I am not really suggesting any particular one-size-fits-all solution, I think we could begin to come to an agreement if you didn't want everything to go perfectly, your optimism is based on wishful thinking and that's an issue I'm taking up with you.

My optimism is based on the fact that huge numbers of people living in dictators want to be free. That's the basis for a controlled uprising. Something similar to Afghanistan and Libya. Regardless of what percentage of the population that is, those are my allies. I wish to support them the same as I would hope they would support me if the tables were turned.

If an Iran war is barely an inconvenience to the US or if it's a tumultuous decades-long transition, don't you think that matters?

It needs to be done regardless, as part of the response to 9/11. Also for geostrategic reasons we should be taking down hostile dictators with an official policy of "Death to USA".

If it is indeed tumultuous, that is a measure of the Iranian people themselves, it's not the fault of the US. In Tunisia and Panama we didn't see a tumultuous situation.

It's really important that Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam were not nearly as successful as you're making it out to be because that's probably the main reason why these wars are so infamous. If the wars were outstanding successes, easy wars for the US, the people rose up after being liberated and the transition to democracy was easy then this stigma for the wars that exists, would not be there.

Vietnam was very tough because we were fighting an appealing ideology that people were dumb enough to believe. After the 3.5-week war in Iraq we were fighting a large number of religious bigots.

In Iraq the people did rise up, just as they rose up in 1991. But this time it was a controlled uprising, which you could see by looking at the long queues to join the new Iraqi security forces. Even when those queues were repeatedly bombed, ie people were being killed before they even received their first paycheck, the people lined up again and again and again.

It was breathtaking.

The fact that these wars are poorly-understood by the public is something that needs to be addressed. But before informing the public, we need to win the intellectual debate. ie you.

I think given your unwillingness to even accept the judgement of non-affiliated organisations who rate democracies

The problem I see is that you're unwilling to accept your own eyes. Don't trust these "organizations". They're probably all fronts for the communists. We had the same thing with feminist groups. Not one of them was saying "Hey, Iraqi women are being raped by their own government. Why aren't we taking action?".

When the number of political parties changes from 1 to 300+, I expect any democracy index to see a MASSIVE spike. If it doesn't happen, don't trust them.

and your unwavering but quite frankly unsubstantiated optimism about how easy future wars will be,

Libya was the future war. It was so damn easy.

that our disagreement is fairly well clarified but I don't see a way to proceed beyond that.

Yes, good point. I'm not sure how we can reconcile this. We need another 20 liberations before we can agree on an average and standard deviation. But it first requires you to believe your own eyes instead of what the media tells you. 1 vs 300+ is a MASSIVE difference. Iraq is one of the most fascinating democracies on the entire planet.

The Iraq war may not even deserve to be called a war of liberation,

YOU should have supported it for the purpose of liberation, if nothing else.

the US has made it clear many times that the war was to prevent Iraqi acquisition of WMDs.

The US doesn't speak with one voice. And there are strategic reasons why WMD was touted as the main reason. But it's easy enough to see where Bush said "I believe God wants everyone to be free" or where he wrote "Let freedom reign" to see what was in his heart.

The war cost billions of dollars for the US,

Yes, the US is a very generous country. Their response to 9/11 wasn't to fire off nukes at random hostile governments, but to liberate millions of people from state-slavery. The UK was very generous too, roughly matching the US on a per capita basis. Australia was well behind, only contributing 1/7 of what the US/UK contributed, and pulling out earlier than both of them. A damn shame we couldn't be last out.

many lives were lost

Not many lives were lost in the initial invasion, which is ALL YOU NEED.

and WMDs weren't even there.

That was a good thing. It made the 3.5 week war easier and cheaper.

The war damaged US credibility,

And now is the time to repair it, starting with you.

it undermined US leadership

Quite frankly, it shouldn't be the US leading this. Someone like the Philippines should step up to the plate and say "we stand for freedom". No-one's going to accuse the Philippines of imperialism. Or at least Australia should be doing this. The world is a disgrace that everything is left to the US or nothing is done. Although I guess Senegal did liberate Gambia. But that's about it.

and still today, Iraq is not far from anarchy, it is a place of instability and violence and its very existence is under threat.

