In a summary

    by Commercial-Strain-39

    16 Comments

    1. That goes for everyone really. The Soviets couldn’t beat the Afghan Mujahideen in an unconventional war either.

    2. RenegadeSithLordMaul on

      nah the weak doge should be US fighting offensive wars against guerrilla fighters in rough and easily defensible territories with many miles of wilderness

    3. Comprehensive-Fail41 on

      Not exactly. Militarily the US did generally win soundly. The problems come afterwards in building a state that can hold of the insurgents by themselves

    4. It is more like everyone always sucks at dealing with guerilla warfare as that is the point of guerilla warfare.

      The US was pretty good with unconventional warfare when they were the ones doing it.

    5. Crazyjackson13 on

      I mean, most conventional armies struggle at unconventional warfare, this isn’t just a U.S. thing.

    6. Size does matter in arena, but doesn’t matter in hide and seek.

      Viet Cong was famously in unconventional jungle guerrilla warfare but still struggled several years with understrength & under-equipments & under-organized Pol Pot (Campuchia Khmer war). Unconventional war is tended to make stronger size inconvenient, and US in most time a stronger size

    7. h4ckerkn0wnas4chan on

      Newsflash, armies suck at fighting wars where anybody could be an enemy at the drop of a hat.

    8. BioShocker1960 on

      Yeah, American does great against other countries – not against terrorist organizations and the like.

    9. IceCreamMeatballs on

      It worked out for them in the Philippine-American War. Even though it lasted like 14 years they still won

    Leave A Reply