Great article by Andrew Sullivan here: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-establishment-will-never-say-no-to-a-war.html
It begins:
he question before us is a relatively simple one: What would be the criteria for removing our remaining troops from the Iraqi, Syrian, and more general Middle Eastern conflicts? Or, for that matter, from Afghanistan, where we have been trapped for more than 17 long years of still open-ended occupation?
If the answer to that question is that only when each of these countries is a healthy pro-American democracy, and Islamist terrorism has ceased to be an “enduring” threat to the West, then the answer, as the old Bob Mankoff joke has it, is “How about never — is never good for you?”
Or consider what a shocked Lieutenant General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. of the Marines, the incoming commander of Central Command opined after hearing the news of Trump’s withdrawal of 7,000 troops from Afghanistan yesterday: “If we left precipitously right now, I do not believe [the Afghan forces] would be able to successfully defend their country. I don’t know how long it’s going to take. I think that one of the things that would actually provide the most damage to them would be if we put a timeline on it and we said we were going out at a certain point in time.”
Get that? After 17 years, we’ve gotten nowhere, like every single occupier before us. But for that reason, we have to stay. These commanders have been singing this tune year after year for 17 years of occupation, and secretaries of Defense have kept agreeing with them. Trump gave them one last surge of troops — violating his own campaign promise — and we got nowhere one more time. It is getting close to insane.
A nice jab at "liberal" war hawks is included:
The same for liberal internationalism, which also never seems to die, however many catastrophes it spawns. There’s always an impending “massacre” somewhere to justify intervention, which is why we have been dutifully told that withdrawing from Syria would lead to a “slaughter” of the Kurds. Remember the massacre that gave Hillary Clinton a chance to launch another Middle Eastern war in Libya? How many more innocents were slaughtered after we toppled Qaddafi than those in danger before? And all because Clinton refused to learn a single thing from Iraq.
And how about Syria?:
The Washington Post reported a week ago, long before Trump’s tweet, that “US troops will now stay in Syria indefinitely, controlling a third of the country, and facing peril on many fronts.” A third of an entire country! How many Americans knew or know this? Very, very few. I didn’t. And this was not designed to fight ISIS. It was explicitly defended as part of a long-term pushback on Iranian and Russian influence in the region. It seems to me that this kind of shift in rationale — again with no congressional approval — is almost a definition of mission creep. We should not be asking why Trump has decided to nip this in the bud, following his clear and popular mandate to get us out of the region. We should be asking how on earth did the Establishment find a way to occupy yet another Middle Eastern country without any democratic buy-in at all. At least there was a congressional debate before the Iraq War and a robust public discussion. This time, they have launched a new war, occupied a third of another country, changed the rationale so they stay for ever, and tried to hide it!
The whole article is a devastating indictment of the US' foolhardy policies in the Middle East and the necessity to finally say "Enough is Enough".
You cant win a war unless you kill everyone. Bomb the cities into rubble and send wave after wave of troops.
The last war the U.S. won was WWII
The Allies bombed cities and sent a massive amount of troops in.
Civilians were in those cities.
Nobody complained back then but now we have pansies running everything.
Since then they adopted a policy of only killing those who try to kill them.
Stupid.
You kill a terrorist and then walk away so his son can pick up the gun and become the terrorist?
To win a war you have to kill EVERYONE.
Terrorist countries will never stop until they are annihilated.
@nomorechess saidActually... there were people complaining back then.
You cant win a war unless you kill everyone. Bomb the cities into rubble and send wave after wave of troops.
The last war the U.S. won was WWII
The Allies bombed cities and sent a massive amount of troops in.
Civilians were in those cities.
Nobody complained back then but now we have pansies running everything.
Since then they adopted a policy of only killing th ...[text shortened]... a war you have to kill EVERYONE.
Terrorist countries will never stop until they are annihilated.
And to say “the US won WW2” is a bit of an exaggeration. The allies won it, with a massive effort on the part of the Soviet Union.
Your basic premise is half correct though.
You have to annihilate whole countries / cultures to win a war. And you have to invest in brand new infrastructure / political and bureaucratic structures, etc.
But then you get to realism. Is it actually possible? Hardly. Most political movements aren’t hemmed by borders. And every method of complete annihilation will damage other countries as well.
And the fact that most countries have signed treaties to stop genocides, means the perpetrating country will come under all sorts of nasty sanctions.
So, annihilating complete countries, peoples and cultures isn’t a real possibility; certainly not in the short term. Just ask Israel. They’ve been on both sides of that coin in the last 80 years.
So where does that land us then?
STOP INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES!
@nomorechess saidhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
You cant win a war unless you kill everyone. Bomb the cities into rubble and send wave after wave of troops.
The last war the U.S. won was WWII
The Allies bombed cities and sent a massive amount of troops in.
@nomorechess saidTo win a war you have to kill EVERYONE.
