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

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: War Without End

#121

Post by dragonwriter »

cryptonector wrote: post #117
dragonwriter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It made sense to go in to fetch Bin Laden, but not to do any nation-building. Yeah, a US policy of destructive interference in Afghanistan without stabilization after the immediate aim is acheived has never had any serious adverse long-term consequences that would militate against that. (Neither, I suppose, in your world, has the same thing in Iraq caused problems with merely completely botched stabilization ignori…

The U.S. has no patience for nation-building. Like it or not, that's the truth. That leaves us with three options in cases like 9/11: - do nothing - go in, do what you can to get the bad guys and deter future attachs - go in and attempt nation-building for as long as the public will stand it, then skip town The third option is the one we always try. It also always fails. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Intervention in th…

> That leaves us with three options in cases like 9/11:

There are no other cases like 9/11, except maybe Pearl Harbor.

The third option worked pretty well there.

> The third option is the one we always try. It also always fails. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Vietnam was actually an example of the second option failing. While there was some effort at nation-building, it was as a means to defeating the “bad guys” (the so-called “hearts and minds” campaign), not rebuilding after taking care of the “bad guys”.

The third option also isn't what we tried in Afghanistan in the 1980s. It was more the second: get the Russians out, and don't worry about what happens after. There's a pretty direct line from that to the development of al-Qaeda (though the US option-2 intervention in the Middle East in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait also contributed. Notably, the idea that “the third option is what we always try” is completely false.)

> Intervention in the Balkans did work in the 90s, but we didn't occupy

The US was deeply involved in post-conflict peacekeeping and nation-building in the Balkans. In fact, it was still involved in that well into the time of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Re: War Without End

#122

Post by barrow-rider »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #85

The endless (and pointless) wars that our soldier are being spent on has a relatively easy solution Reinstate the draft. That might seem counterintuitive since that would give us a lot more soldiers to use, but it would give a lot of families, a lot of Americans real skin in the game. Wasting soldiers is easy as long as most people dont care and dont notice. But when it is your daughter/cousin/ uncle/parent someone y…

Rep. Chuck Rangel of NY even made this point in 2003 when he tried to push to get the draft reinstated as a protest of Iraq (Rangel was a Korean War vet; won a Bronze Star there).

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Re: War Without End

#123

Post by cryptonector »

dragonwriter wrote: post #121
cryptonector wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. has no patience for nation-building. Like it or not, that's the truth. That leaves us with three options in cases like 9/11: - do nothing - go in, do what you can to get the bad guys and deter future attachs - go in and attempt nation-building for as long as the public will stand it, then skip town The third option is the one we always try. It also always fails. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Intervention in th…

> That leaves us with three options in cases like 9/11: There are no other cases like 9/11, except maybe Pearl Harbor. The third option worked pretty well there. > The third option is the one we always try. It also always fails. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Vietnam was actually an example of the second option failing. While there was some effort at nation-building, it was as a means to defeating the “bad guys” (the so…

> > That leaves us with three options in cases like 9/11:

> There are no other cases like 9/11, except maybe Pearl Harbor.

> The third option worked pretty well there.

That was total war, with existential threats all around. 9/11 did not lead to total war.

> Vietnam was actually an example of the second option failing. While there was some effort at nation-building, it was as a means to defeating the “bad guys” (the so-called “hearts and minds” campaign), not rebuilding after taking care of the “bad guys”.

A distinction without much difference. Also true of Iraq (we engaged in nation-building both, for its own sake and to help pacify the place). We didn't stay very long after pacifying Iraq, and some would argue we never did pacify it.

> > Intervention in the Balkans did work in the 90s, but we didn't occupy

> The US was deeply involved in post-conflict peacekeeping and nation-building in the Balkans. In fact, it was still involved in that well into the time of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Yeah, but there once the Serbians lost, and once a deal was reached with Russia, there was no source of further conflict, and this all happened fairly early on after U.S. intervention began, so the American public's patience was never tried, and we did not occupy either. That's not the case in Afghanistan.

If anything the Balkans experience shows when we can nation-build: when the conflict ends decisively. (We didn't end the conflict. The Croats and Bosnians did, with our help, yes, but they did the heavy fighting.)

Re: War Without End

#124

Post by b1daly »

pavlov wrote: post #65
b1daly wrote: post #53

Even though the weird Qanon movement is delusional on the particulars, when it comes to pointing out the obvious betrayal of regular folk by cabals of elites milking the system for their benefit is strikingly on point.

[flagged]

I agree on this prosaic point, people/entities should not be absolved of their dangerous lies.

What I see as striking about the foundation of Qanon, is that their setup for the conspiracy theory, involves an almost leftist condemnation of the existing power structure in the US. And I agree with the general thrust of their diagnosis. This condemnation of some vary obvious problems in the US is actually kind of rare in the “mainstream media.” It’s strking a chord with many ordinary people.

