Clashing ideologies about the meaning of democracy in America are no less harrowing than the events of January 6. Journalist Bill Moyers, a 30-time Emmy Award winner, shares his views and concerns in the new PBS documentary “Preserving Democracy,” airing tomorrow. Moyers speaks with Hari Sreenivasan alongside historian Kathleen Belew – who also appears in the film – about the insurrection and the danger of a recurrence.
Professor bellew you have researched extensively
how white power movements in the united
states how they basically intersected
with politics how powerful they’ve been
at times and how
seemingly weak at other times
what is the reason
why there seems to be a resurgence now
so in addition to many contextual
factors that we face today ranging from
covet to economic crisis to black lives
matter protests to all of these things
that act as push factors for activists
to enter these groups we’re also living
through a sort of cyclical relationship
with vigilante and white power activity
if you look back through the long run of
american history the uh peaks in clan
and other groups similar groups um in
pixar memberships align more
consistently with the aftermath of
warfare than they do with any other
factor more consistently than
they align with poverty immigration
civil rights gains economic distress
populism any other number of
explanations that we might test out
don’t hold up as well as the aftermath
of war
now it turns out that that phenomenon
cuts across simply people who have
served it’s not just about returning
veterans although returning veterans and
active duty troops have played an
outsized role in escalating the violent
capacity of white power groups over time
but what we find is that all of us are
more violent in the aftermath of warfare
that measure goes across men and women
across age across who did and did not
serve in war so there is this moment of
opportunity after warfare that these
groups capitalize on in order to recruit
and radicalize now we are now
in the aftermath of the longest war
our latest longest war as one historian
has called it
the war in afghanistan and what we’ve
seen is a very prolonged sort of combat
where the people
fighting this war have come home
um and been largely not acknowledged
within our culture we have not watched
coffins draped in american flags coming
home we have not followed the war on
television the way we did in prior
combat so what does that mean are we
going to see a sort of delayed
uh surge that then peaks all at once are
we going to see all of these people come
together in peak we don’t know but
certainly we are in the middle of a
rising ground swell and certainly we are
experiencing one of these historical
peaks
bill do you think that
there is
any scenario
where
the forces from within the united states
seem
to be more powerful in
destroying the union than forces from
outside
by that i mean not just
questioning the veracity of our
elections
uh
suppressing the rights of people to vote
i mean these are these are not things
that an external force is foisting upon
us these are things that we are choosing
right now
to
change
the nature of what we consider democracy
yes
one of the
presidents who experienced backlash
grover cleveland wrote a letter to a
friend of his and said the great ship of
democracy
like other vessels
may be sunk
by the mutiny of those on board and
that’s where the danger has always been
the shay’s rebellion the secession of of
of the south didn’t come from abroad it
came from people who want to keep
slavery and keep and want to destroy the
union and and we still have we these are
secessionists by other means
and they really don’t like the union i
don’t cover my wall in
nice wallpaper paintings i covered in
clippings i i keep the clippings taped
to the wall and the clippings are
astonishing our constitutional pricing
is already here the shining city on a
hill is ready to ignite america is
closer to civil war than any of us would
like to believe cia advisors says
democracy on the edge on and on
it’s frightening
trump is systematically laying the
groundwork to steal the 2024 election
trump’s next coup has already begun
republicans are erasing decades of
voting rights gains before our eyes in
assaults on democracy state law makers
target the courts georgia republicans
purge democrats from county election
boys we receive these in the media in in
bits and pieces we see them in segments
but they constitute a critical mass of
change determined by people who want
who want to take this country back as
they say take it back from people of
color take it back from progressives
take it back from
advocates of civil rights equal rights
and it’s very very dangerous i think
that’s absolutely right and i wish that
there was a feature on twitter or tiktok
or somewhere where people get their news
um that where it’s just you reading
these headlines because it’s the
aggregation of all of these stories that
really sounds the alarm and you know one
question i get asked a lot because i’m a
specialist in in the violent extremist
part of what we saw on january 6
is about you know relative amounts of
danger but you could subscribe to every
story about say the proud boys and only
be reading a tiny fraction of the
problem because it’s not just that it’s
the entire groundswell of white power
and militant right activity plus the
attack on voting rights plus the chain
of command issues and national guard
units which we’ve also seen and things
like the south dakota governor sending
the national guard
under the funding of a private donor to
do border enforcement um in in ron
desantis call for a non-national guard
state militia quote unquote for florida
um
and we see those sovereignty struggles
mirrored in groups on the extreme right
that don’t recognize the federal
government or any authority higher than
than the local sheriff we’re at a crisis
point that just boggles understanding i
want to play a clip from the film that
talks about
how
a coup is still possible let’s take a
look
january 6 is now a fact of our history
if it was possible to have a failed
coup on january 6th it’s also possible
to have a successful coup it sounds very
simple but it’s a huge change democracy
if it is anything at all
it is losers consent people who lose
leave
and they try again next time
trump still hasn’t really conceded the
2020 election what the 2020 election
revealed was that the rules that govern
this are very loose and very and rely on
norms of self-restraint and forbearance
once you discover how to steal an
election it’s hard to unlearn that
lesson and so that’s why i think looking
forward this is one of the greatest
risks facing our democracy
we have had hearings we’ve had
investigations we’ve had a number dozens
of arrests of people who were involved
yet
absent from that are any of the elected
officials
who
gave support to this uh helped plan it
um
what do you think
that says
if there is such a carve out so to speak
professor baloo i’ll start with you
i think this is where we see the sort of
two goals of the process
of accountability really articulated
because we have to pay attention both to
the individuals who committed violence
on january 6
and to the sort of planning mechanisms
accountability questions especially
among our elected officials
my hope is that that is what the january
6th commission will be able to begin to
deliver perhaps the lawsuit
by the attorney general can begin to
deliver some of that information
but what we have to ask is when we have
that information
what kind of dent can we make in the
false narrative that has now been so
thoroughly
circulated in the body politic and i
think this goes back to a bigger
question about the long history of white
supremacy in the united states
we are
by far
not the only nation that struggles with
white supremacy racial violence racial
injustice and incomplete articulations
of democracy there are many other
countries who have faced these issues
but we are very unusual
in how little we have done to have a
real national conversation about that
shared history and you can see this
appearing across the political spectrum
i mean i think even the slogan make
america great again is at its bottom an
argument about history who america is
what america is when we were great can
greatness be achieved again these are
historical arguments that require us to
have an idea of the shared legacies that
we bring into the present moment and
these deep histories of anti-democracy
illiberalism
conflicts about sovereignty and power
all of those conversations have to
happen for all of this
to get resolved because that public
opinion needle can’t move until we
confront some of these problems this is
what i think fuels the division and
polarization that is is the real issue
here well i’m not
a pessimist i’m not giving up on
democracy
i i deal with the we all deal with the
bad news the anecdote i don’t know if
it’s true or not but the story is told
that in the middle of the waterloo
campaign uh napoleon said to his uh
his uh his valet if if if if the news
from the front is
good do not wake me if the news from the
front is not good wake me immediately
you want to hear the bad news i want to
hear the bad news that’s why i do the
journalism i do not because i love
dwelling in in the bad news but i
believe in informed people who know the
difference between a lie and the truth
are the are are the people who are going
to save us and that includes republicans
and that includes democrats this
includes independence we need a mass
mobilization to save the constitution if
i if i can put it that way that’s why
this fight that professor lewis so
eloquently written and talked about is
important to recapture the discussion
and debate of history so that we look
and see ourselves for what we’ve done
wrong at the same time we look and see
the brave men and women who fought to
change it and we can imitate them in
many many ways that goes for lawyers it
goes for journalists it goes for
everyday people down where what their
main contribution is to stand in line
and long on a long cold morning and vote
that’s what we need in this country is
to instill to invigorate to challenge
with the whole idea of what democracy is
it’s about us it’s about you and me if
we can do that and see the elements that
are threatening it
we’re going to be
okay the film preserving democracy airs
on pbs stations on january 6th
professor kathleen blue bill moyers
thank you both
[Music]
[Music]
you
US Media was Complicit in Afghanistan Abuse & Failure
In light of the United States’ decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, journalist Steve Coll’s podcast appearance from 2018 shows exactly why the U.S. was always doomed in Afghanistan. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks. Watch LIVE weekdays 6-8 pm ET. http://youtube.com/theyoungturks/live
Costs of War: US, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, etc
US BUDGETARY COSTS: $6.4 TRILLION
The vast economic impact of the post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere is poorly understood by the US public and policymakers. This paper estimates the budgetary costs of war, including past expenditures and obligations to care for veterans of these wars throughout their lifetimes.