If the US, or preferably NATO, stays engaged, making sure the Iraqi security forces are professional, then I simply don't see how anything can go wrong. No-one can defeat NATO-backed forces. If you look at the protests in the US (larger than Iraq) are you going to say the US is not far from anarchy, it's a place of instability and it's very existence is under threat? It's just a consequence of freedom. Freedom is messy and noisy.

So when you zoom out from this issue of liberation, a high price was paid, we can't only focus on the morality of the invasion.

I'm not ONLY focused on that. But it's a great starting point and needs to be won in the intellectual realm.

It's just really hard to see why Westerners like Australians would support the Iraq war in my opinion, given the facts and benefit of hindsight.

I find it really hard to see how westerners like Australians can support indefinite institutionalized rape and tongue-cutting.

If you really think your list (besides SK) is a list of US success then I just don't know what to say. The poor opinion of these wars is due to how badly they went but then you say that they were massive successes.

Wars are normally judged by how many of your own soldiers are killed to achieve the objective, not how many enemy civilians were killed. By the traditional measure, Saddam was defeated in 3.5 weeks, for a cost of 100 US lives, the majority of which were friendly fire I believe. Contrast this to 3000 dead on 9/11.

You have this optimism for future wars despite every previous war being messy and horrible,

What was horrible was institutionalized rape and tongue-chopping under Saddam.

War and democracy are both messy, but they have their place.

I don't think it comes from analysis of history, it's just wishful thinking?

Sometimes we get the result we want without a single bomb being dropped. Like Tunisia and Sudan. Sometimes we get what we want (Gaddafi deposed) by dropping some bombs for zero US lives lost. It's not wishful thinking, it's maths.

Afghanistan was close to 0 lives lost for the initial battlefield defeat too. The Taliban were deposed. The Northern Alliance were anti-Taliban and anti-Al Qaeda, exactly as we wanted. We hung around because we had EVEN MORE objectives we wanted to achieve. But that was such a ridiculously good START.

Oh well, I think it is clear where the disagreement is and clear enough that we won't progress from here. If an Iran-US war occurs, I'll hope it goes as you say.

Sure.

Paul, I applaud your moral vision, and feel you make many great points. You're arguing your case like a skillful lawyer, which perhaps you actually are.

Thankyou. I'm actually a computer programmer, so I'm used to dealing with logic. I'm also used to getting a logical response. :-)

I'm not sure you're fully taking in to account the results of the last two invasions.

Let's see. :-)

We've been in Afghanistan for 20 years and the outcome is still unknown.

The US has had a democracy for 200 years and the outcome is still unknown. I couldn't have predicted that the US people would support someone like Trump who threatens a fellow liberal democracy (Iraq) with sanctions if they don't want the US to remain. I couldn't have predicted that a US president would say that we're only in Syria to protect the oil (whatever that even means, and I'd feel real shitty as a US soldier if that was the motive). I couldn't have predicted that the US would betray Russia by recognizing Kosovo.

We're being forced to leave because the Taliban have succeeded in exhausting the patience of the American people, just like in Vietnam.

Sure. The goal here is to get the intellectuals to accept that with close to 0 US casualties, there is no urgency to leave Afghanistan. Just like there is no urgency to leave Japan after 70 years. Once the intellectual argument is won, we can try to educate the US population. Perhaps show them video of the Taliban hitting women with sticks and say "is this what you want?".

The invasion of Iraq went a long way to undermining the unity of the democracies, basically making it politically impossible for more invasions until everyone alive now is gone.

Libya was done. Syria was half-done. Iran should be done too. Anyway, like I said, it's a two-step process. First we need to win the intellectual argument, then we need to explain it to the western population.

Whatever the merits of such a decision might be, there is basically no chance we're going to invade Iran or North Korea, unless their armies roll across the border in to some other country, which neither despot is stupid enough to do.

I am hoping that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will be used as an excuse to liberate Iran. And that when the decision is made that nuclear weapons justify war, that a pure liberation is done in the form that I asked for.

It was only in 1945 that democracy became a settled fact in Western Europe. Almost in my lifetime. The Middle East is centuries behind us in political maturity. Many in the Middle East view democracy as "we get elected and then jail our opponents".

We need to get the Middle East caught up, as part of the response to 9/11. And because 9/11 was done by non-state actors, we need a total war where every single civilians is a potential threat.

