The tragedy of the american military

[Ringo Stalin]

The Tragedy of the American Military

The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win.

www.theatlantic.com

"The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win. "
Defeats in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan... Or maybe the goal of military action was not to win, but to create more chaos in the world? In this case the US army did a great job!

 

[gino]

I agree that the US has put it's military in places it shouldn't have been. However, usually, those places were places that had just imploded and help needed to be given. Lebanon was a good example. We went in to distribute food and to stop innocents from being slaughtered. I happen to think that those are pretty good goals. The US doesn't put our military into places trying to take them over. We put our military into places like Lebanon, where there was widespread killing, in order to stop the killing, and give a stable government a chance to take root.

Unfortunately, we usually fail at trying to bring peace and a stable government to an area not ready for it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I agree that the US has put it's military in places it shouldn't have been. However, usually, those places were places that had just imploded and help needed to be given. Lebanon was a good example. We went in to distribute food and to stop innocents from being slaughtered. I happen to think that those are pretty good goals. The US doesn't put our military into places trying to take them over. We put our military into places like Lebanon, where there was widespread killing, in order to stop the killing, and give a stable government a chance to take root.

Unfortunately, we usually fail at trying to bring peace and a stable government to an area not ready for it.

And that’s the problem. It’s near impossible for a foreign power to just settle a civil conflict and provide a stable government that won’t be seen as a puppet.

the only way to make it work is to pick a side and occupy the country for the long term and even then it’s limited by the fact that at some point we can’t stay forever but the opposing forces live there.

all the American occupations that have been successful like Japan and Germany have come from the fact there was a local political apparatus that had wide public support in those countries we could co-opt and manage and only after we defeated those governments in a war, propping up an artificial regime won’t work unless we are willing to be far more violent then we are.

 

[Tigerace117]

The Tragedy of the American Military

The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win.

www.theatlantic.com

"The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win. "
Defeats in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan... Or maybe the goal of military action was not to win, but to create more chaos in the world? In this case the US army did a great job!

“Defeats”? So Saddam is still in power? Oh wait, he’s rotting in a shallow grave.

 

[Ringo Stalin]

“Defeats”? So Saddam is still in power? Oh wait, he’s rotting in a shallow grave.

A! It was all about Saddam? O.K. One Saddam gone thousands and thousands of ISIS to replace him... If this, I mean creation of the сhaos in the Middle East was the plan, US succeeded.

 

[Tigerace117]

A! It was all about Saddam? O.K. One Saddam gone thousands and thousands of ISIS to replace him... If this, I mean creation of the сhaos in the Middle East was the plan, US succeeded.

Yep, the goal was to kick Saddam out of power. The Syrian Civil War is evidence enough that leaving brutal dictators alone doesn’t make things any less “chaotic”.

 

[Dayton3]

Americans expect way too much out of our foreign interventions. I call it the "curse of World War Two". We want everything to be like American involvement in World War Two or at least our perceptions of WW2. That is a clear and obvious foreign attack to bring us into the conflict. A large scale straight up conflict, and most definitely a clear and obvious decisive formal victory.

Most wars are not like that (neither was World War 2 either but that's another discussion)

 

[Ringo Stalin]

Yep, the goal was to kick Saddam out of power. .

By the way.. Why? WHY!? How about Saudi Arabia brutal regime? Don't feel need to liberate these people?

 

[Tigerace117]

By the way.. Why? WHY!? How about Saudi Arabia brutal regime? Don't feel need to liberate these people?

Because he was a psychotic thug who gassed his own people repeatedly.

I would definitely be down to overthrow the House of Saud, but isolationists and anti Americans would scream bloody murder.

 

[Questerr]

Because he was a psychotic thug who gassed his own people repeatedly.

I would definitely be down to overthrow the House of Saud, but isolationists and anti Americans would scream bloody murder.

Saddam “gassed his own people” 20 years before we invaded Iraq.

 

[Tigerace117]

Saddam “gassed his own people” 20 years before we invaded Iraq.

He gassed his own people repeatedly, as well as conducting numerous other atrocities.

I get that to isolationists anybody who isn’t an American doesn’t matter, but it was important to prevent such atrocities from continuing.

 

[Questerr]

He gassed his own people repeatedly, as well as conducting numerous other atrocities.

I get that to isolationists anybody who isn’t an American doesn’t matter, but it was important to prevent such atrocities from continuing.