HUMAN COSTS: OVER 801,000
The number of people killed directly in the violence of the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere are approximated here. Several times as many civilians have died due to the reverberating effects of these wars. The methods of accounting are described in this paper.
PEOPLE DISPLACED: 37 MILLION
37 million people have been displaced by the post-9/11 wars in Afghanstan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and the Philippines.
Did the CONFEDERACY Have BETTER GENERALS?!?!?!
SHOW LESS
Jimmy Carter: US has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history
“Since 1979, do you know how many times China has been at war with anybody?” Carter asked. “None. And we have stayed at war.” The U.S., he noted, has only enjoyed 16 years of peace in its 242-year history, making the country “the most warlike nation in the history of the world,” Carter said. This is, he said, because of America’s tendency to force other nations to “adopt our American principles.”
List of wars involving the United States
18th-century wars
19th-century wars[edit]
Conflict Combatant 1 Combatant 2 Result for the United States and its Allies First Barbary War
(1801–1805)Part of the Barbary WarsLocation: Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Tripoli
Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon at Derna, April 1805
United States[2]
Sweden[2]
Sicily[2]
Malta[2]
Portugal[2]
Morocco[2]
Tripolitania[3]
Morocco[3]
US-allied victory Tecumseh’s War
(1811)Part of the American Indian Wars and the War of 1812Location: Northwest River Ohio
Tecumseh’s Confederacy ListUS victory War of 1812
(1812–1815)Location: Eastern and Central North America
General Andrew Jackson stands on the parapet of his makeshift defenses as his troops repulse attacking Highlanders, by painter Edward Percy Moran in 1910.
Choctaw Nation
Cherokee Nation
Creek AlliesUnited Kingdom
List
Spain (1814)
Inconclusive/Other Result
- Treaty of Ghent
- Military stalemate; both sides’ invasion attempts repulsed
- Status quo ante bellum
- Defeat of Tecumseh’s Confederacy
- Burning of Washington including the White House and the Capitol
Creek War
(1813–1814)Part of the American Indian Wars and the War of 1812Location: Southern United States
The Battle of Horseshoe Bend, 1814
Lower CreeksRed Stick Creek US-allied victory Second Barbary War
(1815)Part of the Barbary WarsLocation: Mediterranean Sea and the Barbary States
Deylik of Algiers
US victory First Seminole War
(1817–1818)Part of the Seminole Wars and the American Indian WarsLocation: Pensacola, Spanish Florida
Barracks and tents at Fort Brooke near Tampa Bay
Seminole US victory
- Spain cedes Spanish Florida to the United States in the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819
- The United States forcibly relocates Seminole in northern Florida to a reservation in the center of the peninsula in the Treaty of Moultrie Creek of 1823
Arikara War
(1823)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Missouri River
An Arikara warrior
United StatesSioux
Arikara Inconclusive/Other Result
- White Peace treaty agreed by US Col Leavenworth[4]
Winnebago War
(1827)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Illinois and Michigan Territory
Prairie La Crosse Ho-Chunks
with a few alliesUS-allied victory
- Ho-Chunks cede lead mining region to the United States
Black Hawk War
(1832)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Illinois and Michigan Territory
Native women and children fleeing the Battle of Bad Axe
Ho-Chunk
MenomineeDakota
PotawatomiBlack Hawk’s British Band
Ho-Chunk and Potawatomi alliesUS-allied victory
- End of Native armed resistance to U.S. expansion in the Old Northwest
- Black Hawk Purchase (1832)
- The United States purchases Potawatomi land in the Treaty of Tippecanoe (1832)
- The United States purchases the rest of Potawatomi land west of the Mississippi River in the Treaty of Chicago (1833)
Texas Revolution
(1835–1836)Location: Texas
Fall of the Alamo
Republic of Texas
- Out of the Texan soldiers serving from January through March 1836, 78% had arrived from the United States after October 2, 1835.[Note 1][5]
Mexican Republic
Texan victory
- The Republic of Texas gains its independence.
- Texas is annexed into the United States in 1845.
Second Seminole War
(1835–1842)Part of the Seminole Wars and the American Indian WarsLocation: Florida, United States
U.S. Marines search for Seminoles in the Everglades
United States
Seminole US victory
- Approximately 3,800 Seminoles transported to the Indian Territory
- Approximately 300 remain in Everglades
Mexican–American War
(1846–1848)Location: Texas, New Mexico, California and Mexico
2nd Dragoons charge the enemy at the Battle of Resaca de la Palma, 1846
United States
California Republic
US-allied victory
- Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
- Mexican Cession
- Mexican recognition of US sovereignty over Texas and California (among other territories)
Cayuse War
(1847–1855)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Oregon
The Whitman Massacre.
United States
Cayuse US victory
- Cayuse reduced in numbers and forced to cede most of their lands
Apache Wars
(1851–1900)Part of the Texas–Indian wars and the American Indian WarsLocation: Southwestern United States
U.S. Cavalry dash for cover while fighting Apaches, by F. Remington
Apache
Ute
YavapaiUS victory
- Apaches moved to reservations
Bleeding Kansas
(1854–1861)Location: Kansas and Missouri
Sacking of Lawrence in 1856
Anti-slavery settlers
(Free-Staters)Pro-slavery settlers (Border Ruffians) Free-Stater victory.
- Kansas admitted as a free state on January 29, 1861.
Puget Sound War
(1855–1856)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Washington
SnoqualmieNisqually
Muckleshoot
Puyallup
Klickitat
Haida
TlingitUS victory
- Indians relocated to Siletz, Grand Ronde and Coast Reservations[citation needed]
Rogue River Wars
(1855–1856)Location: Rogue ValleyRogue River people US victory
- Indians relocated to Siletz, Grand Ronde and Coast Reservations
Third Seminole War
(1855–1858)Part of the Seminole Wars and the American Indian WarsSeminole US victory
- By late 1850s, most Seminoles forced to leave their land; a few hundred remain deep in the Everglades on land unwanted by white settlers
Yakima War
(1855–1858)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Washington Territory
Seattleites evacuate to the town blockhouse as USS Decatur opens fire on advancing tribal forces.