An invasion of Iran would be a huge roll of the dice. It could literally lead to WWIII, see for example American and Russian troops delicately avoiding each other in Syria.

Inaction could lead to WW3 too. If Iran fires a nuke at Los Angeles, how do you plan to respond to that? Nuke Tehran? As far as I am aware, most people in Tehran hate their dictator even more than you do. They are actually allies of ours. Do you intend to incinerate our allies? If you have no good option to respond to a nuclear attack then "RESPOND" IN ADVANCE!

If Afghanistan takes 20 years, and Iraq takes ten, Iran could take a generation.

Or it could take a few hours. Note that Libya was done in less than a year. And yes, in Libya a civil war started some time later, but that civil war could easily be ended by the US providing air support to one side or the other. Both sides intend to restore democracy.

If we didn't have the actual result (less than a year) from Libya, you probably would have been quoting a generation for Libya too.

And the real figure you should be quoting for Afghanistan is 2 months, and Iraq 3.5 weeks. After that all we need to do is add air support (indefinitely) to whichever side we like.

As evidence, note how determined the mullahs were in resisting the invasion of Saddam. A million dead.

But there is a huge difference between being invaded by a dictator and being liberated by a coalition of democracies. I'm pretty sure the Iranians are smart enough to tell the difference.

In order to control the air over Iran we'd have to shock and awe Iran's air force, all it's missile installations, and navy too.

Iran has a conscript army meaning that the soldiers are like the people, and the people hate their dictator. I fully expect the Iranian military to rise up against their dictator as soon as it is safe for them to do so. We'll never know until we TRY. This is a gap in our military knowledge, and we need to try it just for this reason alone (understanding warfare). Because the future of the US military depends on understanding whether wars of liberation are possible or not.

Any of Iran's military that chooses to attack the US needs to be destroyed. Yes, we need a war. An air war.

Trying to shoot the mullah's henchmen from the air in the middle of urban chaos all over the country is not likely to go very well.

We need to actually try it and see.

You have excellent goals, we just need a more sophisticated strategy. This is a very long chess game.

Sure. I'm here for debate. Thanks.

In order to control the air over Iran we'd have to shock and awe Iran's air force, all it's missile installations, and navy too. — Hippyhead

By the way. The above is exactly the same thing that Iranian revolutionaries face, and also what anyone attempting to stage a military coup faces.

If it is even potentially difficult for the US military to do it, why would you expect unarmed Iranian civilians to be able to do it?

They need help. Asking them to revolt against a cruel dictator prepared to use automatic weapons is just a blood-sport.

And even if they were successful, after a new government was installed they'd be in the exact same position as if the US military had liberated them. If it's going to take a generation for them to work out their problems, it has to be done. Or are you saying it is wrong for the revolutionaries to revolt because of the unstable situation they will allegedly be in for a generation?

Although I guess Senegal did liberate Gambia. But that's about it. — Paul Edwards

Actually, it was France who stepped up as the diplomatic front of the Libyan liberation, with the US just quietly providing muscle. And that's how it should be. One day I hope France will be replaced by Tunisia or Iraq, and we can have an Arab Muslim country leading the free world into battle.

Again, this is why we need to do it. Even with the result of air-alone in Afghanistan and Libya, you're still disputing what is possible. — Paul Edwards

What are you talking about?

Afghanistan was never an air-alone war. In fact neither was even the intervention in the Yugoslav war as US forces and NATO ground forces were deployed their. And what success is Libya, a country torn still in civil war with two opposing governments and various countries (some of whom should be US allies) backing their sides? Libya is a case example of how you cannot control everything from the air: you can assist one side, but there stops your influence to what is happening on the ground. End result: you have no control what is happening, or you can get attacked as the US was in Benghazi.

There were long queues of Iraqis willing to join the new Iraqi security forces. — Paul Edwards

And here one of the biggest errors was made. Paul Bremer decided to abolish the Iraqi Army with his infamous Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2: what better choice than to make hundreds of thousands of military trained men unemployed. Before US general Jay Garner, a professional soldier, had made several plans what to do with the large Iraqi military, yet then this clueless ideologue Bremer comes to the scene and makes one of the worst decisions ever that directly contributed to the insurgency starting.

