Reddit level argument ignoring the fact that the US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there, it was to funnel taxpayer money to the military industrial complex for 15 years.
Pretty sure the US could have glassed Afghanistan off the map if they really wanted but probably wouldn't have been very popular decision.
> US's goal there wasn't to win anything since there's nothing of value there
War is only a tool, dominating a country or region militarily is not the same as winning a war if you have not achieved its political goals. In Afghanistan, those goals were not achieved, which means the war was lost.
Destroying Al Quaida and their host, the Taliban.
Al Quaida might be gone, but I believe Taliban are in power today and the US left in a not so glorious way after giving up fighting them.
Not just "giving up fighting them": when the US decided to leave, the taliban were in a stronger position than they were before the US invaded (eg they controlled a bigger part of the country and had much less opposition inside afghanistan). The war was already lost long before the US decided to leave.
Most European countries barely have a standing military to defend themselves, they're completely dependent on the USA for defense through NATO. And their leadership is so docile and complacent that I can't see them being able to muster up a strong resistance to any incursion, most likely if there was an actual invasion of The Hague they would let America do what they need to and try to return back to business as usual as quickly as possible. Again, they're not the types to think beyond the status quo.
"Most European countries … are completely dependent on the USA for defense"
Only if invaded by Russia and possibly China. And even then only the little peripheral ones. UK, Germany, and France could handle Russia - up to and including nukes.
For any conceivable military or paramilitary invasion from the rest of world, Europe will do just fine.
And sadly (an a bit off topic) , Europe — well Denmark at least — is most likely to face an military invasion from the USA.
In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe. They already have troops and nukes on the ground in the Netherlands...
And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters.
Arguably, the ICJ in the Hague is actually a result of one of those successful deployments of US forces on the continent.
Still not sure what can be done about the car battery ingestion challenges, though.
>And they didn't exactly struggle with the invasion parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor in the getting of high status targets in those theaters.
That was post 9/11. The mentality and motivation was different back then. Im not saying the US Military is anything less than a top tier orderly organization, its just that morale is generally low now among not only ranks but the entire country that supports them. You can't just throw out events occurring 23 years ago under a completely different context and assume things are the same.
I'd argue an initial moves against Europe, Canada, etc. would be a bigger mess initially than Afghanistan/Iraq were.
My comment was in fun. I hoped that the reference to licking car batteries would signal that.
No one is sending in the troops to rescue Bibi from the Hague for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that he is not currently under arrest, and the chances of him being arrested are effectively nil. Also, Mossad.
I don't understand the Mossad comment - unless its just "ooh they're so scary" fanboy stuff.
Let's suppose Netanyahu is somehow arrested and held in a highly secure government prison in The Netherlands awaiting his chance to clear his name at the ICC.
What exactly do you suppose Mossad is going to do?
- break him out? how?
- openly assassinate politicians/judges until someone gives in?
This is - again, I can't emphasize enough - all a joke about a hypothetical situation.
Bibi has not been arrested, he won't be arrested anytime soon, and the US is not at the point where they are willing to invade Europe to save him.
What do I think Mossad would do in the made up, improbable, alternate universe where we are debating the US invading their European allies?
I think that Mossad/Israeli security would never be caught flatfooted enough to allow Israeli leaders to visit a country that was planning to arrest them. I thoroughly believe that it would be nigh impossible to maneuver an Israeli head of state into a position where they were arrested. If things change and he is no longer protected by Israeli security, that is different.
So in answer to your question, no Mossad is not going to be breaking him out of a maximum security prison. They are going to use their intelligence network to say "Hey Benji, stay out Canada. They are going to arrest you, and have you tried if you set foot on their soil". Or "Hey Bibs, this state visit is mildly risky, we have an extraction plan in place if shit goes sideways."
Of course not, haven't you seen any movies? They break him out during transport, either by hijacking a plane, or through a complicated series of car and bus chase scenes! Maybe a helicopter and submarine, too.
"In fairness, the US has a pretty good record when it comes to invading continental Europe."
Only by using the UK as a staging post - and then invading a country that wanted to be liberated with an active partisan network.
So, if China can't take Taiwan over a 150km stretch of littoral waters, a naval in invasion from over the Atlantic is impossible.
There is also no way such a fleet would get past Gibraltar or the Suez canal, so the US would they'd have to stage in Morocco or possibly take Scandinavia then cross into Denmark.
> Only by using the UK as a staging post - and then invading a country that wanted to be liberated with an active partisan network.
Normandy wasn't even the first invasion of mainland Europe by Americans of that war, let alone the first cross Atlantic invasion that the US has undertaken. The US had full armies on the ground in Europe almost a full year before Normandy, without staging in the Kingdom, and in a fascist, hostile country.
Aside from the above point, the US actually has a long, long tradition of successful invasions across oceans, including across the Atlantic. Hell, the first time the US raised their flag on foreign soil was a cross-Atlantic war in 1801. They're astoundingly good at it. They sent floating ice cream factories for troop morale in WWII in the Pacific, three of them actually. Can you imagine fighting total war and your enemy from 10k KM away shows up towing an ice cream factory for the boys?
> So, if China can't take Taiwan over a 150km stretch of littoral waters, a naval in invasion from over the Atlantic is impossible.
China hasn't tried. You have NO clue if this is accurate, and neither does anyone else. Aside from that, China is just getting into the force projection at sea game. Comparing them to the US expeditionary capabilities is daft.
> There is also no way such a fleet would get past Gibraltar or the Suez canal, so the US would they'd have to stage in Morocco or possibly take Scandinavia then cross into Denmark.
Yes, there is no way that is happening because the route from Virginia, where they keep all the Atlantic invasion stuff, to Denmark does not go anywhere near the Suez or Gib. You can just steam from Virginia to Denmark.
i think it's one of those things where how/if they will do it doesn't matter, it's a "we make the rules" thing
if the situation is such that a US -> Netherlands land invasion (with somehow independent armed forces?) is imaginable, you're past the point of the US-ICC legal relations mattering (i'd go so far as to say there's no sovereignty to speak of here :p)
As I said, still licking the car battery.