I mean US is aggressor state, so has experience in invading other countries. If they wanted to invade China they would have some experience in doing so. I just hope EU leaders won’t follow them this time.
Iraq and Afghanistan may very well be more detrimental than useful. They made the US military focus on aspects of warfare that aren't relevant to a near peer conflict, and unlearning that is a difficult task that's currently consuming a lot of resources.
When confronted with slightly more competent weak opponents (e.g. Taliban), the US military performs far more poorly. This poor performance worsens sharply as enemy competence scales.
Full-scale war with near-peer or peer adversaries? USA is SOL.
But aside from the loud-mouthed war hawks or perma-doomers on YouTube, I don't think anyone in the US or China (or Russia, for that matter) with decision-making power really has the appetite for direct open conflict, since it means the end of all things.
Expect more proxy wars like Ukraine...
Russia and America have fought albeit slightly indirectly.
US soldiers engaged Wagner in Syria in the Battle of Khasham.
Rough outcome of this battle.
US / SDF side - 1 wounded
Wagner / Syrian government side - 50 - 100 dead. upto 200 wounded.
My point is that the following paragraph doesn't exactly hold up if you consider Wagner to be "slight more competent weak opponents" which I would.
> When confronted with slightly more competent weak opponents (e.g. Taliban), the US military performs far more poorly. This poor performance worsens sharply as enemy competence scales.
And sure, the US has successfully 'fought' similar 'battles' against groups of Taliban troops before, but eventually lost the war.