And we have succeeded in lowering the barrier to war. Instead of having to convince people to pony up the cash for a 500,000-man invasion force like Desert Storm, we can instead point to Libya done purely from the air, or Afghanistan where the initial defeat was done purely from the air, or 2003 Iraq done with a relatively small force. — Paul Edwards

This is totally delusional.

Libya is now totally unstable with the sporadic fighting going on. The Balkans isn't similar. The ex-Yugoslavia is peace and the civil war is thankfully history. That was done both with air AND ground forces and a sound plan with the international community engaging in this. Libya was just an erratic response in which the US didn't take charge leading to the fiasco it is now. The war in Afghanistan is still going on as also there was no good plan.

How you make Libya and Afghanistan a success story while the liberation of Kuwait (a success) is somehow seen as bad I don't understand at all. Rumsfeld was delusional and should have been sacked years earlier.

Afghanistan was never an air-alone war.

In future wars of liberation, the main thing we need to do is defeat the fielded forces so that revolutionaries can rise up (instead of expecting them to do that themselves as a blood-sport). In Afghanistan the fielded forces were the Taliban. The Taliban was dislodged from Kabul in about 2 months, with the US just providing air support and special forces.

THAT is the model we need for all future wars. Air power and special forces. We no longer need large standing armies because we are not trying to conquer the people. We're just trying to liberate them.

In fact neither was even the intervention in the Yugoslav war as US forces and NATO ground forces were deployed their.

The ground forces weren't actually used. The Yugoslav wars were another example of air-alone.

And what success is Libya, a country torn still in civil war with two opposing governments and various countries (some of whom should be US allies) backing their sides. Libya is a case example of how you cannot control everything from the air: you can assist one side, but there stops your influence to what is happening on the ground.

You're misreading Libya. In Libya we wanted to topple Gaddafi, and we did, in less than a year, purely from the air.

Yes, after some time a civil war occurred, but that's not on us. AND we can end that civil war any time we want simply by providing air support to either side.

And here one of the biggest errors was made. Paul Bremer decided to abolish the Iraqi Army with his infamous Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2:

No, it wasn't an error. With the information available at the time, ie specifically MANY (racist) people insisting it was genetically impossible for Arab Muslims to handle democracy, democracy needs to come from within, democracy can't be imposed by force of arms, we didn't know whether we could stand up democracy or not. We needed to set up democratic institutions and then SEE WHAT HAPPENS. Those democratic institutions include professional security forces that PROTECT human rights rather than violate them. How were we supposed to do that when the Iraqi people have only ever known security forces that oppress them? We needed to make the Iraqi people believe, truly believe (because it was true) that these security forces are totally different from the old ones. We had to start from scratch.

That's just one factor. The other thing we needed to know, in response to 9/11, is what values Arab Muslims had internalized. Was Islam a wonderful religion that made good citizens when there was no force keeping them in line?

what better choice than to make hundreds of thousands of military trained men unemployed. Before US general Jay Garner, a professional soldier, had made several plans what to do with the large Iraqi military, yet then this clueless ideologue Bremer comes to the scene and makes one of the worst decisions ever that directly contributed to the insurgency starting.

Now that we have proven that we can install a democracy in an Arab Muslim country by force of arms, there is no need to disband the old security forces. Future wars will be a cakewalk because of this.

Libya is now totally unstable with the sporadic fighting going on. The Balkans isn't similar. The ex-Yugoslavia is peace and the civil war is thankfully history. That was done both with air AND ground forces and a sound plan with the international community engaging in this.

The actual wars to dislodge the Serbs were done entirely from the air.

In Libya we are showing what is possible if you just do the air war and then withdraw that air support immediately once the government is defeated. The Libyans will sort out their mess in due course, but you may not believe that until it actually happens. That's why it needs to be done. Both sides want democracy so they should be able to sort out their differences in time. Once again we are proving a different form of what "air alone" can achieve.

Libya was just an erratic response in which the US didn't take charge leading to the fiasco it is now.

Libya was done with UN permission. We're seeing what happens when the UN instead of the US is in charge. It's a good piece of data to extract.

The war in Afghanistan is still going on as also there was no good plan.

There was an excellent plan. Help the Northern Alliance to victory from the air. Then replace the Northern Alliance with a democracy, something the racists, again, said was genetically impossible and pointed to the fact that there had never been democracy there, which was true.

