>>23498293
>In Vietnam, the U.S. deployed special operations to disrupt Viet Cong logistics and leadership, but these successes did not translate into strategic victory because the broader political and social dynamics were neglected.
That's something irrelevant to what any military force, enlisted or anything can do. Vietnam's political issues that got people in and forced them out were both idiot messes and the former especially never should've happened. What are they supposed to do? Hold a gun on every politician or newspaper to shape propaganda?
>Similarly, in Afghanistan and Iraq, daring raids and targeted strikes took out countless high-value targets, but they failed to stabilize the countries or build sustainable governance structures.
They didn't want to do any of those. If the writer thinks the goal was to stabilize the region then he's got less brain cells than a druggie who done as much cocaine as Raegan supplied. The official excuse were blatantly bogus WMD claims, followed by clear attempts at seizing natural resources among other goals. The closest thing to stabilizing a region anyone wanted was installing puppet governments loyal to us.
>The wars were already lost.
No, the war is won so long as you've gotten what you wanted. It doesn't matter how many of your own countrymen die, if you've gotten your gold, your oil, and more, you've won. It's like how most United Nations missions aren't for anything but dicking an underaged prostitute as part of your UN human trafficking operation. Stability was NOT the goal.