SnoqualmieYakama
Walla Walla tribe
Umatilla tribe
Nez Perce tribe
Cayuse tribeUS victory Second Opium War
(1856–1859)Part of the Opium WarsLocation: China
Palikao’s bridge, on the evening of the battle, by Émile Bayard
French Empire
China
US victory
- Treaties of Tientsin
- Kowloon Peninsula and Stonecutters Island ceded to the United Kingdom as part of British Hong Kong
Utah War
(1857–1858)Part of the Mormon warsLocation: Utah Territory and Wyoming
Deseret/Utah Mormons (Nauvoo Legion) Inconclusive/Other Result
- Resolution through negotiation
- Brigham Young replaced as governor of the territory
- Full amnesty for charges of sedition and treason issued to the citizens of Utah Territory by President James Buchanan on the condition that they accept American Federal authority
Navajo Wars
(1858–1866)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: New Mexico
United States
Navajo Nation
US victory
- Long Walk of the Navajo
- Navajos moved to reservations
John Brown’s Raid on Harpers Ferry
(1859)Part of pre-Civil War conflictsLocation: West Virginia
Harper’s Weekly illustration of U.S. Marines attacking John Brown’s “Fort” Teresa Baine
United States
Abolitionist Insurgents US victory First and Second Cortina War
(1859–1861)Location: Texas and Mexico
US-allied victory Paiute War
(1860)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Pyramid Lake, Nevada
Paiute
Shoshone
BannockUS victory American Civil War
(1861–1865)Location: Southern United States, Indian Territory, Northeastern United States, Western United States, Atlantic Ocean
The Battle of Antietam, by Kurz & Allison.
United States
Confederate States
Chickasaw Nation
Muskogee Nation
Seminole Nation
Comanche Nation
US victory
- Dissolution of the Confederate States
- U.S. territorial integrity preserved
- Beginning of the Reconstruction Era
- U.S. Federal government expands further control over land and railroad rights in the Indian Territory.
Yavapai Wars
(1861–1875)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Arizona
Yavapai
Apache
Yuma
MohaveUS victory Dakota War of 1862
(1862)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Minnesota and Dakota
The Siege of New Ulm, Minnesota on August 19, 1862
United States
US victory Colorado War
(1863–1865)Part of the American Indian WarsCheyenne
Arapaho
Inconclusive/Other Result
- Military and congressional hearings against John Chivington
Snake War
(1864–1868)Part of the American Indian WarsLocations: Oregon, Nevada, California, and Idaho
Paiute
Bannock
ShoshoneUS victory Powder River War
(1865)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Powder River State
Cheyenne
Inconclusive Red Cloud’s War
(1866–1868)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Powder River State
The Fetterman Massacre
United States
Crow Nation
Lakota-allied victory
- Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868)
- Legal control of Powder River Country ceded to Native Americans
- Creation of the Great Sioux Reservation (including the Black Hills)
Comanche Campaign
(1867–1875)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Western United States
Battle of Beecher Island. One soldier and three horses have fallen, while others continue to wage the battle.
United States
KiowaUS victory Modoc War
(1872–1873)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: California and Oregon
Engraving of soldiers recovering the bodies of the slain May 3, 1873.
Modoc
US victory Red River War
(1874–1875)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Texas
KiowaUS victory
- End to the Texas-Indian Wars
Las Cuevas War
(1875)Location: Texas and Mexico
Texan soldiers.
Mexican bandits US victory
- Cattle returned to Texas
Great Sioux War of 1876
(1876–1877)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Montana, Dakota and Wyoming
Custer’s last stand at Little Bighorn.
US victory
- Legal control of Powder River Country ceded to the United States
Buffalo Hunters’ War
(1876–1877)Part of the American Indian Wars
ApacheUS victory Nez Perce War
(1877)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana
Chief Joseph’s band in the Battle of Bear Paw Mountain
United States
Nez Perce
PalouseUS victory Bannock War
(1878)Part of the American Indian WarsBannock
Shoshone
PaiuteUS victory Cheyenne War
(1878–1879)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and Montana
Aftermath of the Battle of “The Pit.”
US victory Sheepeater Indian War
(1879)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Idaho
Shoshone US victory Victorio’s War
(1879–1881)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Mexico
Apache US-allied victory White River War
(1879–1880)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Colorado
Ute US victory Pine Ridge Campaign
(1890–1891)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: South Dakota
Mass grave for the dead Lakota after the conflict at Wounded Knee Creek.
United States
US victory Garza Revolution
(1891–1893)Location: Texas and Mexico
3rd Cavalry Troopers searching a suspected Revolutionist, 1892
United States
Garzistas US-allied victory Yaqui Wars
(1896–1918)Part of the American Indian Wars
10th Cavalry soldiers holding Yaqui prisoners at their camp in Bear Valley, January 9, 1918.
Mexico
Yaqui
Pima
OpataUS-allied victory Second Samoan Civil War
(1898–1899)Location: Samoa
Samoan warriors and American servicemen during the Siege of Apia in March 1899.
Samoa United States
Mataafans Germany
Inconclusive/Other Result
- Allies and Rebels compromise for peace Tripartite Convention
- United States acquires American Samoa
- United Kingdom withdraws claim in exchange for concessions in the Solomon Islands
- Germany acquires German Samoa
- Mata’afa Iosefo becomes paramount chief of Samoa
Spanish–American War
(1898)Location: Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines and Guam
Teddy Roosevelt and the “Rough Riders” charge Spanish positions during the Battle of San Juan Hill.
Cuban Revolutionaries
Filipino Revolutionaries
Spain
US-allied victory
- Treaty of Paris
- Protectorate over Cuba
- Collapse of the Spanish Empire
Philippine–American War
(1899–1902)Location: Philippines
Kurz & Allison print of the Battle of Quingua.
1899–1902 1902-1906
1899–1902 Limited Foreign Support:
Empire of Japan
1902-1906
Tagalog Republic
US victory
- Occupation of the Philippines
- Establishment of the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands
- General Emilio Aguinaldo captured
- Dissolution of the First Philippine Republic
Moro Rebellion
(1899–1913)Location: Philippines
The 8th Infantry Regiment defeat the Moros in the four-day battle of Bagsak Mountain on Jolo Island in the Philippines.
Moro
US victory Boxer Rebellion
(1899–1901)Location: China
Corporal Titus, of the 14th Infantry Regiment, scaling the walls of Peking.
Russia
Italy
Austria-Hungary
Righteous Harmony Society (Boxers)
US-allied victory
- Signing of the Boxer Protocol
- Provisions for foreign troops to be stationed in Beijing
20th-century wars[edit]
Conflict Combatant 1 Combatant 2 Result for the United States and its Allies Crazy Snake Rebellion
(1909)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Oklahoma
Creek prisoners of war.
United States
Creek US victory Border War
(1910–1919)Part of the Mexican RevolutionLocation: Mexico–United States border
American troops of the 16th Infantry Regiment rest for the night on May 27, 1916
Mexico
US victory
- Seditionist insurgency suppressed
- Permanent border wall established
- Pancho Villa’s troops no longer an effective fighting force[6]
- Mexican Constitutionalist faction leader Venustiano Carranza recognised as the sole leaders of the Mexican government by the United States
Negro Rebellion
(1912)Part of the Banana WarsLocation: Cuba
USS Mississippi in Cuba
US-allied victory
- Dissolution of the PIC
Occupation of Nicaragua
(1912–1933)Part of the Banana WarsLocation: Nicaragua
US Marines holding a captured Sandinista flag.
