Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

War Without End

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 134 posts

Re: War Without End

#11

Post by fjsolwmv »

apo wrote: post #3

On one matter there can be no argument: The policies that sent these men and women abroad, with their emphasis on military action and their visions of reordering nations and cultures, have not succeeded. It is beyond honest dispute that the wars did not achieve what their organizers promised, no matter the party in power or the generals in command. Astonishingly expensive, strategically incoherent, sold by a shifting…

It's fascinating to see this in the NYT, the paper that served as GW Bush's propaganda wing for selling the lies that persuaded the US public to support the second Iraq war.

Re: War Without End

#12

Post by cryptonector »

apo wrote: post #3

On one matter there can be no argument: The policies that sent these men and women abroad, with their emphasis on military action and their visions of reordering nations and cultures, have not succeeded. It is beyond honest dispute that the wars did not achieve what their organizers promised, no matter the party in power or the generals in command. Astonishingly expensive, strategically incoherent, sold by a shifting…

The domino thing wasn't that crazy. China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia. Then what? Philippines? Thailand?

Of course, the right answer was that we couldn't take on all of those burdens, not even one, really, not for long. But in the aftermath of WWII, I think it's not surprising that this wasn't understood.

Re: War Without End

#13

Post by toomanybeersies »

platz wrote: post #4
apo wrote: post #3

On one matter there can be no argument: The policies that sent these men and women abroad, with their emphasis on military action and their visions of reordering nations and cultures, have not succeeded. It is beyond honest dispute that the wars did not achieve what their organizers promised, no matter the party in power or the generals in command. Astonishingly expensive, strategically incoherent, sold by a shifting…

So we should've just let ISIS take over Iraq and Syria ?

ISIS didn't exist in 2003 when the USA invaded Iraq.

ISIS was formed due to the power vacuum left after the USA withdrew from Iraq, largely by the former officer corps of Saddam's Iraqi Army, who had been left disenfranchised after the policy of de-Ba'athification [1] of the Iraqi government, replacing a vaguely competent government with a completely incompetent government.

ISIS was a problem of the USA's own creation, just like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the current Iranian regime.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba%27athification

Re: War Without End

#14

Post by freewilly1040 »

YZF wrote: post #10
platz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should've just let ISIS take over Iraq and Syria ?

The US did let ISIS take over large swaths of Iraq and Syria during Obama's presidency. The lack of action of the US is directly correlated to the rise of ISIS, the prolonged Syrian civil war with its disastrous consequences. It was years and many beheadings before the US decided to do anything about it and really the Russians have done most of the work as well. I really like Obama as a person but his middle east str…

Not caring too much about massacring civilians is also a key part of Russia's recipe in Syria. And furthermore it is a little soon to be declaring victory for them there.

What exactly would your strategy have been for a US intervention in Syria? Which local faction would you have supported? Would you have been willing to risk a hot war with Russia and Iran? When get involved in a war you don't get to say at the outset how far you go with it.

Re: War Without End

#15

Post by antisthenes »

If you are a soldier and find other reasons to fight rather than for the person next to you, then I wonder if you're fit to fight at all.

You know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is.

Re: War Without End

#16

Post by jdietrich »

platz wrote: post #7
epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISIS was created by the destabilization of those countries. There are plenty of easy to find links about this, so forgive me for not citing sources. Also, given the nature of the activities, it's difficult to find authoritative sources, but I believe there were some WikiLeaks that had diplomatic cables discussing this. Also if you read Syrian and Russian news, and the Syrians are certainly highly motivated to defeat…

Ok, but when are you "starting the clock", if not now, then how long ago? 10 years? 20? 30?

Most of the instability in the Middle East can be traced directly to the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Our current strategy is like fighting fire with gasoline, because the people we are fighting have a better understanding of history than we do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

Re: War Without End

#17

Post by jessaustin »

epicureanideal wrote: post #6
platz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should've just let ISIS take over Iraq and Syria ?

ISIS was created by the destabilization of those countries. There are plenty of easy to find links about this, so forgive me for not citing sources. Also, given the nature of the activities, it's difficult to find authoritative sources, but I believe there were some WikiLeaks that had diplomatic cables discussing this. Also if you read Syrian and Russian news, and the Syrians are certainly highly motivated to defeat…

...the US has seemingly been helping ISIS as much as fighting it.

Yeah it's amazing that after all the "moderate rebels" have left (if they ever existed in the first place), and we've kept flooding the area with weapons and ammunition, ISIS has ended up with lots of USA weapons and ammunition.

Re: War Without End

#18

Post by grey-area »

fjsolwmv wrote: post #11
apo wrote: post #3

On one matter there can be no argument: The policies that sent these men and women abroad, with their emphasis on military action and their visions of reordering nations and cultures, have not succeeded. It is beyond honest dispute that the wars did not achieve what their organizers promised, no matter the party in power or the generals in command. Astonishingly expensive, strategically incoherent, sold by a shifting…

It's fascinating to see this in the NYT, the paper that served as GW Bush's propaganda wing for selling the lies that persuaded the US public to support the second Iraq war.

Although the nytimes has always served as a mouthpiece for the current administration (this is how they get such good access, this is why they have remained on friendly terms with the Trump admin despite their mainly liberal readership), they have always run the occasional piece of real interest contrary to the official narrative (i.e. real journalism).

For example during the Obama administration (which increased the use of drone & missile attacks globally) they posted this inditement of the assassination without trial of a teenage American citizen:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-ki...

Re: War Without End

#19

Post by guelo »

antisthenes wrote: post #15

If you are a soldier and find other reasons to fight rather than for the person next to you, then I wonder if you're fit to fight at all. You know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is.

Sorry but that makes no sense from a policy point of view.

Re: War Without End

#20

Post by s_m_t »

cryptonector wrote: post #12
apo wrote: post #3

On one matter there can be no argument: The policies that sent these men and women abroad, with their emphasis on military action and their visions of reordering nations and cultures, have not succeeded. It is beyond honest dispute that the wars did not achieve what their organizers promised, no matter the party in power or the generals in command. Astonishingly expensive, strategically incoherent, sold by a shifting…

The domino thing wasn't that crazy. China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia. Then what? Philippines? Thailand? Of course, the right answer was that we couldn't take on all of those burdens, not even one, really, not for long. But in the aftermath of WWII, I think it's not surprising that this wasn't understood.

Everyone seems to also forget the then recent success of the Korean war. At risk of confusing what was known then and what is known now, well, look at NK vs SK today. Vietnam under socialist control turned out to be not anywhere as extreme but it would have been hard to guess that right during China's "great leap forward". Of course, things didn't turn out as well for neighboring Cambodia.
Post reply on HN