There was no reason, in 1812, the US had to fight a guerrilla war against the British. We weren’t a rebellion, we were a nation that had 40 years to build a military capable of going toe to toe with anybody.
In particular, a guerrilla force, by definition, was incapable of protecting the national capital.
After some initial and highly shameful reverses, the Army recovered and performed quite well under Scott, Brown and others in open field battle against British regulars. The US Navy showed throughout the war that they were perfectly capable of going toe to toe with the RN, given roughly equal forces.
And, of course, Jackson took an outnumbered incredibly motley force and nevertheless handed the Brits one of the worst defeats in their entire history.
IOW, there was no reason at all for the Brits to have been a “superior trained and equipped force” other than our own initial hubris.
We, BTW, learned that lesson, and have never since performed shamefully in combat in the same way.
Ah, you sound like you are not fuzzy on your history, so I will defer to your take on it, with one distinction: the Battle of New Orleans was not fought open-field style. The US Army established positions behind fortified positions (such as cottonbales) and slaughtered the incoming troops.
“And, of course, Jackson took an outnumbered incredibly motley force and nevertheless handed the Brits one of the worst defeats in their entire history.”
I had a least two motley forebears at the Battle of New Orleans. One was in the militia, the other was a pirate who sailed with Jean Lafitte. LaFitte and company brought cannon to the party.
We were not the empire we are today.
A lot of folks here recall Eisenhower’s military industrial complex and Washington’s no foreign entanglements speeches.
Yet at the same time we pound our chests and talk about nuking people.
Where am I missing the disconnect?