Nicaragua
US-allied victory
- Nicaragua occupied until 1933
Bluff War
(1914–1915)Part of the American Indian Wars
Prisoners of the Bluff War in Thompson, Utah, waiting to board a train for their trial in Salt Lake City.
Ute
PaiuteUS victory Occupation of Veracruz
(1914)Part of the Mexican RevolutionLocation: Mexico
American ships at Veracruz
US victory Occupation of Haiti
(1915–1934)Part of the Banana WarsLocation: Haiti
2nd Marine Regiment in Haiti
Haiti
US-allied victory Occupation of the Dominican Republic
(1916–1924)Part of the Banana WarsLocation: Dominican Republic
US Marines in the Occupation of the Dominican Republic.
Dominican Republic
US victory World War I
(1917–1918)Location: Europe, Africa, Asia, Middle East, the Pacific Islands, and coast of North and South America
Two US troops pass by dead German soldiers on a battlefield.
France
China
Serbia
Montenegro
Romania
Belgium
Greece
Portugal
Brazil
Ottoman Empire
Bulgaria
US-allied victory
- End of the German, Russian, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian empires
- Formation of new countries in Europe and the Middle East
- Transfer of German colonies and regions of the former Ottoman Empire to other powers
- Establishment of the League of Nations
Russian Civil War
(1918–1920)Location: Russia, Mongolia, and Iran
US troops march through Russia before the Battle of Romanovka.
White Movement
Czechoslovakia
Poland
Russian SFSR
Far Eastern Republic
Latvian SSR
Ukrainian SSR
Commune of Estonia
Mongolian Communists
Bolshevik victory
- Allied withdrawal from Russia
- Bolshevik victory over White Army
Last Indian Uprising
(1923)Part of the American Indian WarsLocation: Utah
Ute and Paiute prisoners of war.
Ute
PaiuteUS victory World War II
(1941–1945)Location: Europe, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Middle East, Mediterranean, North Africa, Oceania, North and South America
U.S. Army Soldiers advancing at dawn in the cover of a M4 Sherman tank, during the Battle of Bougainville, 1944.
Soviet Union
China
Poland
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
India
South Africa
Yugoslavia
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Brazil
Mexico
Chile
Peru
Ethiopia
Mongolia
Philippines
Viet Minh
KLA
Germany
Hungary
Slovakia
Croatia
Albania
Finland
Thailand
Manchukuo
Mengjiang
US-allied victory
- Collapse of the Third Reich
- Fall of Japanese and Italian Empires
- Creation of the United Nations
- Emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as superpowers
- Beginning of the Cold War
Operation Beleaguer
(1945-1949)Location: Hopeh and Shantung Provinces, China
Marines in Tsingtao during Operation Beleaguer.
United States
Communist Party of China
US Victory
- Occupation of Hopeh and Shantung provinces
- Japanese and Koreans repatriated
- American and other foreign nationals evacuated
Korean War
(1950–1953)Part of the Cold WarLocation: Korea
American soldiers in the Korean War with the Browning M1919A6 LMG.
South Korea
Philippines
Colombia
Spain
Turkey
North Korea
China
Inconclusive/Other Result
- Korean Armistice Agreement
- North Korean invasion of South Korea repelled
- Subsequent United Nations invasion of North Korea repelled
- Subsequent Chinese-North Korean invasion of South Korea repelled
Lebanon Crisis
(1958)Location: Lebanon
US Marine sits in a foxhole and points his machine gun toward Beirut.
Lebanon
United States
US-allied victory
- US-Lebanese occupation of the port and international airport of Beirut
Vietnam War
(1955–1964[a], 1965–1973[b], 1974–1975[c])Part of the Cold War and Indochina WarsLocation: Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos
1st Cavalry Division, Battle of Ia Drang, 1965.
South Vietnam
Laos
Khmer Republic
Viet Cong
Pathet Lao
Khmer Rouge
Soviet Union
North Vietnamese-allied victory
- Withdrawal of American forces from Indochina
- Dissolution of the Republic of Vietnam
- Communist governments take power in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia
- Reunification of Vietnam[7]
Korean DMZ Conflict
(1966–1969)Part of the Korean conflict and the Cold WarLocation: Korean Demilitarized Zone
ROK and US troop stationed at the DMZ, 1967.
US-allied victory
- North Korean failure to launch an insurgency in South Korea
Dominican Civil War
(1965–1966)Location: Dominican Republic
US soldiers push a child underneath a Jeep to protect him during a firefight in Santo Domingo on May 5, 1965.
IAPF
US-allied victory
- Fall of the Bosch regime
- Joaquín Balaguer elected as the new president
Multinational Intervention in Lebanon
(1982–1984)Location: Lebanon
US Marines on patrol in Beirut, April 1983
UNIFIL
Multinational Force in Lebanon:PLO
Hezbollah
Islamic Jihad Organization
Syrian-Allied Victory
- Multinational forces fail to prevent collapse of Lebanese Army into Syrian- or Israeli- supported militias[8][9]
- Multinational forces evacuated after the US embassy and US Marine barracks are bombed by the Islamic Jihad Organization
- Multinational forces oversee withdrawal of Palestine Liberation Organization
- Humanitarian crisis in Southern Lebanon
- Civil war continues until 1990
- President Hafez al-Assad continues his occupation of Lebanon until his son and later president Bashar al-Assad orders a withdrawal from the country
Invasion of Grenada
(1983)Part of the Cold WarLocation: Grenada
American soldiers in mortar positions in Grenada.
Barbados
Jamaica
Antigua and Barbuda
Dominica
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
PRG of Grenada
Military advisors:ListUS-allied victory
- Military dictatorship of Hudson Austin deposed
- Defeat of Cuban military presence
- Restoration of constitutional government
Invasion of Panama
(1989–1990)Location: Panama
U.S. troops prepare to take a neighborhood in Panama City, December 1989.
Panamanian Opposition
US-allied victory
- Dictator Manuel Noriega deposed
Gulf War
(1990–1991)Location: Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel
M1 Abrams tanks of the 3rd Armored Division advance on Medina Ridge.
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Canada
Egypt
Syria
Qatar
Bahrain
United Arab Emirates
Oman
Iraq
US-allied victory
- Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait; Emir Jaber III restored
- Sanctions against Iraq
Iraqi No-Fly Zone Enforcement Operations
(1991–2003)Location: Iraq
A Tomahawk cruise missile is fired from an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.
Italy
Iraq
US-allied victory
- Periodic depletion of Iraqi air defenses
First U.S. Intervention in the Somali Civil War
(1992–1995)Part of the Somali civil war (1991–present)Location: Somalia
US Marines on patrol in Somalia.
Malaysia
Pakistan
India
Greece
Germany
Botswana
Somali National Alliance
Inconclusive/Other Result
- Failure to capture SNA leader Mohamed Farrah Aidid; specific Aidid lieutenants captured
- Withdrawal of U.S. forces 5 months after losses in the Battle of Mogadishu
- The UN mandate saved close to 100,000 lives, before and after U.S. withdrawal
- Civil war is ongoing
Bosnian War
(1992–1995)Part of the Yugoslav WarsLocation: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Russian and American troops on a joint patrol around the Bosnian town of Zvornik on the afternoon of February 29, 1996.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Republika Srpska
Serbian Krajina
Western Bosnia
US-allied victory
- Dayton Accords
- Internal partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Over 101,000 dead, 65,000 Bosniaks, 28,000 Serbs, 8,000 Croats[citation needed]
- Deployment of NATO-led IFOR to uphold the peace agreement
- High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina established to implement the peace agreement
Intervention in Haiti
(1994–1995)Location: Haiti
US troops arrive in Haiti.
