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

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: War Without End

#21

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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.

> But in the aftermath of WWII, I think it's not surprising that this wasn't understood.

Then what's our excuse this time?

Re: War Without End

#22

Post by jessaustin »

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.

The military certainly recruits using lofty external motivations like "defending the nation" and "making the world a better place". Apparently it's not viewed as a problem, that all such high-minded bullshit is forgotten soon enough in war zones. There must be some mid-level officers who realize that this is the reason why they never win any of the wars they fight. Their men, as you say, have no other reasons to fight. In contrast, their opponents are fighting for their families, communities, and religion in addition to their comrades in arms.

Re: War Without End

#23

Post by cryptonector »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #21
cryptonector wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But in the aftermath of WWII, I think it's not surprising that this wasn't understood. Then what's our excuse this time?

As to Afghanistan? I don't know. It made sense to go in to fetch Bin Laden, but not to do any nation-building.

Re: War Without End

#24

Post by dang »

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 ?

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Also, the comment takes a significant step further into political flamewar. Can you please not do that on HN?

Re: War Without End

#25

Post by dang »

guelo wrote: post #19
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.

Soldiers don't make policy.

Re: War Without End

#26

Post by vesak »

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.

>The domino thing wasn't that crazy.

I wonder if that implies that the world should've gone full communist. That the attempts to stop that was just delaying the inevitable, even though the delay seems very successful right now.

I wonder if socialism would've ended up as authoritarian as it did if it hadn't been fought like it was.

Re: War Without End

#27

Post by Fomite »

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.

This is a really odd idea. I get that individually, in a given moment that might be why, but there has to be a reason. The military doesn't just stochastically find itself in other countries shooting people and getting shot at.

Re: War Without End

#28

Post by Fomite »

dang wrote: post #25
guelo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Soldiers don't make policy.

And yet I find the answer to "Why did you sign up?" to be "To defend the guy next to me!" an odd statement.

Should no one be a soldier in peacetime? Because logically, if the hypothetical guy next to you isn't getting hypothetically shot at...

Re: War Without End

#29

Post by dang »

Fomite wrote: post #28
dang wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soldiers don't make policy.

And yet I find the answer to "Why did you sign up?" to be "To defend the guy next to me!" an odd statement. Should no one be a soldier in peacetime? Because logically, if the hypothetical guy next to you isn't getting hypothetically shot at...

It isn't why people sign up; it's why they continue to fight after the reasons they signed up have become destroyed in them.

Re: War Without End

#30

Post by lamarpye »

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.

I imagine some people like being soldiers.
Post reply on HN