On the particulars, as to who is behind the grand “conspiracy” and who is working for our salvation, they are completely off the rails. I was just surprised that their introductory propaganda didn’t sound as crazy as I expected.

Re: War Without End

#125

Post by dragonwriter »

cryptonector wrote: post #123
dragonwriter wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That leaves us with three options in cases like 9/11: There are no other cases like 9/11, except maybe Pearl Harbor. The third option worked pretty well there. > The third option is the one we always try. It also always fails. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Vietnam was actually an example of the second option failing. While there was some effort at nation-building, it was as a means to defeating the “bad guys” (the so…

> > That leaves us with three options in cases like 9/11: > There are no other cases like 9/11, except maybe Pearl Harbor. > The third option worked pretty well there. That was total war, with existential threats all around. 9/11 did not lead to total war. > Vietnam was actually an example of the second option failing. While there was some effort at nation-building, it was as a means to defeating the “bad guys” (the…

> Also true of Iraq (we engaged in nation-building both, for its own sake and to help pacify the place)

No, in Vietnam the nation-building effort was a strategy to defeat the original enemy we intervened to defeat; pure option-2 get the bad guy.

In Iraq, the completely bungled attempt at nation-building was an attempt to acheive a new objective that followed defeat of the original targeted enemy (part of that, sure, was targeting the enemies that emerged in the power vacuum created when we defeated the original target and disbanded the military and security services—a mistake we did not make in the post-WWII occupations and which was immediately and roundly denounced by experts across the political spectrum when it was done in Iraq—but just because it was defeating an enemy doesn't change that it was not part of the original “get the bad guy” effort.)

Re: War Without End

#126

Post by YZF »

freewilly1040 wrote: post #14
YZF wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 outse…

There was a point, early on, where it was basically Assad against everyone, including half his army (with the other half unsure). At that point a small push would have toppled Assad. I'd have pushed. This was before the foreign fighters, before ISIS (for those most part). Syria was a secular, fairly uniform, fairly peaceful, and fairly organized society. Very different story than Iraq. So that's one option. Another option would have been to threaten Assad and force him to come to some sort of agreement with the demonstrators. This was all before Russia and Iran got involved. Russia got involved when Assad was virtually days away from losing the civil war.

Re: War Without End

#127

Post by mmjaa »

zepto wrote: post #99
mmjaa wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I care not a fig for the constitution of a culture which allows the wanton and wilful destruction of civilisation without any recourse, responsibility, or indeed care in the world. Americans, willing recipients of its treasures, have nevertheless let their military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex run rampant over the worlds "lesser nations" for far too long, and the mechanism by which they fail, as a culture, to ta…

What culture hasn’t allowed for that?

The list of countries that are not invading others and destroying their civilisation is pretty long. You should educate yourself about the world.

Re: War Without End

#128

Post by mmjaa »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #100
mmjaa wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I care not a fig for the constitution of a culture which allows the wanton and wilful destruction of civilisation without any recourse, responsibility, or indeed care in the world. Americans, willing recipients of its treasures, have nevertheless let their military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex run rampant over the worlds "lesser nations" for far too long, and the mechanism by which they fail, as a culture, to ta…

There are between zero and very few that would be left to cast the first stone. I'm definitely not trying to defend the stereotype of the standard wilfully ignorant US citizen, but I think the stereotype would be representative of most cultures who have had enough 'victories' (or been told they've had enough victories) that they feel they're deserving of their prizes. To rearrange your wording slightly: I care not a…

Meh, more war justification. "But the other kids are doing it too" does not a morally authoritative position make.

Re: War Without End

#129

Post by mmjaa »

Joakal wrote: post #76
mmjaa wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are simply not interested in the victims of their wars. It runs counter to every iota of American culture, to acknowledge the failures of their warrior-classes, alas. But, you should know, the article did mention the casualties, at least glibly. "Many more Afghani's have died than were lost in the 9/11 attacks", is the only context the author can find, to appeal to his readers. Its a sad state of affairs wh…

Why did USA get so up in arms with Korea, Vietnam War, etc but not USA's ongoing Afghanistan/(Iraq?) war?

Because after Vietnam, Americans were not allowed to see the results of their warfare on television. Were it possible to publish war-crimes evidence freely and without military oversight, Americans would have much less lust for the wars they have been conned into paying for ..

Re: War Without End

#130

Post by ataturk »

Joakal wrote: post #76
mmjaa wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are simply not interested in the victims of their wars. It runs counter to every iota of American culture, to acknowledge the failures of their warrior-classes, alas. But, you should know, the article did mention the casualties, at least glibly. "Many more Afghani's have died than were lost in the 9/11 attacks", is the only context the author can find, to appeal to his readers. Its a sad state of affairs wh…

Why did USA get so up in arms with Korea, Vietnam War, etc but not USA's ongoing Afghanistan/(Iraq?) war?

[dead]
Post reply on HN