Argentina
US-allied victory
- Reinstatement of Jean-Bertrand Aristide as president of Haiti
Kosovo War
(1998–1999)Part of the Yugoslav WarsLocation: Serbia
Bombing of Novi Sad.
KLA
Croatia
Hungary
FR Yugoslavia
US-allied victory[10][11][12][13]
- Ceasefire reached through Kumanovo Agreement of June 1999. after Russian and Finnish envoys visit Belgrade
- Yugoslav forces pull out of Kosovo
- UN Resolution 1244 confirming Kosovo as de jure part of FRY
- De facto separation of Kosovo from FR Yugoslavia under UN administration
- Return of Albanian refugees after attempted ethnic cleansing of Albanians
- KLA veterans join the UÇPMB, starting the Preševo insurgency
- Around 200,000 Serbs, Romani, and other non-Albanians fleeing Kosovo and many of the remaining civilians becoming victims of abuse
- Three Chinese journalists were killed in United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade
- ^ Advisory role from the forming of the MAAG in Vietnam to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
- ^ Direct U.S. involvement ended in 1973 with the Paris Peace Accords. The Paris Peace Accords of January 1973 saw all U.S forces withdrawn; the Case–Church Amendment, passed by the U.S Congress on 15 August 1973, officially ended direct U.S military involvement .
- ^ The war reignited on December 13, 1974 with offensive operations by North Vietnam, leading to victory over South Vietnam in under two months.
21st-century wars[edit]
Conflict Combatant 1 Combatant 2 Result for the United States and its Allies War in Afghanistan
(2001–present)Part of the War on Terror and the War in Afghanistan (1978–present)Location: Afghanistan
American and British soldiers take a tactical pause during a combat patrol in the Sangin District area of Helmand Province.
Resolute Support Mission
Afghanistan
Canada
New Zealand
Georgia
Formerly:
ISAF
Taliban
Allied groups
HIG
al-Qaeda
Taliban splinter groups
IS-Affiliates:
- Wilayat Khorasan (ISIL-K)
2001 Invasion:
Ongoing
- United States invasion of Afghanistan (2001)
- List of drone strikes in Afghanistan (2001)
- Destruction of al-Qaeda and Taliban militant training camps (2001)
- Fall of the Taliban government (2001)
- Establishment of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan under the Karzai administration
- Start of Taliban insurgency
- Drone strikes in Pakistan
- Death of Osama bin Laden in May 2011
- Death of Mohammed Omar in July 2013
- Over two-thirds of Al-Qaeda’s operatives killed or captured
- International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) disbanded in December 2014
- Commencement of Resolute Support Mission in December 2014
- All US troops to withdraw by September 11, 2021
Iraq War
(2003–2011)Part of the War on TerrorLocation: Iraq
Soldiers from 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment conduct security before a cordon and search operation in Biaj, Iraq with their M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.
Iraq
Ukraine
MNF–I
Ba’ath Loyalists
Islamic State of Iraq
al-Qaeda in Iraq
2003 Invasion:
Inconclusive/other result[15]
- Invasion and occupation of Iraq
- Overthrow of Ba’ath Party government
- Execution of Saddam Hussein
- Emergence of significant insurgency, rise of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and severe sectarian violence[16]
- Subsequent reduction in violence and depletion of al-Qaeda in Iraq[17][18]
- Establishment of democratic elections and formation of new Shia-led government
- U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
- Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011
- Stronger Iranian influence in Iraq[19][dubious ][20][21][22]
- Escalation of sectarian insurgency after U.S. withdrawal leading to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the successor of al-Qaeda in Iraq[23][24]
- Iraqi Civil War (2013–2017)
- Return of US forces to Iraq in 2014
Second U.S. Intervention in the Somali Civil War
(2007–2021)Part of the Somali Civil War (1991–present) and the War on TerrorLocation: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya
MQ-9 Reaper commonly used in covert drone strikes in Somalia.
Kenya
Ethiopia
AMISOM
Al-Shabaab
Hizbul IslamInconclusive/Other Result
- Drone strikes in Somalia
- Raids against al-Shabaab militants conducted by U.S. Special Operations Forces
- African Union Intervention
- U.S. backed Ethiopian invasion in 2006
- Kenyan intervention
- Newly formed federal government established in 2012
- Power struggle within Al-Shabaab
- Majority of US Troops withdraw in January 2021
Operation Ocean Shield
(2009–2016)Part of the War on TerrorLocation: Indian Ocean
A tall plume of black smoke rises from a destroyed pirate vessel that was struck by USS Farragut in March 2010.
NATO
Somali pirates US-allied victory
- Number of pirate attacks dramatically decreased
- The US Office of Naval Intelligence have officially reported that in 2013, only 9 incidents of piracy were reported and that none of them were successfully hijacked[citation needed]
- Piracy drops 90%[27]
International intervention in Libya
(2011)Part of the Libyan Crisis and the First Libyan Civil WarLocation: Libya
US vessels launch missiles in support of the First Libyan Civil War.
Jordan
Libya
US-allied victory
- Overthrow of the Gaddafi government and the killing of Muammar Gaddafi
- Assumption of interim control by National Transitional Council (NTC)
- Diplomatic recognition of NTC as sole governing authority for Libya by 105 countries, UN, EU, AL and AU
- Post-civil war violence in Libya leading to the second civil war in 2014[28]
Operation Observant Compass
(2011–2017)Part of the War on TerrorLocation: Uganda
U.S. Marine Sgt. Joseph Bergeron, a task force combat engineer, explains combat marksmanship tactics to a group of Ugandan soldiers.
Uganda
DR Congo
Central African Republic
South Sudan
Lord’s Resistance Army
Ongoing
- Founder and leader of the LRA Joseph Kony goes into hiding
- Senior LRA commander Dominic Ongwen surrenders to American forces in the Central African Republic and is tried at the Hague[7][8]
- Majority of LRA installations and encampments located in South Sudan and Uganda abandoned and dismantled
- Small scale LRA activity continues in eastern DR Congo, and the Central African Republic
American-led intervention in Iraq
(2014–present)Part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the Iraqi Civil War, the Spillover of the Syrian Civil War, the War on Terror and the International ISIS campaignLocation: Iraq
General Stephen J. Townsend observes a HIMARS strike that destroyed a building near Haditha, September 2016
Iraqi Kurdistan
Morocco
Ongoing
- Tens of thousands of ISIL fighters killed
- American-led forces launch over 13,300 airstrikes on ISIL positions in Iraq
- Heavy damage dealt to ISIL forces, ISIL loses 40% of its territory in Iraq by January 2016, and all of its territory in Iraq in December 2017
- Multinational humanitarian and arming of ground forces efforts
- 200 ISIL created mass graves found containing up to 12,000 people[29]
- Ongoing US-led Coalition advising and training of Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces
- US maintains limited military presence in Iraq
American-led intervention in Syria
(2014–present)Part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the Syrian Civil War, the War on Terror and the International ISIS campaignLocation: Syria
USS Ross fires Tomahawk missiles towards Shayrat Military Base, during the 2017 retaliatory strike against the Syrian government.
