US spends way too much fighting "cleanly"

[Joby]

The US has spent more money on making sophisticated, precise weaponry (entirely reliant on expensive, sophisticated, perhaps vulnerable communications systems) than anyone else for decades now. Yet after a decade in Afghanistan, we are probably going to pay more in settlement to the victims of an errant strike on a hospital than the Russians spent on munitions with which they deliberately targeted hospitals in Syria.

In about a year after beginning a brutal bombing campaign a ceasefire has been put in place, with Russian interests preserved and its ally remaining in power there. Not only that, Assad now seems to be on an upswing and appearing in a more sturdy position than the previous few years. Russia will pay no real price for the deaths of thousands of civilians, nor arming one of the worlds most authoritarian regimes. Instead the message is clearly sent out that what matters may not be the most advanced, ultra-expensive weaponry but the will to win the war.

While the US spends billions on weapons that try to win hearts and minds, the Russians paid far, far less and received results that seem to be better than for them than we've received from the weakling governments we established after our intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the lesson, especially from Iraq, seems to reinforce the message when it became apparent that the war was not going to be turned by drones but by paying sunni sheikhs to be on our side and using infantry (in concert with other forces) to clean out cities the old-fashioned way: Going door to door and killing everyone who got in their way. Obviously Iraq was not merely a military problem (not even chiefly perhaps), but if no price is to be paid, the Russian strategy of hitting neighborhoods where enemies is far economical than using methods designed to avoid any collateral damage.

The US is obviously not facing the same position as Russia, and obviously holds itself to different standards. But if a war is not worth the blood it takes to end it effectively and as soon as possible, then perhaps its not worth fighting in the first place. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the US was attacked or felt to be in serious harms way that we would use whatever weapons we needed to eliminate the threat with collateral damage being viewed as just that, but that's not the case as we attempt to use precise weapons to save as much infrastructure as possible while only targeting individuals deemed to be enemies. You reach a point were it makes more sense just to take the gloves off and finish the job and end the war instead and rebuild instead of fighting ineffectively for decades on end.

We say we go to war with an enemy that has declared its own state, yet initially allow its oil production to continue, allow freedom of movement for goods and food to its cities, allow the lights to remain on etc. We are never going to defeat an enemy if that is the attitude we take. Of course, we won't win **** because the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians all play by a completely different rulebook in a game that only we (and those living under our security umbrella) believe has rules. Hell, even those living under our 'blanket" such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or Qatar don't believe any of that liberal western philosophy that when you bomb someone, you have to ensure they may still like you after you're done.

This all adds up to enormous cost to the US. Also, this doesn't even get into the potential weaknesses of a system such as this when facing potential enemies who may be able to counter our precision systems and make them ineffective.

In short the middle east especially is a region the US doesn't have the stomach to win wars in without massive, massive cost on strategy that is likely not effective anyways.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

i agree, it's been far too long since we flexed our 600,000,000,000 dollar muscles unrestrained. a demonstration strike may be in order, several nations come to mind.

 

[DaveFagan]

I take issue with most everything you said. I do not think the "hospital" strike in Afghanistan was an errant strike. The coordinates were in US and Allies hands. No confusion there. We are in Iraq to get what we can get and feed the very profitable War Machine. Keep in mind that "lies" led us into the Iraq debacle. Even today the ISIS elements in Iraq are supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Saudis "hired" the CIA to train many of these elements. The USA can absolutely rely upon a "Presstitute Media (Paul Craig Roberts)" to give credibility cover stories that make it sound like the USA occupies high moral ground and that would be what most Americans believe. One should count the number of viable democracies that the USA wars have left in place to find the truth. Zero. It's just too friggin' hard to deal with democracies and dictators know how to treat the Corporations interested in the natural resources that are always the root cause of these many wars, liberations, freedom fighting, etc. and a plethora of other misnomers. Noone has attacked the USA. We don't have any business doing wars in Countries that are no threat to the USA.

 

[Joby]

I wasn't trying to argue for or against interventionism in itself, and I agree that the US war machine does a fine job for people at Lockheed and Bechtel and Boeing and all that. FFS the US is spending $1,500 Billion on a fighter jet program who's culmination will be a jet that loses much of its effectiveness in the rain.

Imho US efforts on the ground in Syria, with the CIA vetting groups the saudis could supply with Raytheon made weapons probably contributed quite a bit to the Russian intervention.

 

[chuckiechan]

If we start being careless in who we kill, people are going to be mad at us and maybe even won't like us.

