The US invasion of Iraq is a masterpiece of power projection to nearly the farthest point on the planet from the center of US military logistics. It might never be equaled. But the bulk of the trillions of dollars spent on the wars were spent in a futile effort to stifle insurgencies with no armor, no missiles, no aircraft, no artillery pieces, no ships, no fiber optics, no satellites...
The Iraq invasion was both a masterpiece of military execution and complete failure of leadership. Magical thinking at the top believed that spontaneous joy re: liberation would magically make all problems vanish.
There was complete ignorance of sectarian and tribal societal overlays. The leadership claimed to believe that a democratic society would magically appear. As a result the US disbanded the army, which prevented an military junta from appearing, but also created a decade of mayhem.
Note that if you believe people like Naomi Klein (and I accept that you might not), the US actively worked to prevent spontaneous democratic movements within Iraq, in favor of a centralized government not chosen by the Iraqis. This isn't too hard to believe because it's historically what the US did in the past (see: Korea, Vietnam, etc). In this alternative explanation, democracy didn't appear in Iraq not by a "failure" of US planning, but by design. At least initially.
The invasion of Iraq pales in comparison with the D-Day invasion of World War II[Operation Overlord cost 29,000 U.S. lives, conflict in Iraq ~5,000] among others. And the invasion of Iraq was never intended to "stifle insurgencies".
Prior to the invasion there were no significant "insurgencies" in Iraq. The coalition invasion of Iraq eliminated the Baathist regime of Sadaam Hussein and that, together with the U.S.'s misguided concept of "nation-building", made political reorganization (including insurgencies) possible.
Well, the better the weapons, the fewer the casualties on those who operate them. It would be better to evaluate all casualties of the war, including civilian casualties.
>"This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon — or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting — not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant."
Guerrilla warfare represents "a method of fighting" not dependent on advanced capabilities.
The US invasion of Iraq is a masterpiece of power projection to nearly the farthest point on the planet from the center of US military logistics. It might never be equaled. But the bulk of the trillions of dollars spent on the wars were spent in a futile effort to stifle insurgencies with no armor, no missiles, no aircraft, no artillery pieces, no ships, no fiber optics, no satellites...