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria
CJTF-OIR Members:
Israel (limited involvement; against Hezbollah and government forces only)
Formerly:
Free Syrian Army (2011–2017)
Supported by:Iran
Syria-allied victory
- Over 11,200 American and allied airstrikes hit ISIS and other extremist groups within Syria
- Thousands of ISIS targets destroyed and thousands more militants captured or killed
- ISIL lose Mosul and Raqqa (2017), then other most of territory in Iraq and then Syria
- Syrian government Chemical attack in Ghouta (2013) leading to OPCW-UN Joint Mission in Syria
- American support for anti-government rebels
- Deployment of U.S. Marines and Special Forces
- Massive amounts of human rights violations and war crimes, in particular by Syrian government forces
- Semi-regular chemical attacks attributed to the Assad regime leads to condemnation and threats of measures to enforce the chemical weapons convention and the Geneva protocol to which Syria is a party. Chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun results in a retaliatory naval strike on the Syrian government-controlled Shayrat Airbase, Douma chemical attack results in retaliatory strikes/
- Various confrontations and airstrikes, including a downing of a Syrian SU-17 between the United States and Syrian government and the shoot down of a Turkish F-4 by the Syrian government
- Multiple incidents between Israel and Syria, including several Syrian S-200 missiles launched toward Israeli fighter jets during an Israeli Air Force mission inside Syrian territory, and an Israeli F-16 shot down by Syrian Air Defense forces after retaliatory strikes against Iranian targets near Damascus after a Syrian drone crossed into Israeli airspace
- ISIS detainee crisis takes hold in northern Syria[30]
- Civilian deaths due to Coalition airstrikes in Syria and Iraq: over 1,300 according to Coalition, 8,267–13,168 according to independent estimates.[31]
American intervention in Libya
(2015–2020)Part of the Second Libyan Civil War, the War on Terror, and the International ISIS CampaignLocation: Libya
USS Wasp conducts flight operations in Operation Odyssey Lightning.
Libya
US-allied Victory
- Liberation of Sirte
- Hundreds of airstrikes carried out in Libya against Islamic State affiliated militant groups
See also[edit]
.jpg)
.jpg)
_March_1944.jpg)
_launching_a_Tomahawk_missile_in_support_of_Operation_Odyssey_Dawn.jpg)
.jpg)
Oil: The Issue of American Intervention (1975)
In Jan 1975, Commentary Magazine argued that the US should threaten to invade the Persian Gulf if they did not:
- agree to price oil exclusively in dollars, thereby generating demand for dollars
- save oil profits in US Treasury bills, thereby financing the US debt
- buy American weapons, including surplus Vietnam war equipment, and future US weapons, thereby financing the military industrial complex
There remains the argument that military intervention in the Persian Gulf would on moral grounds alone not be countenanced by domestic public opinion. Nor is it only the public that would presumably find in the act a manifestation of complete moral bankruptcy. One has the distinct impression that the foreign-policy elite shares this view and that in the certitude with which the public’s supposed reaction is diagnosed there is something close to a wish-fulfilling prophecy. It is a curious reaction coming from those who once found no great difficulty, moral or otherwise, in supporting the intervention in Vietnam or who, in finally abandoning their support for intervention, did so not on moral grounds, but because they concluded Vietnam could not have a successful outcome or that, whatever the outcome, the costs had become disproportionate to the interests at stake. Perhaps their present reaction to the prospect of armed intervention in the Persian Gulf is not so curious, though, given this record. It is not surprising that, having lacked a sense of balance, moral and otherwise, in that most painful experience, they should lack a sense of balance today, and that we should find the law of compensation—or rather of overcompensation—at work.
At issue here is not whether there is some clear moral or legal basis for justifying armed intervention in the Persian Gulf, but whether public opinion would be morally outraged by the action. Though it is not uncommon to find them confused, these are two quite different questions. There is no need for positive moral approval, let alone moral fervor, by the public so long as it consents to the need for the action. There may even be considerable gain in the absence of that element which has so often attended policy in the past. The difficulty, of course, is that the public has been long habituated to support the use of force only in cases which have been made to appear as necessary for the containment of Communism, in turn equated with the nation’s security. Could the public be induced, in the shadow of Vietnam, to support a military intervention that bore no apparent or tangible relation to the containment of Communism, itself a factor of diminishing importance in determining the public’s disposition? No one can say. Put in the abstract, the question itself may be rather meaningless. It would take on meaning only after a concerted effort had been made to persuade the public that the alternatives to intervention were laden with dangers to the nation’s well-being. Even then it remains an open question whether an administration could obtain public support, or tolerance, for intervention in the absence of events at home that, once plainly visible, would require little further effort in persuasion. In this instance, the choice might well be between a public that would oppose intervention so long as the interests at stake were not clear, and could not readily be made clear, and a public that would support intervention only when these interests had unfortunately become only too clear.
The point is worth emphasis that we simply do not know what might bring the public to support intervention in the Persian Gulf. If the public viewed such intervention as another Vietnam, they would most assuredly oppose it. But if intervention were to promise success at relatively modest cost, opinion might well move in the direction of support, and particularly if unemployment were to rise to 8 or 9 per cent. Moreover, in this instance, by contrast to Vietnam, the existence of an all-volunteer military force would preclude the painful issues once raised by the draft. Nor is it at all clear that the Left would take the same position toward intervention in the present case as it did toward Vietnam. For the effects of the current oil price on many poor countries do not endear the major oil producers to much of the Left. The relative ease with which Vietnam could be depicted as an attempt to preserve American domination over the developing states, a domination alleged to serve only American interests, would be difficult to repeat today, and this despite the inadequately perceived effects of the oil crisis.
How can China handle US stealth fighters like the F-22 and F-35?
Once the F-22s are airborne, there isn’t anything in the PRC’s military arsenal that can touch them. The F-22 has no peer in air to air combat and F-22s flying from their air bases close to China can shut down any airspace they can cover with their range and munitions.
There’s talk about China’s development of the J-20 and J-31 and how they can go toe to toe with the F-22 but this is incorrect in my opinion: These aircraft were not designed to fight other stealth fighters like the F-22. They were built to use their stealth to engage support aircraft like AWACs, Air refuellers, Recon aircraft and non-stealth combat aircraft using their long range missiles and with their stealth being used to hide them from counter retaliation from F-22s and F-35s in the area as much as possible.
In effect, the J-20 and J-31 are stealth so they can operate in the same airspace as a hostile F-22 with their stealth as a protective measure from the F-22’s radar.
The Chinese media and public may offer up certain military capabilities to assure the nation that they have assets comparable to the F-22 for domestic political consumption, but the Chinese military understands well that there is nothing in their arsenal that can threaten an F-22 once it’s airborne. Any non-stealth assets they have will be shot down before they even get close and the stealth assets are too valuable to be thrown against F-22s, they are better used being preserved for missions against the support infrastructure that surrounds the F-22. With the understanding that the performance of the F-22 would degrade overall if too many support aircraft fall victim to long range missiles from PLAAF stealth fighters.
This doesn’t mean that the PRC has nothing in it’s arsenal to go against the F-22. What they do have is just not the PLAAF, it’s the PRC rocket force.
