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

41–50 of 134 posts

Re: War Without End

#41

Post by barking »

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.

It wasn't crazy but if you go by the Ken Burns documentary series it was also wrong. America abandoned its principles to support French colonialism, ironically for fear that France would otherwise ally with the Soviets and thus pushed the Viet Minh firmly into the communist camp. The Viet Minh were Vietnamese nationalists first and foremost and showed no appetite for exporting communism post the Vietnam war.

Re: War Without End

#42

Post by [deleted] »

s_m_t wrote: post #20
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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: War Without End

#43

Post by baud147258 »

eadmund wrote: post #36
s_m_t wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Vietnam under socialist control turned out to be not anywhere as extreme Not as extreme as North Korea? No, but even the Soviet Union wasn't as extreme as North Korea. The subjugation of South Vietnam under North Vietnam was pretty brutal though — the Boat People didn't spring from nothing.

I remember working with a Boat People on my first job. He was a cool guy, but we never talked about Vietnam.

Re: War Without End

#44

Post by trophycase »

eadmund wrote: post #35

I have a very simple proposal to insure success in any military campaign: just make all tours of duty accompanied tours, i.e. send families along with the servicemembers, from the highest ranks to the lowest, and also make deployment to a combat zone on the order of a decade or two, not a few months or a year. I guarantee that any general staff whose wives & children are in the affected area and who will be there for…

What if I told you war was not about making peace.

Re: War Without End

#45

Post by baud147258 »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #13
platz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 creatio…

Shouldn't the URSS be responsible for the creation of the Taliban? Al-Qaeda was financed by Saudi Arabia and the current Iranina regime is the result of a revolution against the American-supported previous regime. Still the US made all those problems worse, but can't hold the full blame for their creation.

Re: War Without End

#46

Post by baud147258 »

mturmon wrote: post #9
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 parallels are striking. I just finished reading Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie , which is a story of Vietnam told through the lens of the experience of one particular American officer, and later civilian consultant: John Paul Vann. I heartily recommend the book - winner of the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize, and authored by someone who was on the ground in Vietnam on and off during the war. The b…

Who started the Vietnam war?

Re: War Without End

#47

Post by baud147258 »

jdietrich wrote: post #16
platz wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> have a better understanding of history than we do

Considering the level of literacy in the Middle-East, I doubt that's true. And I wouldn't call what they know history, but rather propaganda.

Re: War Without End

#48

Post by sorich87 »

eadmund wrote: post #35

I have a very simple proposal to insure success in any military campaign: just make all tours of duty accompanied tours, i.e. send families along with the servicemembers, from the highest ranks to the lowest, and also make deployment to a combat zone on the order of a decade or two, not a few months or a year. I guarantee that any general staff whose wives & children are in the affected area and who will be there for…

How is that different from colonization?

Re: War Without End

#49

Post by ahartmetz »

eadmund wrote: post #35

I have a very simple proposal to insure success in any military campaign: just make all tours of duty accompanied tours, i.e. send families along with the servicemembers, from the highest ranks to the lowest, and also make deployment to a combat zone on the order of a decade or two, not a few months or a year. I guarantee that any general staff whose wives & children are in the affected area and who will be there for…

An army of conscripts has a similar effect. When not only the "expendables" of society are sent to fight and die, politicians and voters will think differently about sending the army.

Re: War Without End

#50

Post by mnm1 »

What would "winning" these wars even look like? There is no answer to that because these are not wars that are meant to be won. How can you win something when you don't even know what winning means? These are simulacra wars unlike a war like WW2. Every war America has fought after WW2 has been a simulacra war, not intended to be won but intended to advance random political goals at the expense of our soldiers lives. It's as if America is stuck in a loop, relieving WW2 over and over again but without any actual enemies or wars to fight. Thus we create simulacra wars, wars that shouldn't exist, wars for profit and politics. No one in their right mind could possibly believe these wars are making us safer or whatever the propaganda du jour is. A lot of people just simply can't grasp the idea that they are being duped and lied to by their government, sent to die for nothing. I hope that tuition money is worth the ptsd or the lost limbs because people fighting these wars sure as hell aren't doing anything good for the rest of us Americans. That's why we have the constant "support the troops" bullshit at football games and everywhere else. If there was really a threat, if there was a real necessary war, that bullshit would be unnecessary. Men willingly volunteered to fight in WW2. Today, you couldn't have a draft without mass upheaval, protests, and resistance. I'd rather go to prison, my ultimate nightmare, than fight in these simulacra wars for others' profit. If there was a draft, I'd rather protest by shooting my commanding officers and die than fight in a bullshit war. Clearly though, there won't be a draft but about 1% of the US population is either so desperate for money or delusional that they are willing to fight these staged, unwinnable, simulacra wars. And so on and on they will continue.
Post reply on HN