Bush’s *dad* was President the last time Saddam gassed his people. Why did that matter in 2003?

 

[Tigerace117]

Bush’s *dad* was President the last time Saddam gassed his people. Why did that matter in 2003?

Because he tried everything in his power to make us think he still had WMDs and would use them at a moments’ notice. Oh, and he did everything in his power to make us think he was involved with 9/11. Oh, and because he continued brutally oppressing his people pretty much up to the minute that the invasion kicked off.

 

[Dayton3]

By the way.. Why? WHY!? How about Saudi Arabia brutal regime? Don't feel need to liberate these people?

Why?

 

[Dayton3]

A! It was all about Saddam? O.K. One Saddam gone thousands and thousands of ISIS to replace him... If this, I mean creation of the сhaos in the Middle East was the plan, US succeeded.

One national leader with a military and especially one who has a history of using WMDs is infinitely more dangerous than thousands of ISIS terrorists.

 

[Questerr]

Because he tried everything in his power to make us think he still had WMDs and would use them at a moments’ notice. Oh, and he did everything in his power to make us think he was involved with 9/11. Oh, and because he continued brutally oppressing his people pretty much up to the minute that the invasion kicked off.

The people who were actually on the ground in Iraq inspecting his weapons programs didn’t think he had them.

There’s lots of countries that brutally oppress their people. What made Iraq special?

 

[bongsaway]

The Tragedy of the American Military

The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win.

www.theatlantic.com

"The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win. "
Defeats in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan... Or maybe the goal of military action was not to win, but to create more chaos in the world? In this case the US army did a great job!

Remember now kids it's all about money more than politics. With that thought in mind, who benefits in this country from all of this warring? Kids can you say the military industrial complex?

 

[Tigerace117]

The people who were actually on the ground in Iraq inspecting his weapons programs didn’t think he had them.

There’s lots of countries that brutally oppress their people. What made Iraq special?

No thanks to his constant efforts to hinder their inspection at every turn, which left a rather large doubt in many peoples’ minds that he really had complied— and indeed Georges Sada stated that the weapons were smuggled into Syria.

Because Saddam Hussein was dumb enough to try and make people think he was involved with the 9/11 attacks

 

[Questerr]

No thanks to his constant efforts to hinder their inspection at every turn, which left a rather large doubt in many peoples’ minds that he really had complied— and indeed Georges Sada stated that the weapons were smuggled into Syria.

Because Saddam Hussein was dumb enough to try and make people think he was involved with the 9/11 attacks

Id love to see a source for your claim that Saddam tried to make people think he was part of 9/11.

 

[noonereal]

The US doesn't put our military into places trying to take them over.

dude, with all respect, are you kidding me?
All our "good will" is to benefit our economy in some fashion.

 

[Tigerace117]

Id love to see a source for your claim that Saddam tried to make people think he was part of 9/11.

For example.....



I’ve been looking for the image for a while, it took me this long to find it.

 

[Questerr]

For example.....

View attachment 67301024

I’ve been looking for the image for a while, it took me this long to find it.

Okay, a random painting someone in Iraq did. Do you have any evidence that anyone outside of Iraq was even aware of that before the invasion?

 

[swing_voter]

If I were writing such a history now, I would call it Chickenhawk Nation, based on the derisive term for those eager to go to war, as long as someone else is going.

That's from the article.

The author doesn't know what she's talking about. American's aren't eager for war.

Our foreign affairs department does what it wants and Americans trust it to do the right thing without asking any questions. American's don't know much if anything about foreign affairs.

Once in while we read something in the newspaper, but we often lack context.

I've never met an American who is eager for war. Most wonder why we have troops in foreign lands.

"The Atlantic" is a very left wing magazine.

 

[Gondwanaland]

Because he tried everything in his power to make us think he still had WMDs and would use them at a moments’ notice. Oh, and he did everything in his power to make us think he was involved with 9/11. Oh, and because he continued brutally oppressing his people pretty much up to the minute that the invasion kicked off.

Rather, the Dubya administration is the one who did everything in their power to think those things.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Remember now kids it's all about money more than politics. With that thought in mind, who benefits in this country from all of this warring? Kids can you say the military industrial complex?

Yep, and that is supported almost entirely by our single-payer (DoD) system. At least you can take comfort in the fact that single-payer systems, carefully regulated by congress, result in massive cost savings.