Wait until China finally gets painted into a corner and goes into North Korea and colonizes it!

It will be a sneak attack (Chinese preferred style of attack) and the streets will be flowing with blood.

 

[lenski7]

If we start being careless in who we kill, people are going to be mad at us and maybe even won't like us.

Wait until China finally gets painted into a corner and goes into North Korea and colonizes it!

It will be a sneak attack (Chinese preferred style of attack) and the streets will be flowing with blood.

Wait, wait, wait. You are telling me Daddy Kim Jung's army isn't the biggest in the world, and we don't have an arsenal of hydrogen bombs exceeding China :O, Daddy Kim Jong lied! He told me 2,000 Chinese to one N.Korean! He told me he would crush China with one breath!

 

[Thoreau72]

The US has spent more money on making sophisticated, precise weaponry (entirely reliant on expensive, sophisticated, perhaps vulnerable communications systems) than anyone else for decades now. Yet after a decade in Afghanistan, we are probably going to pay more in settlement to the victims of an errant strike on a hospital than the Russians spent on munitions with which they deliberately targeted hospitals in Syria.

In about a year after beginning a brutal bombing campaign a ceasefire has been put in place, with Russian interests preserved and its ally remaining in power there. Not only that, Assad now seems to be on an upswing and appearing in a more sturdy position than the previous few years. Russia will pay no real price for the deaths of thousands of civilians, nor arming one of the worlds most authoritarian regimes. Instead the message is clearly sent out that what matters may not be the most advanced, ultra-expensive weaponry but the will to win the war.

While the US spends billions on weapons that try to win hearts and minds, the Russians paid far, far less and received results that seem to be better than for them than we've received from the weakling governments we established after our intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the lesson, especially from Iraq, seems to reinforce the message when it became apparent that the war was not going to be turned by drones but by paying sunni sheikhs to be on our side and using infantry (in concert with other forces) to clean out cities the old-fashioned way: Going door to door and killing everyone who got in their way. Obviously Iraq was not merely a military problem (not even chiefly perhaps), but if no price is to be paid, the Russian strategy of hitting neighborhoods where enemies is far economical than using methods designed to avoid any collateral damage.

The US is obviously not facing the same position as Russia, and obviously holds itself to different standards. But if a war is not worth the blood it takes to end it effectively and as soon as possible, then perhaps its not worth fighting in the first place. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the US was attacked or felt to be in serious harms way that we would use whatever weapons we needed to eliminate the threat with collateral damage being viewed as just that, but that's not the case as we attempt to use precise weapons to save as much infrastructure as possible while only targeting individuals deemed to be enemies. You reach a point were it makes more sense just to take the gloves off and finish the job and end the war instead and rebuild instead of fighting ineffectively for decades on end.

We say we go to war with an enemy that has declared its own state, yet initially allow its oil production to continue, allow freedom of movement for goods and food to its cities, allow the lights to remain on etc. We are never going to defeat an enemy if that is the attitude we take. Of course, we won't win **** because the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians all play by a completely different rulebook in a game that only we (and those living under our security umbrella) believe has rules. Hell, even those living under our 'blanket" such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or Qatar don't believe any of that liberal western philosophy that when you bomb someone, you have to ensure they may still like you after you're done.

This all adds up to enormous cost to the US. Also, this doesn't even get into the potential weaknesses of a system such as this when facing potential enemies who may be able to counter our precision systems and make them ineffective.

In short the middle east especially is a region the US doesn't have the stomach to win wars in without massive, massive cost on strategy that is likely not effective anyways.

You make good points here and there, but how do you know the Russians struck the hospital in question? How do you know they deliberately targeted it?

As for the differences between the Russian operations in Syria and our own operations there, the huge and major difference is that Russia is fighting to support its ally, a legitimately elected government. We, OTOH, have been fighting for regime change.

Simply put, the Russians are motivated by some measure of honesty and law, while our operations are really nothing but military aggression as defined in international law.

But you're certainly right that the Russians military equipment is more practical than ours. 30 years ago that was especially true, but today's Russian weapons are quite sophisticated.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Once again that flawed premise from the war Hawks.

"The reason we haven't won the war on terror yet, is because we just haven't killed enough people, just a few more, and a few more and we got this thing done, eventually, I promise."

