Why does america have such a bad track record when fighting poorly armed villagers

Americans are weak.

America could have kicked all their asses, except liberal pussies back home would cry over "war crimes" or some shit if we didn't hold back.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Viet-Minh had overwhelming popular support in Vietnam which is why the US intervened because the national election that was planned by the Geneva Accords for a united Vietnam was going to be won by the Reds in a landslide.

A communist party can have """""overwhelming popular support"""" doesn't make it democratically elected

Because you can win every battle and still lose a war.

Modern Western armies were made for shit like theoretical fulda gap and real life desert storm; fast moving wars against concentrated enemies. Insurgencies are better dealt with by a brutal police state, not an expeditionary army.

In Korea, there were no poor villigers. It was armies fighting it out.
In Vietnam, restrictions placed on SF and Recon teams. Not to mention the implementation of deploying large formations wholly not trained to fight a asymmetrical war.
In AFG, it was a clear victory until about 2005 when the US stopped treating it like a war with nation building and started seeing it more as a political tool.

>north korea
>villagers
North Korea was aided by Chinese and they also bought a lot of tanks from Stalin.

Also Stalin sold those tanks in 1.5 times the original prices. Smart ass mofo.

>In AFG, it was a clear victory until about 2005 when the US stopped treating it like a war with nation building and started seeing it more as a political tool.

At some point the US had to stop treating it like a war. It couldn't just occupy Afghanistan for some crazy amount of time. The objective was to out the Taliban and get in democratic government

well the war goal of defending south korea was accomplished, you can blame Macarthur for everything else that went wrong

the fault was in the soldier's, not in the americans. For God deemed them unworthy, as they were the same who supported the diversity garbage that flooded in before, during, and after the war.

You can leave out the
>when fighting villagers
part. America is utter shit at war.

Loosening the ROEs just makes things worse, at least up to the point where you allow genocide. Any level of response between "if you kill them, they win" and "just glass the whole fucking county and start over" is wholly unjustified.

Are you mentally handicapped or something ?

The evidence is in the ethos of the country. They wore hats supporting peace and love, came home and spoke of the horrors of war, then petition for the right to vote so they could try to end the war. What more proof is needed to show that the fault was in them, not in being born in the USA?

Yeah, they should have just gone the Diem route of saying 99% of the population totally voted for them, and more people voted for them than even lived in Saigon, that's how you secure legitimacy

The NVA were trained, equipped and organised regulars. They were no more 'villagers' than their American opponents. The 'Vietcong' were random villagers with AK47s, but their role is overstated by popculture.

In what way did you hold back? You murdered civilians, set half the place on fire with napalm and dropped more bombs than everyone did combined during ww2. And that's just Vietnam. You didn't hold back at all.

>Base country on anti-imperial sentiment, freedom and the equality of mankind.
>Become (basically immediately) an empire.
>Could win any war easily.
>Get cold feet if those you're killing aren't white because of all the screeching it causes.
>Liberals ree at everything and make wars unwinnable.
No wonder China doesn't want democracy or a free press
The USA's hamstrung and it's only getting worse.

Yeah mate, all those toppled dictators to be replaced by pro American puppets. Very liberating.

Its an empire in all but name. Its like saying N.Korea isn't a autocratic commie dictator state because the name has "Democratic" in it.

This. Just like in Korea.

>We lost just because we held back!
Said the country that employed all available forces from around the globe (a convetional attack on the US back then would have been a KO for the US and pro-western Europe back then according to the US military sources) to keep a fucking dictatorship in power.

Democratic elections.

If a party gets massive support in an election, it's democratically elected.

>this is what people actually believe
No. They were a normal army, and the VC did not have a huge impact in the fighting. They were utilized more in smuggling weapons and supplies in from Cambodia, and were pretty much effectively wiped out after the Tet offensive.

Yeah man, Allende totally rigged that election.

Because the invaded have to live in the invaded land, while the invaders, eventually have to go home.

Unless you're willing to annex the land and move a significant portion of your populous to replace, at the very least, the elite of the invaded territory, no military solution is available for such a conflict, should it be drawn out. The longer the conflict and military occupation, the more guerillas you create. One cannot win over the will of a people through force of arms alone.

The military is a useful tool for many things: crippling a nation, militarily or economically, preventing the repetition specific action, and as a threat to prevent a specific action, or even for the removal of a specific government, provided you don't depend on it to make sure its inevitable replacement is one you approve of. It is, however, historically useless for winning over foreign hearts and minds by force, and even when used as an aiding tool, carrot rather than stick, it performs rather poorly.

Such goals are more effectively achieved by economic action, cultural infiltration, and political bribery.

But, when you have the largest hammer in the world by far, every problem begins to look like a nail.

lol hi dubya