It was in no way representative of either a real world conflict of the type it was simulating, nor was it representative of the actual real world conflict that is currently occurring, and the US in no way failed in the real world conflict in the same manner as millennium challenge.

It is so embarrassing to continually gloat about something that makes zero sense when held to any material analysis.

[–] UmbraVivi@hexbear.net 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was, if anything, representative of the US' arrogant attitude towards Iran. But yeah, they probably weren't considering the impact of drone warfare in 2002 for either side.

[–] TommyCatkins@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

Except it proved that the US is woefully unable to fight asymmetrical warfare, which has been known since 1968. The US has been really good at going in and defeating state forces in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and maybe Afghanistan, but after that they are useless. Iran realized this and didn't even bother trying to meet the US on the battlefield and went right to asymmetrical warfare, hunkering down and making the war unbearably expensive for the US. Which is exactly what Van Riper predicted in 2002.

[–] BobDole@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It’s embarrassing to not be able to read between lines, understand the actual lessons to be learned (like TommyCatkins and UmbraVivi’s comments further down), and apply them to future events. What good is a “material analysis” that learns nothing and predicts no future events? This is, frankly, emblematic of a Yankee-centric worldview that pervades this website and the whole of the Western “left.”