Yes, the Taliban think they can defeat a modern military (learning the wrong lesson from Vietnam) so they're still fighting. But they have no chance of militarily defeating the government forces. The enemy gets a vote in how long they remain at war.

How you make Libya and Afghanistan a success story while the liberation of Kuwait (a success) is somehow seen as bad I don't understand at all. Rumsfeld was delusional and should have been sacked years earlier.

I didn't say that Kuwait was bad, I'm just saying that the barrier to Kuwait-style wars is too high. If everything is going to be a Kuwait, we will never get permission to have a war of liberation. But if the war of liberation is a cross between Afghanistan and Libya, or perhaps Panama, or perhaps Haiti, then the barrier is extremely low. The US public doesn't really mind bombing dictators from the air for 0 US losses.

I really want western militaries to be reduced to air power, so that the money can be spent on other things like medical research. But before we can do that, we need to defeat all of our enemies. The sooner we do that, the better.

But we're STILL debating whether wars of liberation can be done from the air. So what we need is another 20 liberations under our belt so that you can see for yourself what is possible. The way I envisage it is special forces and helicopters take over a stadium and call for revolutionaries to come to the stadium to be armed. And at the same time call on the military to defect. We know from Iraq that SOME Iraqis defected, but most deserted, and some fought. So there's a mixed bag there. We really do need more data on this.

If Libya hadn't had a civil war (which was largely bad luck for us), would you be convinced that wars can be won from the air alone? If we do 20 liberations, hopefully one of them won't have a civil war (like Tunisia) and we can point to that and say if we have high quality people, air power is enough. And if we don't have high quality people, that's on them. And as part of the response to 9/11 we need to convert low quality people to high quality people anyway. Leaving people languishing under dictators is no longer acceptable. We need free, high quality (ie reformed) people worldwide.

You might like to read my analysis of Afghan and Iraq wars where every single action the US did was exactly what I wanted myself. Whether that was for the same or different reasons I have no idea. But US soldiers couldn't understand why they were asked to withdraw from Fallujah and (separately) let Sadr escape. But both of those things were cunning moves.

what better choice than to make hundreds of thousands of military trained men unemployed. — ssu

BTW, if Sistani had rejected the existence of the old Iraqi army as being an oppressive force, and used the opportunity to call for a Shiite jihad against the occupying force and its oppressive old army, you would instead be on this forum today saying how it was "obvious" that keeping the old army that was responsible for the slaughter of so many Shiites in 1991 was a terrible mistake, and Garner should have been sacked.

If in a future liberation we keep the old army and do in fact get a jihad declared against us, it's not so important anymore. We already know that every race/religion in the world can handle democracy, so it's just a matter of apologizing and disbanding the old military or whatever else the majority of the population want from us.

The ground forces weren't actually used. The Yugoslav wars were another example of air-alone. — Paul Edwards

Ground forces were still needed. Please inform yourself of actual events. IFOR was a 60 000 strong NATO force deployed into Bosnia.

In the war in Kosovo KFOR went into the troubled small territory with 3500 strong force and actually had a near incident with Russian peacekeepers. In fact the Serbian losses weren't so big from the bombing either in Bosnia and Kosovo: from Kosovo the Serbs withdrew substantial amount of forces (roughly 40 000), hence they were not destroyed altogether. It's totally understandable as the mountainous region makes it harder to find targets even now and especially in the late 1990's.

British NATO troops head to head with Russian paratroopers in Kosovo. So in real life obviously not everything happened just from the air:


The simple fact is that you simply need boots on the ground. In Libya there wasn't any. It doesn't mean that the forces have to fight... the basic objective is not to have them fight, actually. If you are so keen to really build peace and democracy.

You're misreading Libya. In Libya we wanted to topple Gaddafi, and we did, in less than a year, purely from the air. — Paul Edwards

Again wrong. Read the UN articles.

Yes, after some time a civil war occurred, but that's not on us. AND we can end that civil war any time we want simply by providing air support to either side. — Paul Edwards

Oh that's your view? I thought you had in mind bringing peace and democracy, but really seem's that isn't the intent at all. Just kill the bad guy(s). Anything else that happens afterward isn't on us.

