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

Economic costs of war

watson.brown.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 618 posts

Re: Economic costs of war

#481

Post by baybal2 »

adventured wrote: post #314
baybal2 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disbanding Baath was far from a dumb thing, the dumb thing was disbanding them, and then just letting them go

We needed them to operate the structures of the government and military. They commanded loyalty from the people under them in the hierarchy. Most of those people - except for the worst of the leadership - should have been given government jobs, a steady paycheck, and amnesty. Instead the US had to attempt to rebuild all of those structures of command largely from the ground up anew, which takes years of time and trem…

> Instead the US had to attempt to rebuild all of those structures of command largely from the ground up anew,

The problem is exactly that it didn't.

Instead the US mounted all kinds of compromised personas into power, hoping that they can do without proper state institutes

Re: Economic costs of war

#482

Post by velcii »

Clubber wrote: post #462
asdff wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good news is there are more independent thoughts these days. 70 years ago it was hard having independent thoughts when it was three channels on TV and two newspapers and everyone listened to the same couple of popular artists. Back then, if you were too independent you would get beat up after class or worse.

This is spot on. As aggravating as YouTube censorship is, it's given the power of the press back to the people, if not just for a little bit. This flew under everyone's radar I think and the powers who typically control the news have been scrambling to regain control.

>it's given the power of the press back to the people

You are mistaken. Social media and things like youtube, just like elections, provide the appearance of power and choice, but just safely let people to let out pent up emotions. Then they safely contain it without it being spilled to the real world to a certain extent, at the same time give the people who participate in them a certain feeling of "doing something", a fallacy that even I am committing right now while I write this comment down..

As Noam Chomsky said "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum".

We already know that youtube and other media like reddit even HN "strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion", and as you said, they also allow very lively debate withing the rest of the spectrum..

Re: Economic costs of war

#483

Post by rini17 »

mc32 wrote: post #441
dcolkitt wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This thinking has undermined our actions in every major war since then, with the exception of GWI. Kosovo? Bosnia?

That was a European problem which Europeans should have solved by themselves. Why did we have to piss abound there when they could have managed it themselves? Let's say something came up in Puerto Rico... and then we have Europe come in and fix things instead of the US, does that seem the way it should work?

That isn't fair assessment. Europeans have plenty of experience how they failed to manage fixing problems by wars. Also at that time, NATO expansion was the only option on the table, Washington was uneasy about the prospects of some independent european alliance influenced much by the newly unified Germany. So it was only natural they decided to come and showcase fixing problems in ex-yugoslavia.

By the way Europe is in fact fixing American problems, by dealing with of refugees from american (and russian) wars, at the price of political and cultural turmoil.

Re: Economic costs of war

#484

Post by mc32 »

rayiner wrote: post #472
heresie-dabord wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A nation has to work out its own problems for itself. This point being raised, it is time for the US to spend money on education to support its own democracy.

The U.S. spends among the most on education of any developed country, both in absolute terms and a percentage of GDP. Our education spending is over 6% of GDP: https://waterpedia.wiki/image/education-spending-share-gdp-s... . All of the people involved in these foreign war debacles were highly pedigreed. (Fun fact: the President of Afghanistan, who fled Kabul yesterday, is an Ivy League-educated professor who "litera…

The cultural aspect is critical and people have overlooked in many places. The Optimism for Russia after the fall of the USSR, Ukraine and Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Places with no democratic foundation or tradition but plagued by corruption.

It needs to grow over decades organically for the people to get used to the idea and the institutions, for example, like in Hong-Kong. Singapore is another example and they yet don't have completely open democracy.

The ground must be fertile, as they say in allegorical terms, for democracy to take root. You can't impose it and then wish it to work and have it work. You can't throw money at it (as AF has shown us). It's a messy process. Sometimes, like Panama, you have the right accidents happen and it works --but at least then they could rely on the legacy of Marti (as they were part of Columbia during independence from Spain) and they had the US administer the Canal Zone till '00, I believe.

Re: Economic costs of war

#485

Post by fighterpilot »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #390
markus_zhang wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowadays it's already difficult if not impossible. In the age of big data and open manipulation, there is zero incentive for the politicians, corporations and media to promote independent thought for ordinary people, or to put more precisely only independent thoughts that benefit their agendas. The same goes to millions of middle class employees of those entities. They might want to teach independent thoughts to thei…

"They might want to teach independent thoughts to their own kids but other than that they have zero incentive to promote independent thoughts to their customers because it's profit and power that feeds their family." This point is about the only bright spot in an otherwise grim perspective. Just about everyone, and that appears to include Putin, wants to do well by their kids education-wise. The rest can fuck off and…

That's right. I don't have existential dread about Putin or Xi. They want total power, wealth and stability. They're corrupt pragmatists, not zealots who are going to die in a nuclear Armageddon. I fear the ideologically committed madman much more.