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I take issue with most everything you said. I do not think the "hospital" strike in Afghanistan was an errant strike. The coordinates were in US and Allies hands. No confusion there. We are in Iraq to get what we can get and feed the very profitable War Machine. Keep in mind that "lies" led us into the Iraq debacle. Even today the ISIS elements in Iraq are supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Saudis "hired" the CIA to train many of these elements. The USA can absolutely rely upon a "Presstitute Media (Paul Craig Roberts)" to give credibility cover stories that make it sound like the USA occupies high moral ground and that would be what most Americans believe. One should count the number of viable democracies that the USA wars have left in place to find the truth. Zero. It's just too friggin' hard to deal with democracies and dictators know how to treat the Corporations interested in the natural resources that are always the root cause of these many wars, liberations, freedom fighting, etc. and a plethora of other misnomers. Noone has attacked the USA. We don't have any business doing wars in Countries that are no threat to the USA.

Lets see, ummmm, wars we have been in where viable democracies were left in place.

Well, guess its always easy to start at the beginning and so one would start with the 1. American Revolution, unless you think we didn't have a democracy after that? 2. Civil War? Were we still a democracy after? 3. Spanish American War? Cuba free and a democracy upon our leaving, Philippines became a viable democracy after we left, Guam and Puerto Rico are apart of the still, somewhat viable American Democracy... 4. WWI--too numerous to name, almost all of Europe had viable democracies after the war 5. WW2 see WW1 also Japan, China, etc... 6. Korean War S. Korea has a viable democracy 7. Vietnam-- we left S. Vietnam a viable democracy until invaded and taken over by communists wherein we failed in our pledged obligations to come to their aid with promised financial and military assistance 8. Grenada--- viable 9. Panama--- I live here, also a viable and vibrant democracy

Guess it depends on what you would call a democracy and how you define viable, we could dicker about how viable in some instances, but the fact of the matter is, you are just flat out wrong on this, as proven, lazy assertion. That obviously impacts/does damage to your piggybacked assertion, "It's just too friggin' hard to deal with democracies and dictators know how to treat the Corporations interested in the natural resources that are always the root cause of these many wars, liberations, freedom fighting, etc. "

 

[RetiredUSN]

I would prefer that we send the all the intellectuals to war, as they seem to think that they have all the answers.

 

[Thoreau72]

If we start being careless in who we kill, people are going to be mad at us and maybe even won't like us.

Wait until China finally gets painted into a corner and goes into North Korea and colonizes it!

It will be a sneak attack (Chinese preferred style of attack) and the streets will be flowing with blood.

It's been that way for more than a decade--the rest of the world dislikes us because we are vain and arrogant and do not obey the law.

Then along comes Snowden, and we find out they go through and catalog all manner of digital information, and that perspective they have is validated--we are the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and we don't know right from wrong.

 

[Joby]

Once again that flawed premise from the war Hawks.

"The reason we haven't won the war on terror yet, is because we just haven't killed enough people, just a few more, and a few more and we got this thing done, eventually, I promise."

War Hawks? There is a difference between pushing this endless, "sanitary" war that we've had ongoing for 15 years and counting, and wrapping things up in less than a year (ie Russian intervention in Syria).

I'm not the one advocating endless drone strikes into perpetuity.

The Russian intervention, despite its barbarity, will be shorter lived and more successful than our adventure into Iraq. An adventure in which the US mistakenly thought we could win a war without getting into the nitty gritty and which we turned around when we accepted reality. Would have taken far less years, lives, and dollars if we had realized this sooner. OH-- And how long did that Iraqi govt we spent a decade creating last when put under pressure?

If we don't have the stomach, instead of paying billions upon billions for drones then perhaps we should pay far less to assist militaries that are more inclined to kill their enemies than "build democracy" or some other nonsense. Especially in a region that doesn't understand the concept.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The Russian intervention, despite its barbarity, will be shorter lived and more successful than our adventure into Iraq.

Well, to bad the day after you made that post, Russia announced it was pulling out of Syria. And things are not noticeably better then they were before they went in.

 

[Tigerace117]

I take issue with most everything you said. I do not think the "hospital" strike in Afghanistan was an errant strike. The coordinates were in US and Allies hands. No confusion there. We are in Iraq to get what we can get and feed the very profitable War Machine. Keep in mind that "lies" led us into the Iraq debacle. Even today the ISIS elements in Iraq are supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Saudis "hired" the CIA to train many of these elements. The USA can absolutely rely upon a "Presstitute Media (Paul Craig Roberts)" to give credibility cover stories that make it sound like the USA occupies high moral ground and that would be what most Americans believe. One should count the number of viable democracies that the USA wars have left in place to find the truth. Zero. It's just too friggin' hard to deal with democracies and dictators know how to treat the Corporations interested in the natural resources that are always the root cause of these many wars, liberations, freedom fighting, etc. and a plethora of other misnomers. Noone has attacked the USA. We don't have any business doing wars in Countries that are no threat to the USA.

