.......................To put it mildly, lessons were learned, then some were forgotten by another Texan President with little knowledge of Foreign Policy but unlike LBJ, also a creature of his VP. Though the main difference this time was the limited domestic blowback as conscription was not used.
But neither Vietnam nor Iraq in 2003 were peer on peer, worth remembering that the last time China went to war, that did not involve massacring unarmed citizens in the nations capital, was with Vietnam in 1979, which did not go according to plan....................
You issued a lot of words, but I don't get your point (you were responding to me, right?)
I don't agree with your Vietnam history lesson (other than you did get Westmoreland right) but that isn't the topic here.
Conscription or lack of it had nothing to do with the strategic blunder that was GWII.
Any comparison of China with Iraq is specious and completely devoid of meaning. Iraq never even made it's own AK-47s, let alone aircraft, radars computer chips, ICBMs, navy, satellites or space station as China has done and is doing.
I hope the people in the Pentagon are not under the delusions that so many military fans here seem to be.
Just remembered, Iraq DID make it’s own AK’s, as well as a version of the T-72. As well as equipment between those two extremes.
They in fact by 1990 had a sophisticated procurement program, with an emphasis on getting by hook or crook the technology and applying it for domestic production, sound familiar?
Far more than that dopey Supergun.
The latter shows the essential difference between 1990 Iraq and present day China, apart from the blindingly obvious, being a huge economic power rather than oil extraction.
Except that Iraq had peer on peer combat from 1980-88.
I agree in 2003 they were a busted flush though.
Having US and RAF aircraft overflying you for 12 years with near impunity Implies that.
What’s the difference between 1991 and 2003, aside from the first being a proper coalition with a UN mandate?
The Pentagon assumed the worst in the planning to throw the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Not the case in 2003, where planning seemed a dirty word in that administration, for sufficient troop numbers and what happened next.
So China is something of an unknown quantity.
But what have we seen in the very below par performance of their Russian semi allies whose ideas and doctrines still have some influence.
In terms of training, logistics, we know they don’t do the sophisticated all arms training to the extent NATO does, how do the annual flying hours stack up?
Do they have very robust damage control for ships?
My hunch, generally better than Russia but there are major corruption issues in the state which might include the armed forces.