You cant win a war unless you kill everyone. Bomb the cities into rubble and send wave after wave of troops.
The last war the U.S. won was WWII
The Allies bombed cities and sent a massive amount of troops in.
Civilians were in those cities.
Nobody complained back then but now we have pansies running everything.
Since then they adopted a policy of only killing th ...[text shortened]... a war you have to kill EVERYONE.
Terrorist countries will never stop until they are annihilated.
So amusing to hear the philosophy of these armchair generals here. They talk so tough about war, knowing they'll never have to lift a finger to fight in one.
The current American policy of only killing those who try to kill you is working great. Keep up the good work! Employing soldiers for the last 17 years in the middle East and many more years to come. That's job security right there and let's be honest. Who wants them to come home and cry? Oh, and I fought for the Army of Northern Virginia.
A real war.
@nomorechess saidEmploy soldiers to pick up plastic at the beach instead. Job security. Safer too. Some kid is less likely to lose their father.
The current American policy of only killing those who try to kill you is working great. Keep up the good work! Employing soldiers for the last 17 years in the middle East and many more years to come. That's job security right there and let's be honest. Who wants them to come home and cry? Oh, and I fought for the Army of Northern Virginia.
A real war.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@no1marauder said"Enough" isn't enough unless you've repaired the (all!) damage you've done, as well as stopped doing more damage.
The whole article is a devastating indictment of the US' foolhardy policies in the Middle East and the necessity to finally say "Enough is Enough".
Doing a s&*#load of damage to innocent civilians and then crawling back home with your tail between your legs is not enough, you cowardly bully.
@nomorechess saidhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mouse_That_Roared_(film)
You cant win a war unless you kill everyone. Bomb the cities into rubble and send wave after wave of troops.
The last war the U.S. won was WWII
The Allies bombed cities and sent a massive amount of troops in.
Civilians were in those cities.
Nobody complained back then but now we have pansies running everything.
Since then they adopted a policy of only killing th ...[text shortened]... a war you have to kill EVERYONE.
Terrorist countries will never stop until they are annihilated.
@nomorechess saidDamn you are old.
The current American policy of only killing those who try to kill you is working great. Keep up the good work! Employing soldiers for the last 17 years in the middle East and many more years to come. That's job security right there and let's be honest. Who wants them to come home and cry? Oh, and I fought for the Army of Northern Virginia.
A real war.
Why didn't the Union have to kill you before your side surrendered?
@nomorechess saidAnd after the US "won" the war, there were continued insurgencies for about a decade, even though there were no surrounding Nazi nations supplying them arms and support.
You cant win a war unless you kill everyone. Bomb the cities into rubble and send wave after wave of troops.
The last war the U.S. won was WWII
The Allies bombed cities and sent a massive amount of troops in.
Civilians were in those cities.
Nobody complained back then but now we have pansies running everything.
Since then they adopted a policy of only killing th ...[text shortened]... a war you have to kill EVERYONE.
Terrorist countries will never stop until they are annihilated.
In fact, there are still neo-Nazis running about today.
Funny that.
However, in today's world, they expect to take over a country in the Middle East with all kinds of support from neighboring countries and not stay?
In fact, we still have troops in Korea.
Hilarious!
@whodey saidDidn't you say you were happy that the candidate supported by neo-Nazis won the 2016 presidential election?
And after the US "won" the war, there were continued insurgencies for about a decade, even though there were no surrounding Nazi nations supplying them arms and support.
In fact, there are still neo-Nazis running about today.
Funny that.
However, in today's world, they expect to take over a country in the Middle East with all kinds of support from neighboring countries and not stay?
In fact, we still have troops in Korea.
Hilarious!
@no1marauder saidWow, just wow!
Great article by Andrew Sullivan here: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-establishment-will-never-say-no-to-a-war.html
It begins:
he question before us is a relatively simple one: What would be the criteria for removing our remaining troops from the Iraqi, Syrian, and more general Middle Eastern conflicts? Or, for that matter, from Afghanistan, ...[text shortened]... f the US' foolhardy policies in the Middle East and the necessity to finally say "Enough is Enough".
So Trump pulls out of Syria and wants to begin to pull troops out of Afghanistan and you give him no credit whatsoever. In fact, you took an opportunity just to further bludgeon someone who has dared to stand up to the "establishment" and is now being bludgeon by everyone around him for it.
@kazetnagorra saidNeo-Nazis support Trump because he wants to secure the border on the premise that this will reduce immigration by dark skinned people.
Didn't you say you were happy that the candidate supported by neo-Nazis won the 2016 presidential election?
But the issue of securing the border has NOTHING to do with immigration other than the government deciding who gets in and who does not.
I think we can all agree that certain people should not be allowed across, such as MS 13 who self identify by tattooing themselves head to foot saying, "Here I am!"
No, securing the border would then initiate a much needed robust discussion among voters as to who should get in and who should not, so they can decide.