Well, to bad the day after you made that post, Russia announced it was pulling out of Syria. And things are not noticeably better then they were before they went in.

Just to name one example, the aftermath of World War Two created a number of democracies, at least in the American occupied portions of Europe.

Assad's still in power, which was the point of the Russian intervention, and he's not falling anytime soon. Now their pulling gout before the predictions of quagmire become true.

 

[DaveFagan]

Just to name one example, the aftermath of World War Two created a number of democracies, at least in the American occupied portions of Europe.

Assad's still in power, which was the point of the Russian intervention, and he's not falling anytime soon. Now their pulling gout before the predictions of quagmire become true.

It appears that the Russians are pulling out because they have the headchoppers funded, armed, and trained by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey and likely the Pentagon and the CIA on the run. Now the scumbag allies of the USA in the regime change actions we have encouraged are going to have to swallow the turd and accept the fact that Syrians like Assad and Assad is not going to allow a pipeline through his Nation. Turkey funneled arms and poison gas precursors to the headchoppers in Syria. Turkey shot down a Russian plane helping the Syrian people kill headchoppers. Turkey is the regional "bad guy" in a region with no shortage of "bad guys." We should be helping Syrians, but the USA business interests don't get their Energy investments that way. USA initiated quagmires are wonderful for the "War is good business, and business is good" crowd of USA War supported Corporations. Good marketing by these groups maintains steady war profit streams and the USA local yokels can't see that the wool is being pulled over their eyes. End of story.

 

[Tigerace117]

"Funded by the CIA and Pentagon"

What proof is there, if any, that that's the case? What reason would the Pentagon even have? Syrians clearly don't like Assad or the Alawites---there's been more than one revolt against the regime run by his father, and before that against the Alawites that the French were using as puppets to run the country, and in each case they were put down. Syrian Alawites like Assad, sure---but they don't even come close to making up the bulk of the population. And yeah, conspiracy theory bs about how the oil companies are pulling the wool over people's eyes is distasteful at best, because it implies that mass murdering scumbags like Saddam should have been left alone.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Just to name one example, the aftermath of World War Two created a number of democracies, at least in the American occupied portions of Europe.

Assad's still in power, which was the point of the Russian intervention, and he's not falling anytime soon. Now their pulling gout before the predictions of quagmire become true.

Huh? Please tell me, what "new democracies" were created in Western Europe after WWII? Because I would love to see that list. Because as far as I can remember, each of those nations after the war returned to the same form of government they had prior to the war breaking out (either a Republic, or a Constitutional Parlaimentary Monarchy). In looking at the nations of Europe the only changes I can see are the ones in the East that largely frll from their prior governments to "Socialist Republics". And those were most definately not in the "American occupied" areas.

And Assad is still in power, but not much more stable then he was prior to their intervention. And how much of the current pause in expansion is due to Russian intervention or NATO intervention is open to debate. Myself, I believe it is a bit of both. ISIS is now trying to regain momentum in Iraq, and that is pulling forces out of their advances in Syria. But I bet that if NATO was to stop their intervention, they would surge right back into Syria again and Assad would again be on rocky ground.

This is not a simple conflict, and had at least 6 major groups involved in the conflict. Thankfully it is at the moment 4 against 1 (Iraq, Syria, Kurds, NATO against ISIS), so the loss of one is not a major problem. But now that NATO is much more involved than they were before, Russia can now back out and the pressure will remain as it was before. Since ISIS is trying to claim both Iraq and Syria, the pressure is still on.

 

[Tigerace117]

Japan wasn't a democracy. Italy wasn't a democracy. Germany---or rather, West Germany---wasn't a democracy.

As for Assad, the point of the Russian intervention was to stabilize him enough that the Russian bases in Syria wouldn't be threatened by a possible regime collapse. Before the intervention, every other day you had news stating that Assad's regime was on teh brink of collapse. Now, on the other hand.....

ISIS is also effectively stalled in both Syria and Iraq, and the locals are getting more and more pissed at the foreigners, which is why their trying to shift towards Libya and other areas of possible expansion.

 

[Thoreau72]

Well, to bad the day after you made that post, Russia announced it was pulling out of Syria. And things are not noticeably better then they were before they went in.