Well, you are just promoting the modern day version gunboat diplomacy, literally. Yes, Western ironclads were quite able to lob shells to coastal cities with impunity from the sea without any danger to themselves. If there's a problem, we'll just bomb someone, something and that will take care of everything.

Please inform yourself of actual events. IFOR was a 60 000 strong NATO force deployed into Bosnia.

After the war was already won from the air. That's why they faced no opposition.

You're still disputing what can be done from the air. That's why we need to do more air-only liberations. Ideally we want to reach the point where we can just fly a single drone over Venezuela/Iran and the military starts defecting en-masse now that they know they have a chance to make a difference.

Oh that's your view? I thought you had in mind bringing peace and democracy,

I have multiple objectives, not just one. The end state in Libya (and the world) is to have a secular capitalist liberal democracy. But we're not at the stage where we can ram secular, capitalist, liberal down people's throats, so I'm just angling for democracy in the first round.

And the Libyans did in fact vote. They managed to stuff things up after the second vote.

but really seem's that isn't the intent at all. Just kill the bad guy(s). Anything else that happens afterward isn't on us.

I fully expect the Libyans to work things out themselves, so that we can at least prove "air alone works, if you don't mind the difficulty the locals have afterwards". Libya shows what happens with the lightest possible touch. It would have been great if we had gone into Tunisia first, which apparently has higher quality people, so you can get your example of "air alone works". But since you're not accepting Libya, we need to try again, preferably on Iran. Even if it works in Iran to your satisfaction, you may dismiss that data point as an exception that can't be repeated.

We really need to reach consensus on air wars so that we can stand down our expensive standing armies and reconfigure to "air liberation wars only".

No more wars of conquest. No more ground troops. No more nation-building.

Something similar to Afghanistan and Libya — Paul Edwards

I find myself conflicted in this thread. I applaud Paul's moral vision, which I see as being dead on, and very well articulated.

The tactics being suggested for the implementation of that moral vision seem unsophisticated. As example...

Yes, we had good intentions in Afghanistan, and conducted a brilliantly efficient dethroning of the Taliban. But 20 years later the Taliban has succeeded in exhausting us, and we are now retreating with our tail between our legs, just as happened to the Soviets. The Taliban are talking peace only to give us a face saving way to abandon the Afghan government.

Having defeated the world's two greatest superpowers, there is little chance the Afghan fundies will now stop short of their goals.

With the benefit of hindsight a better plan would have probably been to set up bases in northern Afghanistan from which we relentlessly killed terrorists, skipping the part about rebuilding the country, which we have proven ourselves incapable of.

The big picture is that the real threat is not all these little countries, but Russia and China. And they would like nothing better than to see us bleed ourselves to death in an endless series of inconclusive contests which alienate us from our allies, and our own fellow citizens.

Yes, we had good intentions in Afghanistan, and conducted a brilliantly efficient dethroning of the Taliban. But 20 years later the Taliban has succeeded in exhausting us, and we are now retreating with our tail between our legs, just as happened to the Soviets. The Taliban are talking peace only to give us a face saving way to abandon the Afghan government.

There is a stalemate while we wait for the Afghan military to come up to speed. Their army was built from the ground up. It's not a problem unless you make it a problem. There are close to 0 US deaths.

Also note that the Soviets didn't retreat with their tails between their legs. That's American propaganda. The Soviets left a communist dictatorship that was perfectly capable of seeing off any challengers. And they did so for several years. All they needed was money to sustain the fight. It was only when Yeltsin cut off the money that there were defections and defeat.

South Vietnam similarly had funding/weapons cut off.

Having defeated the world's two greatest superpowers, there is little chance the Afghan fundies will now stop short of their goals.

The trouble is that with the whole world (except me and my Russian friend) believing that myth (that Afghans can defeat superpowers), the Taliban are continuing to try to defeat a modern military.

Do you think you could defeat an enemy that has total air supremacy and tanks? What do you think a US general would tell you about that plan? Do you think we spend enormous amounts of money on aircraft when they are totally unnecessary?

With the benefit of hindsight a better plan would have probably been to set up bases in northern Afghanistan from which we relentlessly killed terrorists, skipping the part about rebuilding the country, which we have proven ourselves incapable of.

