"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began with overwhelming displays of American military power and rapid tactical victories, showcasing the US military's ability to devastate conventional forces and dominate high-intensity combat. The Taliban regime collapsed within weeks. Saddam Hussein's government fell in 21 days. Then American forces found themselves battling decentralized insurgencies, often indistinguishable from civilian populations."
"Veterans who have studied those decadeslong wars told Business Insider that achieving that goal will require a clear endgame for when bombing stops - and a sober understanding that early battlefield wins can still end in defeat."
"It's true in the same way that Saddam Hussein was horrible. But the Global War on Terror was complicated and dragged on for years. And all of that can happen here as well. Doesn't mean it will happen, but it can happen."
Military veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan caution that rapid battlefield victories do not ensure successful war outcomes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claims current Middle East operations differ from past conflicts, but experienced commanders warn that destroying targets differs fundamentally from establishing political objectives. Iraq and Afghanistan initially featured overwhelming American military dominance, with the Taliban collapsing within weeks and Saddam Hussein's government falling in 21 days. However, both wars subsequently devolved into prolonged insurgencies against decentralized forces embedded within civilian populations. Veterans emphasize that without clearly defined endgames for when military operations cease, conflicts risk expanding, shifting objectives, and becoming indefinite commitments. The distinction between tactical military success and strategic political victory remains critical for preventing mission creep.
Read at Business Insider
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]