‘The organizers of the exercises were forced to ask Finnish reservists, who were playing the role of the enemy, to go easier on the Americans.’
Since World War II, the U.S. has fought five major foreign wars (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Iraq, Afghanistan), with a poor win rate of about 1 win (1991 Gulf War) and 4 non-wins (draws or losses). In smaller interventions or “gray zone” conflicts, the pattern worsens: 9 wins, 8 losses, and 42 draws out of 59 cases. This creates a perception of frequent losses.
pqtyw•30m ago
That's not really very fair. Besides the "draw" in Korea all the other defeats were political rather than military. Second Iraq war is more of a pyrrhic victory as well.
B1FIDO•26m ago
Since World War II, the U.S. has mostly been fighting asymmetric warfare against insurgents and guerillas. This has caused a paradigm shift in our armed forces, to be more prepared for these types of conflicts, for street-to-street fighting as in Fallujah, and wary of threats like IEDs and suicide bombers.
Perhaps our pivoting has left them less prepared to fight conventional warfare on open battlefields against symmetric adversaries? I don't know.
xvxvx•1h ago
Since World War II, the U.S. has fought five major foreign wars (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Iraq, Afghanistan), with a poor win rate of about 1 win (1991 Gulf War) and 4 non-wins (draws or losses). In smaller interventions or “gray zone” conflicts, the pattern worsens: 9 wins, 8 losses, and 42 draws out of 59 cases. This creates a perception of frequent losses.
pqtyw•30m ago
B1FIDO•26m ago
Perhaps our pivoting has left them less prepared to fight conventional warfare on open battlefields against symmetric adversaries? I don't know.