Why are Western militaries impotent against Middle Eastern insurgents?

>McDonald's is the most popular chain eatery

McDonalds was a failure in Vietnam. It was a flop for how much money the West pumped into the effort.

google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/09/13/mcdonalds-burger-king-vietnam-fast-food.html

Because when your enemy has absolutely zero value for human life, even for their own lives, you can't win. You can't really threaten people willing to blow themselves up with death.

So either you go full Mongol and begin eradicating them, or just don't fuck with it to begin with. In a modern 'humane' war it is impossible to win against an enemy like this.

>Because when your enemy has absolutely zero value for human life, even for their own lives, you can't win.

Yeah, turns out people don't wake up one day and decide it's time to blow themselves up for the fun of it.

Agreed. The biggest fault of history is Britain not killing all people on that shitstain of a continent and replacing them with Irish or whatever. Imagine where we would be, where world would be, had they done the right thing and genocided every single last man, woman and child in those 13 rebelling colonies.
You're on Jow Forums, not Jow Forums. You should act like it or fuck off back over there.

Invite the French over to kill the Brits?

>McDonalds was a failure in Vietnam
By Western standards in that they have generally failed to provide X% return on investment per year, yes.

And yet there are more of them every year and not a single one has ever failed to turn a profit.

Guess what happens when you first introduce capitalism to a society that hasn't had disposable income in any living person's lifetime?

he's edge posting about settlers but he is right. There's a model for this. It take 40 years all your troopers stay in country for the duration and you break up the land give it your soldiers and they marry into high status local clan structure as yeoman farmers loyal to you

Medieval warfare is a different thing altogether. It is a model where people are loyal to the hegemon and their immediate family, not the land itself or their ethnicity or even the town they live in.

Also, 40 years is a long time and by the time they start integating, you may have already been succeeded by your son. These soldiers' families will have ties to you, but they'll not be soldiers you can order to drink out of a latrine as you see fit. Even historically, you can look at entities like Samo's Empire. The whole story is given as an account of Turkic tribe, Avars settling themselves in a place and becoming the de-facto rulers of the Slavic tribes living there.
A part of the "agreement" is that Avars can have their way with the women whenever they want. Of this comes a new generation of people who, now having the blood of the conquerors, aren't happy playing second fiddle and go to war, which they win with the help of Franks.
It's an old Frankish account which has a pretty obvious bias, but the counter-idea to yours (i.e. the question of loyaty of the families of your soldiers) is there and we're talking about the times of Charlamagne.

Plus, no American/NATO soldier is willingly going to trade his life for living in a wartorn country in the middle east. And the same goes for almost any possible combination of troops and invaded territories (given that shitholes really don't have much of a chance of conquering somehere nice, so to speak).

Yeah that too.
>Oh no we might face actual oppostion
>Let's leave

Well, they had nothing to do with the place anyway.
Some frontier penal colonies producing almost nothing of value, always at the mercy of natives and elements.

Compare with Afghanistan which is the crossroads of between the Middle East, China, India and Russia. Thus highly important geopolitically.
And it has an astonishingly profitable opium production (90% of heroin worldwide) to boot.

Which means it's both profitable and extremely easy to attack by any of the neighbours (each of whom is definitely powerful enough to do so... or was until USSR fell off the picture) under the pretext of trying to stamp said production out.

Pick between Iran, Pakistan or China controlling such a hotspot and it's easy to see why the people living there are basically shit out of luck no matter which side you stand on.

>Western militaries against
>against

Attached: IsCistota.jpg (960x540, 84K)

They sure as hell ain’t “for”

The US was literally founded on slaughtering natives and forcing them off their lands for us to settle and look how that turned out.

The only way to "win" in a place like Afghanistan is either not bother with them because they are a bunch of trible goat herders , or replace them with those aligned with your views.
Trying to bring democracy to a country where most of the people don't even realize there are people in charge besides warlords is a pointless venture as we have already seen.

