War in perpetuity.

Post Reply New Topic

A power vacuum, I assume, is a place where nations determine their own course rather than being coerced by some powerful external power hungry nation.

eisenhauer, in his farewell address, said-

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."


he didn't warn us of the dangers of the military-industrial-congressional complex, for nothing. it was a decent-but-futile gesture, in that the behaviors he cautioned us about did not change.

Perpetual war is the best way for a super power to kill itself off. Spain had been the mightiest power in 16th and 17th century Europe, but the Spanish monarchy and church had squandered all their military might and treasure by engaging in one seemingly endless religious war after another with Protestantism. That's why even today, Spain is a second rate military and economic power.
Neocons and triumphalist evangelicals believe we can wage endless war for God and/or country, and that we will never lose our standing as the world's lone super power. The Spanish had the exact same delusion. Funny how history has a way of repeating itself.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Surely war itself can be debilitating to a country insofar as the death and injury of the combatants is concerned but the process has advanced to the point where preparation for war alone can suck enough vigor from a nation to destroy it. All the production for war products these days is horrendously expensive and diverts money and ingenuity and labor from the maintenance and advance of a decent civil life. The results may be technologically impressive but completely useless in daily activity. The intricate gadgetry now being developed takes away from the necessities of health and education and even the basics of food and housing and transportation and information infrastructure which is the real strength of a nation.

Forever War will take the U.S. down the same sink hole as Rome.

ruveyn

Now that the 3 kings are no longer in power (Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld) I don't think the US will be as foolish in the future, and had Rumsfeld been as competent as say, Paris Hilton, Iraq would've had a functioning infrastructure by now (yea, electricity AND plumbing) and would be on their way to economic recovery. Instead they send blackwater to harrass and halliburton to loot, I am still royally pissed at the Bush administration. When I was there, I saw a functioning college (most of the interpreters were engineers, lawyers, and even a doctor) but an ad hoc power grid and garbage literally piled in the streets. If the US feels even partly responsible to improve Iraq, they'll have their work cut out for them.

And the USSR.


/Which was our strategy in originally supporting the terrorists...to get them to do what they are now doing to us: milk us slowly over there while not tending to our own matters at home.

Which is why we're upscaling our assault on Afghanistan and still are maintaining a large presence in Iraq and still using private "security" firms for work in Afghanistan and Iraq despite all reports saying that they hurt our efforts.

Your statement is naive.

Iraq War II was foolish and ill founded. Even so, if the U.S. had pulled out after the overthrow of Sadam Hussein we would have been better off than we ended up by staying.

Occupying and attempting to control a Muslim nation is more foolish and futile than attempting to herd squirrels.

ruveyn

Especially fundamentalist squirrels who dream of 72 virgin female squirrels.

We need war for our economy to survive, especially with the fact that we have a military industrial complex that needs arms exports no matter what.

Of course. And the Mafia is a great organization for keeping a certain sector of oddly talented people busy and earning a fairly good living.

The 50k troops are there as advisers, the US is just giving them every chance at having a secure future, and no it wasn't a smart idea to have started it, I'm just saying if we walk away too fast, people who have the means will likely commit further atrocities and I'm glad we're at least attempting to prevent that because I happen to find atrocities deeply disturbing.

As for Afghanistan, the US had a valid reason to enter the country, and the "surge" actually worked in Iraq, you might not have seen the effect it had, but it worked, places that were once very hostile were safe, I was there, I saw it. Stepping up efforts in Afghanistan could produce positive results as well, that doesn't mean going door to door, given terrain differences, it'll take a different approach, but at least the current administration has an ounce of competence. As for the security firms, Iraq took the option of banning blackwater, the Afghanistan government can do the same, nobody, and I mean nobody who's met blackwater personnel actually likes them.

See http://ikners.com/world-issues/middle-e ... rawal.html

I read it, the security situation did revert, and it sounds bad, but the Iraqis as a whole are reluctant to take charge of their basic security and they were adamant that the US implement a withdrawal timeline, but now that they see their only means of security leaving, I read reports of the panic it causes, so thinking ahead, we leave 50k troops as adviser and emergency security, that way they learn to apply what we've spent years trying to teach them. I don't think that's a bad idea, it gives them a chance to do this themselves. Overall, you're right, in the future the US needs to stop invading other countries, but the issue right here is damage control, and the Afghans may be fundamental in their beliefs, but Iraqis are much more flexible in that area, and maybe with their backs up against the wall, they'll be able to hold up their own security.

I admire your expectations but since social manipulation by enforcement, as per the current major problems in the USA itself, regarding immigration and drug control seem to be a total failure, I fail to see how that strategy could be effective in the much more volatile social environment in Iraq or Afghanistan.