Re: Economic costs of war

#486

Post by NonContro »

api wrote: post #199
throwawaysea wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also literally left giant weapon caches for the Taliban to use. We will pay for that, but in a different way.

Or not? Maybe it’s China’s turn to burn trillions in Afghanistan.

China will not operate to Western standards of ethics. Look at how they maintain peace in Xinjiang.

Their method of operation, if they eventually feel confident enough to annex new territories, will be like a modern version of Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Mohammed. ie, 'neutralize' all males who oppose, and all women will be expected to find a Han husband.

Re: Economic costs of war

#487

Post by mc32 »

rayiner wrote: post #479
rjzzleep wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could argue that the seeds of destruction are so far entrenched, that there might only be 1-3 cycles left before the destruction of its own democracy is ensured. The Iranian clerical leadership was rejoicing on twitter about Trumps election claims and January 6th. This has also been cannonfodder for the Chinese leadership and countless other countries. I'd say the US elites are still somewhat in denial of what ac…

> Remember that Bill Barr had the unitary executive theory in mind long before Trump came into power, but previous Republican leadership considered it too radical for the American public to accept. The unitary executive dates back to the Federalists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Adopt... . You're invoking an anachronism--it wasn't until the 20th century that we even got the idea of "independ…

As recently as JFK we had Bobby Kennedy as AG (as competent as he was). Imagine the heart attacks people would have today if Biden tried putting a relative in as AG, or if Trump had tried the same.

Re: Economic costs of war

#488

Post by rayiner »

mc32 wrote: post #484
rayiner wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. spends among the most on education of any developed country, both in absolute terms and a percentage of GDP. Our education spending is over 6% of GDP: https://waterpedia.wiki/image/education-spending-share-gdp-s... . All of the people involved in these foreign war debacles were highly pedigreed. (Fun fact: the President of Afghanistan, who fled Kabul yesterday, is an Ivy League-educated professor who "litera…

The cultural aspect is critical and people have overlooked in many places. The Optimism for Russia after the fall of the USSR, Ukraine and Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Places with no democratic foundation or tradition but plagued by corruption. It needs to grow over decades organically for the people to get used to the idea and the institutions, for example, like in Hong-Kong. Singapore is another example and they yet do…

In Bangladesh, we have had real elections, leaving aside the the assassinations and that one military dictatorship. But we're back to one-party rule as the leader of the opposition party has been jailed. And that's after having 800+ years of civilization under the Sultanates and 200 years under Britain.

It's not economics--our PPP GDP per capita is about what the U.S. was at in the late 19th century (at which point it had been a successful multi-party democracy for 70-80 years).

Re: Economic costs of war

#489

Post by jjoonathan »

miked85 wrote: post #363
jjoonathan wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It couldn't have happened any other way. That's why the last two presidents promised it and failed to deliver.

They could have got US civilians and allies out first - there is no reason it had to happen this way.

Yes, there is. People want to believe that orderly evacuation is merely a function of planning. It isn't.

* Diplomats -- needed to show support for the government we put in place until it fell. It was always going to fall, so there was always going to be a scramble to get them out. This dynamic has happened before and it will happen again. It's a function of diplomacy, not planning.

* Afghani Allies -- we have to draw the line somewhere at who we evacuate, the line was always going to leave some people out who thought they should be evacuated, and that was always going to be a tragedy. The tragedy is a function of line drawing, not planning.

* Equipment -- we left equipment for the Afghani government. We could have taken it or destroyed it, but that would have been a vote of no confidence in the government we notionally supported, so diplomacy says we leave it and the taliban gets it. Again a function of diplomacy, not planning.

If you try to throw planning and resources at problems that are actually fundamental, what happens is that you announce a troop surge and then 8 years later your presidency is over and you are no closer to leaving Afghanistan.

Re: Economic costs of war

#490

Post by NonContro »

miked85 wrote: post #363
jjoonathan wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It couldn't have happened any other way. That's why the last two presidents promised it and failed to deliver.

They could have got US civilians and allies out first - there is no reason it had to happen this way.

And take them where? How many Afghans nationals were on the US payroll? Its not our responsibility to take them all into the USA or elsewhere where they can represent a continued burden to those societies, and the ranks of collaborators in Afghanistan were repeatedly infiltrated by Taliban operatives. How many of them will sneak through to the West and cause terror if we let them?

Collaborating with America should not come with a promise of a Green Card. It sets up conflicting motivations - if the 'nation building' fails, the collaborators can bug out to a much better country anyway.

Post reply on HN