Nothing of value?
>Fuck tons of land with gold, spices and furs/meats to be taken
It was extremely easy to attack from the existing colonies that were already in place too.

retired to tel aviv living off their IDF pension

Attached: gah lil.jpg (1901x2601, 245K)

>Fuck tons of land with gold, spices and furs/meats to be taken

You have the benefit of hindsight.
At the time the revolution, what would become the US was the ass of the world and British pulled out because they had literally nothing to fight for there.

The American profits were all from Carribean (where they stationed more troops than have ever set foot in North America combined). proto-US didn't have the land, the economy, nothing. It was just a penal colony and money sink in one.

If you read up on it, the whole process of accepting the independence went down similarly to Vietnam.
British started asking why the soldiers go to die in bumfuck nowhere and if there's anything worth dying for there.
Parliment couldn't come up with an answer, weighed the price of land compared to the price of having French and Spanish endanger their Carribean trade network and backed out of it.

Because insurgency is a bitch t fight against. They always dress up like civilian when hiding but now are armed to the teeth when fighting due to how long we've been there. No country has ever beaten and insurgency.

Attached: 1538119064907.jpg (829x1024, 99K)

They moved to east Asia.

>North America populated entirely by resettled Irish
>better

Human rights and all that gay shit preventing people from using all the anti-insurgent strategies that actually work, like concentration camps, taking local hostages and genocide.

You fucking idiot leftist shit, he made no claim about mass murdering anyone based on race or ethnicity. His point was that to win a war against an insurgency you have to either be willing to stay for 40+ years or wipe out enough of them that they stop fighting. The latter worked in Japan for the US and it worked in Chechnya for the Russians. It’s a historical tactic to bomb the enemy into submission to break their will. Go back to plebbit if you can’t handle some rando discussing the realities of war and get the hell off Jow Forums.

>McDonald's is the most popular chain eatery
Uhh, no? Yeah, no.

>It take 40 years all your troopers stay in country for the duration and you break up the land give it your soldiers and they marry into high status local clan structure as yeoman farmers loyal to you
In the end Britain had to give up India. Turns out the Indians never really gave up on the whole independance thing.
Also there's LOTS of mentions in Latin literature that the Romans reckoned you needed to fight a new war with conquered people every generation. In fact the cumulative social and monetary costs of these continual insurgencies is probably the real reason Rome fell, rather than the Jow Forums wank about "muh decadence".

Attached: annoyed mini doctor.jpg (650x466, 34K)

>it worked in Chechnya for the Russians
That isn't what the Russians did though. They set up a local chieftain, gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted up to and including let his militia shoot up federal police and then bribed the ever loving fuck out of the Chechen population with massive gibs. It's the reason Grozny is the only part of Russia that rivals a Western city.

I wouldn't mind you fags worshipping Russia if you did it for real reasons, but you just make up retarded shit.

Attached: fucking ghandi.jpg (317x198, 45K)

if you have a car that costs 500.000 and your friend has a car that costs 10,000 but both cars explode, who lost more, you or your friend?

Western K:D ratios against Islamic militants are a lot better than German ones vs. the Soviets

Attached: 2626677.png (975x470, 143K)

Are you seriously acting like it's some sort of notable achievement that a nation that wastes $600 billion dollars a year on military spending can kill a bunch of arab's who have always been historically incompetent fighters in the desert that have no air support and who's most complex tactics are, putting bombs on the side of the road and dakkadakkaing from 500 yards with a pkm then going to hide in the mountains?

No, I'm saying western K:D ratios are a lot better than german vs. soviet ones.

Not with that attitude

Ah, well then, my mistake in inferring too much. Carry on.

I fail to see what is so impressive about a nation with the most advanced and heavily funded military in the world is able to kill insurgents with no real support than a nation in ground war with a larger, more populous nation with a large industrial base as well as support from the US.

Killing is always impressive, no matter how “likely” it is.