I have been writing about this subject a bit in the past, so I’ll quote from an older answer here:
However, the US lead in stealth has some major problems that should be addressed. The problem is the basing of these stealth fighters. The US has 6 major bases in Japan and 1 in Guam. The USAF does not use the 80–90 airbases that the Japanese air force uses, and this might be because of how the US wants to control access to it’s stealth fighters but also because it has to equip its bases with perform the complex maintenance that it’s stealth fighters require.
So in theory, there’s only 7 total major bases you can place your stealth fighters at where you can control access to them and also do the whole fancy maintenance they require like re-applying coating etc.
That is…not good, because it means the Chinese don’t have to worry about shooting down these stealth fighters. They just need to concentrate their ballistic missile bombardment on those 7 bases with stealth fighters to knock those bases out or at least interdict operations out of them.
The USAF has realized this problem and are trying to see if they can spread the fighters out a bit more to the 90 bases the Japanese operate but it’s still a work in progress.
There is one other thing: There’s something called the “German Disease” where you get trapped in the idea that as long as you make a VERY high quality platform, it’s gonna be worth 10 of the enemy’s platforms and that’s better than matching the enemy head to head. This is very seductive thinking for a wealthier, more technically advanced power. But it means you are fighting a war with platforms you aren’t willing to lose which is not a good proposition.
The F-22 is a bit of a German Disease for the USAF because there’s only like 170 of them left and they aren’t making any more of them. Each F-22 lost is a permanent loss for the USAF and if a war against China drags on and attrition becomes a factor, a lot of these very high quality assets that the USAF isn’t willing to lose will need to be pulled from the theater after a while once their losses reach 33% per squadron. Now, no one has ever fought the US in a conventional war since Vietnam and managed to drag it out.
But if that does happen, and the US is losing say 2 F-22s a day on average from ballistic missile strikes on bases, losses due to accidents, very rare occasions when an F-22 is show down by the Chinese, this kind of loss rate might start to hurt a month into the conflict. And the USAF would have to withdraw the F-22s at some point so they still have some left in reserve and put the 4.5+ Gens into the missions the F-22s were doing. Very rare a war would last that long with China and for that high a loss rate, but you never know. The F-22s would primarily suffer more from being forced away from their 7 bases in the first island chain and being forced to operate at their max ranges from second island chain bases, but the loss rate from conflict as well in a long war cant be ignored.
Usama Ahmad’s answer to How does the US military currently compare against the Chinese military?
The US may be planning for a short war with China given their preference for Shock and Awe tactics using their overwhelming conventional strength, but as the old axiom goes: Those who plan for short wars tend to lose long ones.
The current concentration of F-22s (and possible F-35s) in seven major basis is not just a threat to the platforms themselves though but the pilots as well.
Recall that the Iranian bombardment of US military bases was done in a way that they deliberately avoided targeting areas where US troops were housed to avoid escalation but they still fired in the proximity of the base to send a message.
This bombardment led to major health issues in US troops stationed on those bases:
A total of 50 U.S. service members suffered traumatic brain injury from this month’s Iranian missile attack on Iraqi bases hosting U.S. troops, the Defense Department said Tuesday.
Traumatic brain injury, or TBI, can include concussions. Of the 50 patients, 31 were treated in Iraq and have returned to duty, Army Lt. Col. Thomas Campbell, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said in a statement.
More U.S. service members diagnosed with brain injury from Iran missile attack
F-22 pilots aren’t exactly a dime a dozen, and they are pretty much elite pilots of whom a limited pool exists. The impact on their physical health from being stationed on seven bases under intense ballistic missile bombardment leads to the question of pilot attrition rather than F-22 attrition: That is, can the Chinese cause enough physical degradation in the health of F-22 pilots with constant missile bombardment to the point that there aren’t enough pilots in forward positions left to carry out a large enough number of sorties to make a difference in combat. Say you are into week 2 of the war and approximately 40% of your pilots have suffered brain injuries from the bombardment (if not killed outright). You might have to drop your F-22 sortie rate from say 100 a week to 40 a week to conserve your pilots and your aircraft assets (i’m not even taking into account sorties reduced due to airbase disruptions from the missile strikes).
This has the effect of reducing the effectiveness and presence of the F-22 to make a meaningful difference in the overall war without actually having to shoot down the F-22.
The solution, as mentioned above is to distribute your stealth fighters across the 90 bases the Japanese have and hope this dilutes the effectiveness of Chinese missile strikes but with a significant increase in your resources spent equipping all these bases to carry out the complex maintenance an F-22 requires (the stealth coating itself is a hassle), making sure the bases are secured from PRC spies trying to get close to F-22s and that all of these bases are capable of withstanding a PRC rocket force barrage.
There is of course the option of trying to knock out PRC missile bases on the mainland to reduce the barrage. But for the most part, even with all the US’s recon and surveillance capabilities, I doubt they can stop the movement and operations of these in a meaningful manner:
The PRC ballistic missile force’s primary goal is to make US bases unusable. The short range missiles are aimed at the US bases in Okinawa while the more medium range missiles are designed to disrupt operations from bases in Japan.
And the DF-26 is designed to make even operations from bases like Guam risky if not maybe as disrupted as the other bases.
The PRC ballistic missile threat is in part inspired by the US military’s failure to effectively hunt and destroy SCUDs in Iraq during the first Gulf War. Which leads the PRC to believe that if they have mobile, solid fueled missile systems, they would not be as prone to destruction from US military forces and pose a considerable threat for the duration of any war with the US. These kinds of missiles are hard to hunt, can quickly break from cover, set up and fire before the enemy can fire back at them.
With a mobile missile system like the SCUD, you have a 15 minute window to detect and destroy it once it breaks from cover. This is currently not within the capability of the US military.
Source: Usama Ahmad’s answer to How does the US military currently compare against the Chinese military?
My current feeling is that, for the most part, Japanese and US bases will see a constant stream of attacks from the Chinese Strategic Rocket force that will disrupt and hinder operations for the duration of the war (or till the Chinese run out of missiles).
There are unseen variables here. How well the US changes up their base designs, how well they integrate their airforce elements with Japanese airbases to withstand missile bombardment (particularly after reflecting on the lessons of the Iranian missile strike).
There are also unseen variables on the side of the Chinese: What’s the state of their strategic Rocket Force? The current reports coming out of China are that the Strategic Rocket Force (BTW I think their new name is Strategic Support Force) are the worst in terms of mental and physical health among all the armed forces. They spend long amounts of time underground away from sunlight, exposed to chemicals in the air from rocket fuel which is above the health and safety limit. The morale isn’t exactly peak and unit readiness obviously has to be called into question.
The Chinese are trying to improve this through a number of fronts: Increasing the rotation of troops so they spend less time underground due to shorter stints, more VR based training to help them deal with the stress of war when their positions are being bombed and they are constantly hunted when out on mobile launchers, increased access to mental health facilities.
People often forget that war is at the end of the day fought by people, not just platforms. The same way the Traumatic brain injuries of an F-22 pilot can determine the war, the mental health and lung damage of a PRC Rocket force soldier can also determine it.
The PLAAF has done it’s own bit of upgrading and modernizing their force structures. They have broken down from the soviet era brigade structures to smaller structures called flights (similar to squadrons in the west). They have increased the level of pilot participation in flight planning, increased the pilot autonomy in the air and moved away from ground based interception tactics. They have their own Red vs Blue exercises and VR training programs as well.
