As an American, I can say this with experience of age and wisdom that comes with it: America has never met a war it didn’t like…specifically, the American government and the military-industrial complex. We have a republic where our elected representatives rarely represent the citizenry’s views, in particular with respect to war.
“It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." – Major General Smedley Butler
Sun Tzu states. “To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the epitome of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the epitome of skill.”
In 1948, Stalin blockaded Berlin. The United States and our allies responded in force with a massive airlift. Stalin backed down.
In 1962 Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba. The United States responded with a naval blockade. Khrushchev backed down. History subsequently revealed a back room deal to remove out missiles from Turkey – but that still counts as subduing the enemy without fighting.
One can argue that the cold war was also won this way – we did not need more bombs, rockets and tanks than the Soviet Union. We just had to convince them that we did and they would go broke trying to keep up.
In 1941, the United States had the 17th largest army in the world – on par with Romania. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Nobody has ever attacked the United States because they thought we were too strong. However, just because we have the best military in the world doesn’t mean we have to use it.
Twenty years of war? That’s a piker compared to the Thirty Years War (between types of Christians…)
“The Thirty Years’ War, a series of wars fought by European nations for various reasons, ignited in 1618 over an attempt by the king of Bohemia (the future Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand II) to impose Catholicism throughout his domains. Protestant nobles rebelled, and by the 1630s most of continental Europe was at war.” History.com
The problem with Afghanistan is we had no plan besides remove the Taliban and shut down the camps. We never committed enough troops or had a clear vision beyond about a year. The constant tune over in commanders just made it worse. If we had dumped the same number of troops into Afghanistan that we did in Iraq we might have actually made a difference.
Consider the following scenario. We feel rightly or wrongly, that we need to intervene in some other country’s affairs. So we go in with military assistance.
We work with the indigenous troops and support them in operations to take over a province or region. Then we withdraw and see how well they do. Then we can make a decision as to whether to do the same thing with the rest of the country or simply cut our losses early and get out.
It should take a lot less than 20 years to figure out if it is going to work.
Khatkhattu Premium Member about 3 years ago
Only when people learn they can’t implant their values and viewpoints on others.
socalvillaguy Premium Member about 3 years ago
As an American, I can say this with experience of age and wisdom that comes with it: America has never met a war it didn’t like…specifically, the American government and the military-industrial complex. We have a republic where our elected representatives rarely represent the citizenry’s views, in particular with respect to war.
FreyjaRN Premium Member about 3 years ago
All of us must renounce war everywhere. We must be more eager to talk than to strike.
Display about 3 years ago
“Come on Wall Street, don’t be slow. Man, this war is go, go, go! Plenty o’ money to be made, supplyin’ the army with the tools of the trade.”
dflak about 3 years ago
Every war is two conflicts: the military conflict and the political conflict.
America has done well with its military conflicts. The political conflicts, not so well.
Politicians start wars and expect soldiers to finish them.
Ignatz Premium Member about 3 years ago
“War is a racket. It always has been.
“It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." – Major General Smedley Butler
dflak about 3 years ago
Sun Tzu states. “To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the epitome of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the epitome of skill.”
In 1948, Stalin blockaded Berlin. The United States and our allies responded in force with a massive airlift. Stalin backed down.
In 1962 Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba. The United States responded with a naval blockade. Khrushchev backed down. History subsequently revealed a back room deal to remove out missiles from Turkey – but that still counts as subduing the enemy without fighting.
One can argue that the cold war was also won this way – we did not need more bombs, rockets and tanks than the Soviet Union. We just had to convince them that we did and they would go broke trying to keep up.
In 1941, the United States had the 17th largest army in the world – on par with Romania. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Nobody has ever attacked the United States because they thought we were too strong. However, just because we have the best military in the world doesn’t mean we have to use it.
Pickled Pete about 3 years ago
Seemed like a good idea at the time..
bxclent Premium Member about 3 years ago
humans have always and will always wage war
jango about 3 years ago
Give peace a chance.
morningglory73 Premium Member about 3 years ago
Sad but true.
Jogger2 about 3 years ago
The story about Leo’s family, the Mafia, and Gabby was “to be continued.” I guess we have to guess when it will be continued.
braindead Premium Member about 3 years ago
Never wars?
And give up all that money to be made?
Jim Kerner about 3 years ago
Knock, knock joke for WWIII Knock, knock. Who’s there? I know what weapons we’ll use in WW IV. Rocks, clubs, fire. :-(
kaffekup about 3 years ago
Twenty years of war? That’s a piker compared to the Thirty Years War (between types of Christians…)
“The Thirty Years’ War, a series of wars fought by European nations for various reasons, ignited in 1618 over an attempt by the king of Bohemia (the future Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand II) to impose Catholicism throughout his domains. Protestant nobles rebelled, and by the 1630s most of continental Europe was at war.” History.com
Crash55 about 3 years ago
The problem with Afghanistan is we had no plan besides remove the Taliban and shut down the camps. We never committed enough troops or had a clear vision beyond about a year. The constant tune over in commanders just made it worse. If we had dumped the same number of troops into Afghanistan that we did in Iraq we might have actually made a difference.
dflak about 3 years ago
Consider the following scenario. We feel rightly or wrongly, that we need to intervene in some other country’s affairs. So we go in with military assistance.
We work with the indigenous troops and support them in operations to take over a province or region. Then we withdraw and see how well they do. Then we can make a decision as to whether to do the same thing with the rest of the country or simply cut our losses early and get out.
It should take a lot less than 20 years to figure out if it is going to work.