We want to stand up a self-maintaining democracy there. Not just there, but everywhere. We can't stand down our large militaries until we have worldwide secular capitalist liberal democracy. A self-sustaining solution that doesn't need the US to keep enemies in check for eternity. Wall-to-wall allies instead. Many (racist) people insisted that it was impossible to stand up a democracy in Afghanistan because the Afghans had no history of democracy, and anyhow, you can't install a democracy by force of arms, and democracy needs to come from within. We needed to prove that theory wrong, and we have. Via careful nation-building. The pain is all over. No more nation-building needs to be done. We already know that every culture can cope with democracy, that it can be installed by force of arms, and can be given externally.

The big picture is that the real threat is not all these little countries, but Russia and China. And they would like nothing better than to see us bleed ourselves to death in an endless series of inconclusive contests which alienate us from our allies, and our own fellow citizens.

Your allies don't speak with one voice. And Iraq and Afghanistan are now allies, and support the new democratic systems the US installed. Surely you can see that the more allies we have, the more we are in a position to squeeze China et al? We can't directly take on China, but we can topple all their friendly dictators and bring them over to our side. All self-sustained. We don't need to force these people to be our allies, they innately choose to ally with the free world. We can withdraw all our troops and they'll still be allied.

Having said all that, if you really want to leave Afghanistan, you can. The new Afghan military cannot be defeated by goons. You just need to continue supplying them with weapons and money, or have allies like Europe who will do that.

1) Soviets invade Afghanistan
2) Fundies fight Soviets
3) Soviets leave
4) Fundies take power in Afghanistan
5) Victory for fundies

------------------

The Afghan government can not defeat fundies even while allied with the world's leading superpower, America, who has troops on the ground for 20 years.

America removes her troops.

What we're seeing now is the "Vietnamization" of the Afghan conflict. Face saving negotiations with the enemy, leading to our retreat, while pledging ongoing support. Government collapses. Enemy wins.

Nobody needed to "stand up" the Taliban. They stood themselves up, and sustained their assault without much assistance from outside powers. The Afghan government needs "standing up" because they don't want freedom as much as the Taliban wants to dominate.

What Vietnam should have taught us is that whoever wants victory the most is usually who wins.

You're still disputing what can be done from the air. — Paul Edwards

Yes. Because your simplistic ideas aren't based on the real World. It's more to the level of bar room talk where World problems are solved by just bombing the stupid places into submission. And we could have a talk about the pro's and con's about air power, but I think this isn't something you know very well.

You simply have to understand that an occupying force, be it peacekeepers or a peace enforcement force is very essential to pacify the situation if and when it cannot be done by the former sides. You were talking about spreading democracy and helping other countries, so the discussion ought to be more specific than thinking that everything is solved, if you just kill the dictator. Eyes and boots on the ground simply matter. Even if both sides do control their forces and are willing not to engage the other one, even a small force of military observers on the ground works far better than satellite pictures. That Bosnia, which is still divided to Republika Srpska and to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is peaceful came about with the large NATO ground force to stop the fighting. And in this case your logic of just assisting one party with air power would lead simply to ethnic cleansing of Serbs out from Bosnia Herzegovina, so your ideas use of air power simply don't work.

Nobody needed to "stand up" the Taliban. They stood themselves up, and sustained their assault without much assistance from outside powers. The Afghan government needs "standing up" because they don't want freedom as much as the Taliban wants to dominate.

What Vietnam should have taught us is that whoever wants victory the most is usually who wins. — Hippyhead

One of the biggest inabilities of the US and the West in general is to look at the examples of how truly lasting peace has been made in the past. Especially the US is absolutely

Let's take the case of the Second Boer War. That war didn't go so well for the British, but in the end they could get a peace negotiation underway after a three year war. What they could do (after putting the Boer people in concentration camps where 20 000 died) was to get a lasting peace with the Boers. And what was their solution? The Boer peace negotiators, Botha and Smuts, were respected and made part of the new union of South Africa. That you have former guerilla leaders that you fought then made high ranking officers and statesmen in your Commonwealth tells quite how the British could handle these things.

(Winston Churchill with Jan Smuts, a Boer guerilla leader turned statesman who was the second prime minister of South Africa and a field marshal. The two first met as Churchill was a prisoner of war of the Boers and Smuts his interrogator.)


The Americans and the present Western attitudes aren't like this. The hubris and the moralistic ideology simply defines those who oppose the US in conflicts as vile terrorists with dubious morals, hence there is not any way similar peace with the enemy could be found.