However, my guess is that these won’t make difference in preparing the PLAAF for fighting against F-22s for the simple reason that even USAF pilots in F-15s and F-16s who are veterans are unable to beat F-22s in air combat. The tech gap is simply too large.
The only benefit of these modernizations I see is that the J-20 pilots whose job it is to skim around the F-22s, using their stealth to protect themselves from the F-22’s missiles, can carry out more effective missions hunting the support aircraft that support the F-22s.
There are some last issues that could impact how China’s fight against American American stealth fighters will play out:
- American Production Lines
- American Joint operations with allies
On the issue of production lines:
The F-35 production line right now is 15 aircraft a month at peak production. This is considered low by some standards but to be honest, considering that it’s a very advanced fighter it doesn’t seem to matter much. The problem however, is that this is under the assumption that every single F-35 produced will be deployed against China which is not true because the US has to manage multiple theaters (Russia-Europe, Home Air Bases etc.).
Also, the F-35 is a multi national project, so those 15 F-35s being made every month have to shared between 12 Airforces, 1 Marine Corp and 2 Navies across the planet. Further reducing the number of stealth fighters the US can deploy against China.
Source: Usama Ahmad’s answer to How does the US military currently compare against the Chinese military?
At the moment the US has built around 600 F-35s but not all of them have been deployed against the PRC in the Pacific theater. A good chunk of these have gone to allied forces who might not participate in a war against China or to squadrons the US might not redeploy to the Pacific. The 15 a month production line means it will be some time till the US can field the same hundreds of F-15s/F16s/F-18s that they fielded against Iraq or deployed around Iran.
The F-22 has no production lines anymore so every F-22 lost is a permanent loss.
The PRC on the other hand gets to field every single stealth fighter they build to the Pacific theater and don’t have to share the production lines with allied forces.
But as discussed above, this might be a bit of a moot point since the PRC could deploy their J-20s or J-31s to missions that don’t bring much chance of air to air combat against other stealth fighters.
The second is that the US has to coordinate military activities with allies like Japan and Taiwan. NATO and the US-South Korean militaries are heavily integrated already at the moment but it’s unclear how well the US and Japanese militaries or the US and Taiwanese militaries will work together. The Pentagon bureaucracy is appallingly bad while the US works with militaries world wide, actively integrating them into the overall command structure led by the US for a war against China is a bit of a new thing for them to do.
The PRC, being a single entity, does not face this problem.
Missile Defense and Missile Defeat
The US has begun to understand the lethality of the Chinese missile arsenal and the threat it poses to US naval and airpower assets in the Pacific which is why they have begun to invest in the idea of 2 forms of counter missile operations:
- Missile Defense
- Missile Defeat
The missile defense aspect is the idea that you have platforms capable of shooting down enemy missiles in a way that moves away from the kinetic interceptor technology of today.
The current interceptor technology of Patriots and THAADs are incredibly expensive which is why you can only deploy them in a low density manner to counter isolated missile launches such as ICBMs from North Korea.
The cost of individual interceptors is so high that you would bankrupt yourself making enough of them to shoot down missiles that cost a fraction of the interceptor’s cost. If you are building 2 $50 million dollar interceptors to shoot down 1 $10 million dollar missile, you are bankrupting yourself.
The only cost effective way to shoot down swarms of Chinese missiles is using energy based weapons but that is not something that’s deployable today as the technology is still being developed.
Missile Defeat is the second form of defense: Where you saturate your conflict zone with sensors so that you can have longer early warnings of missile launches and be able to target them and defeat the missile launches before they actually launch. So basically, solve the problem of the 15 minute window that the US faced when scud hunting in the Iraqi desert.
This is currently being developed as well and is not in a finalized solution.
And of course, the Chinese aren’t sitting around either and will come up with ways to counter energy based missile defense and sensor networks attempting to defeat missile launches.
At the end of the day, the US military is no joke and the F-22 is probably the single most deadliest fighter ever created, probably even more so than the F-35 which funnily enough is crippling the US economy in peacetime with it’s $30–50,000 dollar per hour maintenance cost.
Stealth fighters are great to have in a war but terrible to have in a peace and at a time when US social unrest is at an all time high due to economic inequalities, perhaps the greatest threat to F-22s are congressional budget hearings rather than any weapon in the Chinese arsenal.
Nevertheless, the PRC has been investing heavily in denial weapons that would deny free air and sea access to the US military operating close to the Chinese seaboard (and keep them away from Taiwan).
One potential scenario is that assuming the US doesn’t rebase the F-22s to the 90 Japanese air-fields but keeps them concentrated in the current 8 or so bases they have:
The F-22s would probably not face that many losses from missile strikes but pilot rotation would have be high due to high churn over because of mental/physical strain from constant Chinese missile bombardments on F-22 airfields. F-22s would be more at risk of malfunction due to disruptions in their maintenance routines because of missile strikes. They would probably also fly lower numbers of sorties than optimal because of constant bombardment and these would normally be air defense or air escort sorties for aircraft trying to get closer to the Chinese sea board for recon or to disrupt Chinese air support for any potential invasion of Taiwan. They could also be used for strike missions on the mainland on high value military targets that non-stealth fighters would not be able to reach.
Edit: Thanks to Walter Tak in the comments pointing out that a fully loaded F-22 might only be restricted to hitting coastal targets rather than anything deep inside Chinese territory due to range limitations.
The F-22s would have to face several situations where they were operating at the edge of their combat radius because of the constant threat to air refuellers from Chinese stealth aircraft that would utilize their stealth to hunt for USAF/Japanese AWACS, EW, Recon and Refueling platforms in contested airspace. The F-22s would also be paired with a drone UCAV wingman that the F-22 would control remotely when operating in high-danger environments where the F-22 can’t be risked and a remotely piloted wingman from the invisible F-22 would take on the risk instead (assuming stable links can be maintained in the face of Chinese EW). If such comm links are disrupted, the UCAV would have to operate autonomously using onboard AI.
The longer the war drags on however, the worse it is for the F-22s as the US would have to begin pulling F-22 pilots from squadrons not based in the Pacific as the problem they would face is pilot shortages rather than F-22 shortages. A small but significant number of F-22s might be lost due to destruction on the ground or air crashes due to maintenance disruptions (more so the latter than the former). But the primary issue the USAF would face is that their F-22 pilots on the 8 air bases facing constant missile bombardment would begin to face serious mental and physical health problems due to concussions/mental strain/shell shock. They would need to be rotated out of combat in tours as short as a few days given how intense a US-China open conflict would be. The sortie rate could be maintained as long as pilots are able to recover and cognitively function once returned to combat after their tour. If they don’t and their mental/physical injuries are more permanent or long duration, the F-22 fleet would have to drastically reduce sorties correspondingly.
This strain isn’t a one way thing either: Chinese Rocket Force troops who are in underground silos, launching hundreds of missiles a day, breathing in toxic fumes from rocket fuel and facing constant bombardment of their own from US assets would face similar strains and have to be rotated constantly.
As mentioned earlier, in war we sometimes focus too much on the platform aspect and forget that it’s real human beings fighting it. And the question of the F-22 in the Pacific might ultimately boil down to which side has enough soldiers standing and in fighting condition at the end of the day: A tale as old as war itself
Edit: Thanks to JL Shin for the correction: the Strategic Rocket Force is still separate from the Strategic Support Force and both exist as separate entities so the ballistic missile force referred to in this answer would be the Strategic Rocket force.