Whether things are better or worse depends upon one's perspective, doesn't it?

 

[DaveFagan]

"Funded by the CIA and Pentagon"

What proof is there, if any, that that's the case? What reason would the Pentagon even have? Syrians clearly don't like Assad or the Alawites---there's been more than one revolt against the regime run by his father, and before that against the Alawites that the French were using as puppets to run the country, and in each case they were put down. Syrian Alawites like Assad, sure---but they don't even come close to making up the bulk of the population. And yeah, conspiracy theory bs about how the oil companies are pulling the wool over people's eyes is distasteful at best, because it implies that mass murdering scumbags like Saddam should have been left alone.

The USA admitted spending billions attempting to destabilize Assad/Syria. The Pentagon admitted to their failed $500 million training program for alleged "moderate rebels" that promptly surrnendered their weapons to the headchoppers. The CIA took $1.5 billion from Saudi Arabia to train "moderate rebels" that were then inserted into Syria. Saudi Arabia is the home of Salafist/al Queda/Wahabi/Sunni sects that are the backbone of the headchoppers. As regards Saddam; he should have been left alone. He wasn't attacking or presenting a realistic threat against the USA. We've spent a trillion dollars in Iraq and only generated death, destruction, and chaos on a massive scale. Saddam was not a good guy, but his system that kept Iraq under control and peaceful was effective. Iraq was a cosmopolitan region with women teaching in University positions. You can't change the facts.

 

[Tigerace117]

"Iraq was a cosmopolitan region; Saddam's methods for keeping Iraq under control and peaceful were effective"

Iraq was only "peaceful" if you were the right religion. I'm sure the Kurds and the Iraqis who got gassed after Desert Storm would be pleased to hear that Saddam's method created such a well working system. Oh, wait.

Not to mention a lot of Saddam's ex Intel guys who jumped ship for ISIS.

As for the rebels, you can give people all the cash and training you want, but ultimately their in control. **** happens.

 

[Northern Light]

A couple of remarks...

One is that we signed war conventions which legally bind us to avoid indiscriminate killing. In practice we don't always uphold it, but we still maintain the spirit of that obligation.

The other thing is that the U.S. military-industrial complex is enormous and most of the pre-text for sophistication is actually just about R&D and profit. The companies fill a demand for the military branches and they do so by competing with each other to form the most sophisticated, high-tech devices. In reality we could probably fight our wars with less expensive tech.

The last thing is that the desire for U.S. hegemony requires tech that is ahead of the rest. So far we are able to maintain this edge. Unfortunately our hegemony is currently being challenged by changes to the global economy. Economic "soft powers" like China are really chipping away at us.

 

[braindrain]

A couple of remarks...

One is that we signed war conventions which legally bind us to avoid indiscriminate killing. In practice we don't always uphold it, but we still maintain the spirit of that obligation.

The other thing is that the U.S. military-industrial complex is enormous and most of the pre-text for sophistication is actually just about R&D and profit. The companies fill a demand for the military branches and they do so by competing with each other to form the most sophisticated, high-tech devices. In reality we could probably fight our wars with less expensive tech.

The last thing is that the desire for U.S. hegemony requires tech that is ahead of the rest. So far we are able to maintain this edge. Unfortunately our hegemony is currently being challenged by changes to the global economy. Economic "soft powers" like China are really chipping away at us.

You are right that we could fight our wars with less expensive tech. It would just require more service members dying to achieve our goals.

 

[Northern Light]

You are right that we could fight our wars with less expensive tech. It would just require more service members dying to achieve our goals.

I guess... but we also have a lot of exhausted, traumatized and shell-shocked service members coming back home now, in the tens of thousands. The suicide rate is higher than the combat rate. The nature of these wars are extremely taxing and despite our billions of dollars in tech, the guerrilla warfare being waged against us still seems to be effective. Historically, guerrilla warfare is the only thing that has ever defeated the U.S.

 

[braindrain]

I guess... but we also have a lot of exhausted, traumatized and shell-shocked service members coming back home now, in the tens of thousands. The suicide rate is higher than the combat rate. The nature of these wars are extremely taxing and despite our billions of dollars in tech, the guerrilla warfare being waged against us still seems to be effective. Historically, guerrilla warfare is the only thing that has ever defeated the U.S.

And you somehow think we would have less of that if we reduced the technological edge we had over those we fight and more soldiers were being killed and maimed. I don't think so.
Sorry but your are helping me prove my point.