Just because you are very likely to kill a man in a coma if you try, doesn’t make it any less impressive that you actually had the will to kill him.

Adam Lanza must be pretty bad ass by your definition then.

I think school shooters are the highest type of killers.

They attack not only their victims, but their entire society and moral system as a whole.

Like, fuck, that’s badass af

>impotent
Currently extracting every drop of oil, ever crumb of rare earth metal, every seed of poppy. Oh, and in control of all airspace and total drone coverage of all strategically important areas on the globe. God. We fucking suck at this

>oil

Yeah, sure is great having to pay more than a dollar per gallon... oh wait

It's not so that you can get cheap gas for your Honda Civic to go on a tinder date faggot.

Lol, so how do you measure “winning”?

Oh wait, that’s right, you’re a fucking MUH K/D RATIOS fags

No you illiterate nigger. It's about resource control, drone bases, and strategic positioning. It's the MIDDLE east you stupid fuck. The reason we don't win is because strategically we want to stay. The US government wants low intensity conflict that lets us sit there forever without being enough of a political disaster to cause unrest like Vietnam did

And what resources are you pulling?

$4 gallon gas? Lol

How dumb are you? I just explained it's about strategic control. Do you think companies and a global hegemonic power that backs it's currency with oil wants you to give them 1 dollar or 4...? Which let's them control you better? How old are you?

>he hasn't read Peter Zeihan

From 1960 to 2015 we needed the middle east, first for oil, then for the petrodollar (to offload backlash from domestic inflation).

Now that fracking is making the US self-sustaining, we don't need the ME - but we've built up a lot of political ties, from Saudi and Isreali political entanglements to anti-terrorist and anti-nuke-poliferation propaganda around it.

Afghani land also has rare earths, lithium, and proximity to China...and poppies that have paid off almost 100b fixing Euro banking issues. So it's not a serious place anymore, but there's still some interest, and a hell of a lot of inertia going for it.

seeing how hard it is to organize the afghan police i have so much respect for the taliban in getting thoes asshole's shit togther. Most of them just act like they play soldier on the weekends

Here's a way to beat them.

20committee.com/2014/03/29/understanding-provocation/

nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-ugly-truth-about-algeria-7146

kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/algerias-years-of-blood-not-quite-what-they-seem/

These are all written by people who have never been shot at.

You have to realize that Middle Eastern states are NOT modern states, they're tribal states where family bloodlines and marriages and that kind of thing still matter. Ask yourself what is the dominant political unit in the ME. If you answered "noble house", you are correct!

This isn't a problem the US is designed to handle, this is a problem that should have been handled by the UK itself back when its own noble house was actually relevant, but now that it isn't, there isn't any way for the Anglosphere to tackle the issue. We need to take one of our dingy European allies and have THEM marry their royals into power with the local tribes.

So? It's pretty much a strategy that delegitimizes the terrorist groups in the eyes of ordinary people.

shit meant for

Well here and now I feel it is appropriate to respond to this because this is simply an incorrect statement that speaks of someone that is incapable (or unwilling) to address the hard details of the current situation of the Western occupation in the Middle East. And by Western I mean modern European powers to include Russia as well.

NATO has largely succeeded in Iraq. Like it or not. The first stage was in destroying the conventional forces loyal to Saddam. Then came combating the state-supported insurgencies and the 3rd party Shia insurgencies, which by now have largely been pacified and turned to support the government there. While it is likely that the government there is not any better or worse than the Saddam-era government, the people there no longer feel that the State is their enemy and have to turn to insurgencies for support, goods, services, etc.

This is essentially how you kill an insurgency. There are many different models for insurgencies (how it was done in Vietnam versus something like Afghanistan versus something like Rhodesia are different models) but they all draw off of the realm of public support in lieu of industrial power. While Afghanistan was NOT a success, that was not due so much to the power of the insurgencies as it was the people had no desire to have a government, so what other option is there other than the insurgency?

