If you're going to post a link, at least try to make sure it's an
official academic source. Pretty sure FP isn't academic. I might as well just slap down a BBC or Sky News article and say, here you go to be honest. Sure it might be on the News article, but pay attention and check the creditably of the references they use.
Then your just PROVING my point. We've given them so much money and assistance and yet they throw it in our face to go on Jihad. It's a lost cause.
Yes, the States have threw a lot of money in training militia groups against terrorist organisations or dictators, but in the end, it's quite common, specially for that area of the world, once you get rid of a dictator, without proper procedure, the 'democratic' leader, will often be on-par or worse than their predecessor. Look at Libya now after that war. There was quite a few factions fighting for 'freedom' at the war, now that its over, its all just splinter-factions who fight against each other for power. You'll never have democracy in those systems because of the entire political system in those countries and areas ever since the European powers dissolved their overseas colonies in those areas and/or given them their own governmental system. It's why the Arab World armies are weak compared to the West as the leaders fear the generals will overthrow the government, like they've done for generations and centuries. That's why they don't get much power.
Yeah, they did just have primitive firearms, but they were also outnumbered by a vast and highly trained fighting force, the greatest in the world. Yet they managed to pull it off and win.
Plus, comparing the War of Independence compared to Syria is just, really dumb. It took an average of 8-12 months, give or take to get reinforcements to the States from the Britain and their colonies, so you can't really compare Syria to the WOI. It's not hard to fight against an open, standard way-of-life combat than they did then and fight them in a forest or urban area, a different tactic to what they're trained/used to. It wouldn't work for the army as they weren't standard like that. Just like in Teutoburg Forest, a professional open field army fighting in guerrilla tactics, of course they'd lose as they're at the weakest with little to zero experience in those conditions compared to an army that are brutally fanatic with an extreme hatred towards their enemy.
And no, there were plenty of battles where the British and the Americans fought out in open plains.
And as I recall correctly, each, if not without French assistance the Americans lost most battles. They won majority via guerrilla and French means. Without French assistance, the Americans would
never of won the war, at all.
If the USA wanted to, they could have surged a million troops in Vietnam and took over. But they couldn't, or that'd start a war against China, meaning world war three.
While correct, the lack of support for the war from their own soldiers and civilians alike wouldn't of made it happen. In truth and theory, America could've just blow Vietnam into a crater. However, it's pretty
well known if the population and enemy don't want to be conquered and they have extreme hatred towards the enemy, they aren't going to surrender and they'll do any means necessary in order to free or fight back.
