and Iraq with:
[/QUOTE]
Comparing apples to oranges, but ok…I’m game:
Defeated by the Germans (who I might point out had a smaller military budget 
) at the Teutoburg Forest. Also, I’m wondering who you feel they faced that were even in their league militarily.
(BTW, logistically Rome, as well as most of the rest of the examples you listed, pretty much ‘lived off the land’ when on campaign)
[QUOTE=glee]
the Mongol hordes taking most of Asia
[/QUOTE]
Very impressive example. I’ll concede that their military exploits topped those of the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, though not for their invasion of Asia. More impressive (to me) was their conquest of Russia.
However, they failed a similar technical test of arms in their invasion of Japan a bit later…and at THAT time the Mongol empire’s military budget (which seems important to you) was several orders of magnitude more than the Japanese. They were also much more technologically advanced (I guess I could argue that they were actually more technologically advanced in military terms than the Chinese, Koreans and certainly the Russians too, in terms of both strategy and tactics…certainly in terms of training and motivation. Though one of the historian types like Tamelane will probably be by to spank me on the point :)).
[QUOTE=glee]
Napoleon conquering Europe
[/QUOTE]
And yet he failed in a similar test when attempting to invade Russia…again, even though the French empire at the time had a military budget (as well as strategic and tactical superiority) several orders of magnitude above the lowly Russian’s.
[QUOTE=glee]
the British Empire?
[/QUOTE]
Defeated by a bunch of yokals and farmers lead by some wide eyed aristocrats across the big pond…in spite of the fact that (once again) their military budget (as well as their technological, tactical and strategic superiority) was vastly superior to the paltry sum the colonial types had.
The examples you give however are comparing apples to oranges, since you broadly give out empires and then attempt to compare them to military campaigns (or wars if you like). Besides which, this isn’t a contest. The OP didn’t ASK if, say, the American campaign in Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq are comparable to, say, the Punic War’s, or Austerlitz…or even the Golden Horde’s invasion of Russia or the British conquest of India. S/he only asked if they were IMPRESSIVE (the OP ALSO didn’t ask about the long term ramifications or effects…though I note with no little irony how several people jumped on that and pretty much ignored what the OP was actually ASKING).
They WERE impressive from a purely military perspective. No other nation on earth today could wage such a war, so rapidly, with such support. None. THAT is impressive. The fact that our follow through in Afghanistan sucked donkey dick is beside the point that the INITIAL operation was solid…even brilliant. The fact that we should never have gone into Iraq at all is beside the point that the invasion was flawless and damned impressive…IMHO.
-XT
