Those conflicts were conventional forces being extended to achieve friendly political stability in nations with a large enough population that was hostile to be a problem to root out.
In your suggestion the U.S. is supposed to play the role of the Viet Cong in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is supposed to play the role of a foreign occupying conventional military.
The same was Russia made us think Vietnam would go all communism and supply the Viet Cong until we either went out of our minds or couldn’t afford it. Now Afghanistan a little bit more in depth. We tell Israel we want to deliver weapons to Northern Lebanon. But we use Egypt to relay this and deliver supplies to northern Lebanon. And let the real government of Lebanon fight the Hezzies with their newly found stockpile no one knows about. Then do what the Russians’s did to US in Vietnam and do what we did to the Russian’s back in the 80’s in Afghanistan. Watch Charlie Wilson’s War for a lil more indepth on it.
All of your examples were of supporting existing local insurgencies in order to help them frustrate foreign conventional occupying forces. The occupiers did not have to choose between victory or death, but could at their leisure withdraw. Having that option creates increasing political pressure to withdraw over time. This is not the circumstance with Hezbollah.
Watch a Tom Hanks movie
Read Mao Zedong’s ‘Principles of Peoples War’ to understand the dynamics of a mid-20th century insurgency, and have a foundation for how that foundation has adapted with technology.
Patnou@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Afghanistan or Vietnam them. Bleed them dry.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 5 hours ago
I have some bad news for you about both conflicts…
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
What?
Those conflicts were conventional forces being extended to achieve friendly political stability in nations with a large enough population that was hostile to be a problem to root out.
In your suggestion the U.S. is supposed to play the role of the Viet Cong in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is supposed to play the role of a foreign occupying conventional military.
So, how exactly would this be done?
Patnou@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
The same was Russia made us think Vietnam would go all communism and supply the Viet Cong until we either went out of our minds or couldn’t afford it. Now Afghanistan a little bit more in depth. We tell Israel we want to deliver weapons to Northern Lebanon. But we use Egypt to relay this and deliver supplies to northern Lebanon. And let the real government of Lebanon fight the Hezzies with their newly found stockpile no one knows about. Then do what the Russians’s did to US in Vietnam and do what we did to the Russian’s back in the 80’s in Afghanistan. Watch Charlie Wilson’s War for a lil more indepth on it.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
All of your examples were of supporting existing local insurgencies in order to help them frustrate foreign conventional occupying forces. The occupiers did not have to choose between victory or death, but could at their leisure withdraw. Having that option creates increasing political pressure to withdraw over time. This is not the circumstance with Hezbollah.
Read Mao Zedong’s ‘Principles of Peoples War’ to understand the dynamics of a mid-20th century insurgency, and have a foundation for how that foundation has adapted with technology.