Furthermore, before some idiot comes along and brings up ISIS as a FAILURE to Iraq, it is well and good to remind them that not only has ISIS been routed from Iraq but in the process Iraq has also largely done so with its own resources. Iran played a (lesser, late-stage) role as did the US, but there was no large foreign invasion from either power. Iraq is secure, the insurgency there has been defeated, by Western governments.

Attached: 1505145322543m.jpg (1024x683, 125K)

Syria is a case in point of the above mentioned axiom; eliminate support for the insurgency, restore State solvency and you eliminate the insurgency. Conversely, the US was conflicted and even worked to undermine the Syrian state due to the Obama administration. But the US has also helped in the northern areas with the Kurds, who are in power and completely removed ISIS' presence from the area, using the same tactics.

I fear the Iraqi insurgencies and Syria will go down as defeats for the insurgencies while Afghanistan will go the way of Cuba and other victorious insurgencies. For how long the stigma will remain until we can call Iraq and Syria a victory, however, especially in the West, I do not know.

Attached: 1507928-m2_bradley_us_army_001.jpg (1024x768, 162K)

>Iraq is secure, the insurgency there has been defeated
ISIS isn't even close to being defeated. Their rise again will be inevitable because of the US political failures.

>Conversely, the US was conflicted and even worked to undermine the Syrian state due to the Obama administration
There's a reason why.
> But the US has also helped in the northern areas with the Kurds, who are in power and completely removed ISIS' presence from the area
The Kurds (PYD) aren't capable of defeating ISIS. The only group that can defeat the Islamic State over a long period of time are the Syrian Sunni rebels. ISIS main goal is to present itself as the only vanguard for Sunni Muslims against Iran/United States.

because the state department just gave the 20 million dollars to do whats best for Israel and fuck up Irans allies?

Good

Should have prevented Muslims.

Rules of engagement ban use of effective methods like burning villages with their inhabitants.

OEF vet here,

I'd guess it has something to do with the fact that they want to win/keep fighting more than we do. A Western Military vet can go on to become a father, a professional, whatever he wants. But more veterans from the post-911 generation aren't still going to be in the military well into their 40s or 50s. My unit worked with a guy who was former Mujahideen and the man was ancient but still lugging around an AK. I think out culture can produce men like that too, however our society slaps a Vietnam Veteran cap on their heads and they spend their senior years giving advice to people at pistol ranges instead of staying in the fight.

because our NATO allies are afraid of killing their own citizens?

Attached: France AKA North Africa brought to you by jews.jpg (4032x3024, 3.57M)

>ISIS isn't even close to being defeated. Their rise again will be inevitable because of the US political failures.

And how do you propose that happen? Iraqis hate them. ISIS was actually probably one of the weakest insurgencies because it touted itself as a conventional army despite lacking an industrial capacity and a lack of advanced military, they did not rely on the support of the people. They are still there in Syria to a completely cuckolded extent, but their operations in Iraq have for all intents and purposes ceased.

So because they have no support in Iraq the only other way would be to invade it from the outside, which will not happen because it is not able to manifest itself in neighboring countries, and even if it did, it would not be fighting the Iraq Army it did when it was first about. The new army has experience.

The Kurds have absolutely defeated ISIS in their own territories. You sound like an idiot to be honest.

Attached: kurd gains syria 2015-2017.jpg (1200x803, 137K)

>implying ISIS aren't usefull tools to get shit done
>implying western armies actually want to destroy them

who defeated ISIS?
In iraq it was mainly due to iraqi and iranian shia militias
In syria, the SAA (syrian army), shia fighters and russains made huge gains.
Only area the US did something was at rojava (north east syria) by supporting the kurds that will sooner or later be enemy of Syria because they are nothing be US pets and turning that place into Israel 2.0

Attached: 1541000208169.jpg (642x350, 77K)

Kurds are also a unified force with their own culture and language.

