You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] huhha 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Furthermore, it's not a game of total annihilation. Which is why even after yanks steamrolling sand countries the muj in jammies are still having a grand old time.


[–] frenemy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

to be fair, we've been taking out country leaders at a rather impressive pace. this leaves local warlords, which we're fine with just controlling right now. take afghanistan. farmers grow opium poppies, us soldiers guard the poppies, warlords pick up the raw opium paste and refine for out of country sale. crazy right?


[–] huhha 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)


But short of glassing the place, force will not solve the equation. Counter-insurgency strategy is to win the populace over, not to beat them into a pulp.

So if USG fights the people, it will not be about total annihilation. And thus it's very relevant if the armed populace can provide a credible threat to continued operations - even if they lack stingers. And even then, at that point someone would sell the peeps some heavy arty anyway to proxy fight the USG.

Unless you meant to convey Texan warlords would rise to subdue Texan plebs on USG dole, while US troops guarded oil wells... well I'd watch the shit out of that on Netflix.