Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Open-Industry-8396 t1_jbi2lbx wrote

I never understand how people can vote or make judgements on shit they don't know about. No one in this forum has any idea what the hell our troops are doing in Syria. Someone with a lot more info than us made this decision. I think I'll defer to their judgement instead of thinking myself a military strategist.

15

mod-corruption t1_jbi3pxa wrote

Lots of anti-war people can tell you exactly what we’re doing in Syria. The idea that you would just trust the decision to go to war to the military apparatus without any congressional oversight or approval is pretty crazy. Keep in mind, Obama held a vote to go to war in Syria, the vote did not pass, and Obama went forward with it anyways.

12

Sixfeatsmall05 t1_jbi568z wrote

And a whole lot of anti war people were extremely outraged about Syrian refugees and assad’s gas attacks. Can’t have it both ways. Can’t want us to help get those peoples homes back and punish Assad while also not having troops there to do it. This isn’t empire, we have less than a BCT of SF and support troops, they are helping the people of Syria not invading the country.

5

Dugen t1_jbj1ys7 wrote

I really wish I could say that knowledgeable people made a wise decision here, but Iraq and Afghanistan make it hard to trust anymore. We do reactionary things with no plan capable of succeeding and stick with them to save face. Military intervention is messy and has all kinds of unintended side-effects. I hope we are doing good things here and I don't know enough to say we aren't, but I'm not willing to trust that we are simply because congress approves of it.

2

nickmanc86 t1_jbjh04g wrote

So glad someone said this. Often these personel are there in an advisory or other non combat roles. I am not saying that is the case here but people love to spout off about complicated shit like they know what they are talking about. The world is a complicated place but apparently it can be distilled down to a one or two sentence headline for all the prescient Einsteins out there to analyze. I'm not saying people in government are geniuses or fucking us over but give them at least a little credit and have a little humility when it comes to what you know or don't know ffs.

2

Parsley-Waste t1_jbja6y1 wrote

Yes. Please let’s not have independence thoughts people. Just shut up and go back to your jobs.

1

Tai9ch t1_jbja35h wrote

The best antidote to trusting the government is having any knowledge whatsoever of history or current events.

0

smartest_kobold t1_jbidg5k wrote

The "Jewish Space Laser" lady is voting here. So the appeal to authority is very questionable.

Let's look at our military strategists. They all work for the Pentagon, so they've got nothing but incentive to keep the war machine rolling, despite not winning a war in 75 years.

−2

ArbitraryOrder t1_jbiw9ju wrote

>despite not winning a war in 75 years

I see you know absolutely nothing about US Military intervention. Here is every war completed and inarguably won since WW2:

  • Korea (1950-1953)
  • Lebanon (1958)
  • Dominican Republic (Civil War, 1965-1966)
  • Korea DMZ (1967-1969)
  • Grenada (1983)
  • Libya (1986)
  • Tanker War (1987-1988)
  • Panama (1989-1990)
  • Gulf War (1990-1991)
  • Iraqi no-Fly Zone (1991-2003), Prevented Saddam from commiting larger genocide
  • Haiti (1994-1995)
  • Kosovo (1998-1999)
  • Pakistan (2004-2018), Pakistan asked us to intervene against the Taliban
  • Somali Pirates (2009-2016)
  • Libya (2011)
  • Uganda (Lord's Resistance Army, 2011-2017)
  • Iraq ISIL (2014-2021)
  • Libya (2015-2019)

This is just wars in which the United States formerly sent troops to a situation and that went out way both on the battlefield and politically afterwards. Normally wars won are shorter and less memorable, but not always.

The list of ongoing Conflicts are as follows:

  • Yemen, (2002 - Present)
  • Somali, against Mujahideen, al Shabab, ISIS (2007 - Present)
  • Syria, against ISIS, Russia, and Assad Regime (2014 - Present)
  • Niger, to stop Boko Haram (2018 - Present)

Wars with mixed outcomes that ended:

  • Bosnia/Croatia (1992-1995), this war was a stalemate effectively which ended in the Dayton Accords and an akward situation for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • Iraq (2003-2011), Saddam and Ba'ath party were gone. Iraq got a democratic government despite it being shaky, and overall less violence, but ISIS and other such groups were formed from this conflict, which forced the US to return in 2014.

For the United States, most losses come not from lack of Military might but from lack of political will, because that is how smaller groups beat larger nations in war. The definite losses:

  • Veitnam (1965-1973 US, 1955-1975 Overall), remember we didn't start this war, it was ongoing before we got involved.
  • Loatian Civil War (1959-1975)
  • Permesta Rebellion Indonesia (1958-1961)
  • Bay of Pigs (1961)
  • Somali (1992-1995)
  • Afghanistan (2001-2021), succeed in initial mission, but couldn't hold the country forever from Taliban as the geography is difficult to control and other geopolitical goals became more pressing.
−6

smartest_kobold t1_jbj5s7c wrote

>I see you know absolutely nothing about US Military intervention. Here is every war completed and inarguably won since WW2:

Korea was a tie. This list shows we are great at installing a US friendly dictator quickly or getting stuck in a protracted war. Six of these "wins" are Iraq or Libya.

>This is just wars in which the United States formerly sent troops to a situation and that went out way both on the battlefield and politically afterwards. Normally wars won are shorter and less memorable, but not always. The list of ongoing Conflicts are as follows:

Helping our BFF MBS conduct a genocide in Yemen is not really a military win, so much as a war crime.

>Wars with mixed outcomes that ended:

We're still in Iraq even though they asked us to leave.

>For the United States, most losses come not from lack of Military might but from lack of political will

You think we could've won Vietnam, Laos, or Afghanistan if we'd only had more political will?You think the US could've conducted an unprovoked military conquest of Cuba at the height of the Cold War without nuclear exchange?

Now, we did eventually "win" in Indonesia with a brutal right wing coup, but... Uh... brutal right wing coup.

1

ArbitraryOrder t1_jbjac4s wrote

>Korea was a tie.

By no means can you claim that winning half of the peninsula when it was completely occupied a tie.

>Six of these "wins" are Iraq or Libya.

And? They are still separate wars with distinct missions.

>This list shows we are great at installing a US friendly dictator quickly or getting stuck in a protracted war.

The list really isn't as simple as you make it sound. Only in one of these Wars did the United States seek to install a dictatorship where a democratic regime was in place, the Dominican Civil War, and in others like in Indonesia, Veitnam, and Libya, it wasn't really a set of good choices, just useful or not.

In far more conflicts, the United States overthrew dictatorship to restore/set up democracy: Panama, Iraq, Grenada, Kosovo, Bosnia/Croatia, Somali (attempted), Afghanistan (while we were there), Korea.

>Helping our BFF MBS conduct a genocide in Yemen is not really a military win, so much as a war crime.

Did I say every War was moral? Fuck no. And the Military can win an immoral conflict. Also that is ongoing so it has no determination.

>We're still in Iraq even though they asked us to leave.

Some of them asked us to leave, but many asked us to stay. It isn't as cut and dry as you pretend it is.

>You think we could've won Vietnam, Laos, or Afghanistan if we'd only had more political will?

With Afghanistan unquestionably yes, that was the status quo. Veitnam and Laos are more questionable, but like all guerrilla fighters against superior forces their goal was to make us not want to fight more than to beat us militarily. That is the Total Defense Strategy, making the occupying forces quit before they can gain total control.

>Now, we did eventually "win" in Indonesia with a brutal right wing coup, but... Uh... brutal right wing coup.

Sure, but we were talking about Wars, not coups. They aren't the same thing.

−1