ISIS on the other hand has a unified ideology but consists of dozens of different Islamic extremists who necessarily don't even speak arabic (and even if they do there is 11 major dialects that can barely understand each other plus dozens minor ones), have different interpretations of what "pure" Islamic Caliphate looks like and so forth.

ISIS once again is a textbook example why multicultural fighting forces are inefficient.

If you subscribe to the idea that political leanings are innate and heritable, then you can't do anything to get them to be discount americans because they aren't, and they naturally find things like democracy preposterous unless it's heavily restricted and "unamerican" (ie: only land owning males with at least one wife may vote, only muslims may vote)

Better to just leave them alone and if someone doesn't like living there they can go somewhere else.

I agree, their level of sophistication is overstated by the media, especially now in their late-stage where so much of the conventional infrastructure they tried to build was destroyed.

In a way their methods are a shadow of the occupation-era Iraq insurgencies though, a loose coalition of different fighters (nationalist, islamic, communist, etc.) fighting for an undefined goal. I think this method of insurgency is perhaps the weakest, and it is precisely why they have lost Syria and Iraq.

This is in contrast to Afghanistan, where the Taliban resembles the Viet Minh in early stage of Vietnam.

Short answer? The local governments are usually hopelessly inept or totally corrupt and terrorizing the general population to bend them to your will works better than building schools or voting booths to entice them to your side.

That sounds highly American, universal suffrage is a relatively recent thing.

They moved to Germany

>No country has ever beaten and insurgency without exterminating the insurgents
FTFY.
What do you think Saudis are trying to do in Yemen ?

Once the Turks BTFO of them they stopped showing up.

Progress is a universal constant

Found the Turk.

That's a massive misunderstanding of the process.

1. India wasn't a single entity; most of India was actually ruled by Indians who had sworn allegiance to the Crown, rather than directly under British rule. The way Britain had taken India was basically agreeing to help some parts fight others and then having them swear loyalty once the fighting was over. There was no massive 40 years in country kill everyone and marry into local population; in fact the British population was distinct and transient, not a permanent fixture for the overwhelming part. Remember India didn't exist as an entity until the British made it one.
2. Britain gave up India for various reasons, one of the least was Hindu nationalism; India had not been profitable for the British Empire for some time, domestic politics had made Indian independence a major policy of left leaning parties and the end of the closed empire system following the Second World War removed any benefit of retaining it. Look at Kenya where the British killed hundreds of thousands only a few years later in the Mau Mau Uprising and only gave up because international politics and the rise of global political theory made holding onto Empire untenable for political and economic reasons. Nothing to do with local resistance which was crushed at every turn. Had Britain decided to keep India, nothing short of the US threatening economic destruction and military violence could have stopped them.

pic related is a great book on this very subject

Attached: 41nMxn62HTL._SX309_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (311x499, 15K)

Rome didn't just struggle to hold onto their possessions though. The huns and others from Asia displaced large numbers of people that ended up getting pushed right into the Empire, which they couldn't cope with. Rome actually did a great job of integrating people. After all, even the Italian peninsula wasn't "Rome"

They aren't, its just the the governments backing the western militaries aren't willing to commit the time or resources to let their armies finish the job.
Just because the US government mishandled intervention in Iraq and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan doesn't mean that victory was impossible there.

Basically all his books are great and well worth reading.

Because they commit war crimes on a regular basis to achieve their ends and whenever we fight fire with fire we get prison time and lawyers on our ass. Even if we had the materials on hand to kill them all, we're not allowed to.

We dont want it to end and by we I mean the Corporate military industrial complex! It makes for more profits to steadily wipe these subhuman brown "people" off the map rather then one foul swoop! It's going to get worse before it gets better we have created a generational hatred for the USA and they will want to fight forever unless we get serious and just remove the scum completely

OP, they're not.

The problem is that the political goals are either unclear or unattainable by military means, meaning the militaries are left to try to muddle their way through to achieve some objective they were never going to be capable of to begin with, then take the blame for their political authorities asking them to do the impossible