I wrote something long without holes a couple days ago but it logged me out when I tried to post it. RQed. maybe I'll dump the sources I linked
tldr of the main point-- if your government is showing a clear interest in the outcome of a foreign war, and your first response ISN'T to do some rigorous and intellectually honest investigation as to whether your government played a role in starting that war, then there's something wrong with your mind. something called a "war on terror" should elicit hysterical laughter if you have any critical thinking abilities
i agree with this. a unique perspective perhaps, i believe strongly in the idea that invaders have a moral obligation to execute the fastest and most effective invasion possible in order to limit loss of civilian and military life.
the strength and finality of a first strike largely determines how many people will die in the future of the conflict. i like to look at the iraq invasion as one of the strongest shows of force followed by the weakest outreach and de-escalation efforts possible. a cohesive modern military force can execute a strong strike that knocks out most of a country's comms and air support, but the large size of an army leads to logistics and communication errors. these errors stack up leading to underequipped, outnumbered squads of soldiers prone to perpetrating war crimes. coalition soldiers quickly lost the support and positive perception of the local population, and most/all attempts to outreach and establish infrastructure with local tribes ended in civilian deaths as well as ambushes against coalition soldiers. not unlike them, russia will also be faced with a population of people who hate them and reject their presence if they do succeed at their invasion.
all invaders should have a strong and determined strike plan followed by a stronger, kinder humanitarian effort. however, most armies lack the latter and end up leaving countries in failed state status. failed states are exceptionally prone to insurgencies and terror, and fighting against these forces is arguably more complicated and resource and time consuming than planning an invasion. insult to injury, guerilla/asymmetrical warfare has never been studied well and we (the world) have very few examples from which to study. most written documents on asymmetrical warfare and counterinsurgency were written during and after the 1930s, as the gap in combat effectiveness between armies began to increase drastically with new weaponry. ironically, i live in a country founded on independence, militia and insurgency that actively tries to prevent other countries from reaching the same goal. you think with a history so embedded in asymmetrical warfare, the government would plan counterinsurgencies that were more effective and less detrimental to civilian life. instead, Americans are generally remembered in most parts of the middle east and south america as imperialistic invaders and not freedom fighters.
in the coming years, invasions around the pacific are highly likely. hoping for permanent peace is unrealistic and naive, instead i hope for competent invaders that bring not just armor and soldiers, but doctors, translators, humanitarian corridors ready to salvage and preserve whatever human life, property and society survives combat.
Poll