But since you're not accepting Libya, we need to try again, preferably on Iran. — Paul Edwards

What the Libyan example seems to illustrate is that while it is indeed possible to depose the dictator from air, that doesn't automatically lead to democracy.

Let's assume we could take out the entire Iranian leadership with precision air strikes. I doubt that's possible, but let's assume it is for now. What happens next?

The mullahs are not the only Iranians who'd like to be in charge. There are many other folks who would like to run the show, and it's likely they begin fighting each other, just as has happened in Libya. Some of those forces would be democratic, but such forces often don't win because they aren't ruthless or organized enough. See the Syrian civil war for example. We could then shift from bombing the mullahs to bombing other bad guys, but at some point so many bombs have been dropped that we lose support of the population.

My suggestion is that we recognize the moral superiority of Paul's freedom philosophy, and then reach for his goals with more sophisticated 21st century kind of tactics.

As example, notice how the Russians are not confronting us militarily but are instead working to undermine our faith in our own institutions. Notice how the Chinese are not confronting us militarily but are instead patiently playing the long game of dominating us economically. Even Bin Laden's attack was not military but psychological warfare.

How about developing methods that would allow us to talk directly to the Iranian people in a manner that couldn't be blocked by the mullahs?

How about looking for ways to funnel money directly to the Iranian people in a manner that couldn't be hijacked by the mullahs? You like air power? Ok, how about 1,000 drones flying over Tehran raining money down everywhere all over the city?

How about offering any Iranian who can get here and pass a background check American citizenship?

How about so infecting the computers used by the regime that they never really know who exactly it is that they are communicating with?

How about taking over their power grid and turning it off for a few minutes every day just to remind everyone that we can?

These ideas came to me as fast as I can type. If the full resources of the federal government were engaged in such creativity I'm sure the list of things we can do to undermine the Iranian regime, short of war, are probably endless.

The hubris and the moralistic ideology — ssu

The hubris is a weakness, the moralistic ideology a strength.

Paul has the morality right, and other posters see the weaknesses in his tactics. The meeting ground is for other posters to drop their fantasy moral superiority poses, and for Paul to take a more open minded look at alternate tactics.

None of us want to see psychopaths machine gunning innocent people down in the streets. We are united in that. So let's focus on how we can help prevent such horrors in the most intelligent manner possible.

Fight the psychopaths. Not each other.

The first thing to do in a war is to dehumanize your enemy and delegitimize him. A typical way is simply start by referring to the enemy as terrorists and unlawful combatants and focus on any unlawful actions that you can find. Way to get out of all those "silly" Geneva conventions. From the wars perhaps only the Falklands - Malvinas conflict was one where both sides respected the laws of war.

The way to do it is to portray them as psychopaths gunning down innocent people. And once you have done that, no way then to start treating him as a respectable human being. Clearly the moral justification is an inherent part of war propaganda.

The way to do it is to portray them as psychopaths gunning down innocent people — ssu

They ARE psychopaths gunning down innocent people you nimrod. I stand with Paul in rejecting all such pseudo intellectual supposedly sophisticated fantasy moral superiority psycho-babble. All of that is childlike nonsense.

Debates regarding tactics for defeating the psychopaths can be reasonable. I've attempted to constructively contribute to such a debate above.

One thing I can say in favor of the kind of air war Paul suggests is that such operations do communicate to the despots that we can take them out with minimal expense, such as happened in Libya. That doesn't create democracy by itself, as we saw in Libya, but it does tell the next strongman to run Libya that there are limits to what they can get away with.

They ARE psychopaths gunning down innocent people you nimrod. I stand with Paul in rejecting all such pseudo intellectual supposedly sophisticated fantasy moral superiority psycho-babble. All of that is childlike nonsense. — Hippyhead

And I'm getting tired of the utter military ignorance and naive thinking especially from Paul Edwards on military matters. I have had to correct his errors in history/military history too many times.

If there's no military understanding, no military history understanding and quaint historical understanding, there's not much to say. Other than Oh, air war is neat, so let's do everything from there. Hardly a starting point to discuss the many aspects of modern interventions, because with you it's just "killing the bad guys". Yeah, just go and kill the bad guys.

Debates regarding tactics for defeating the psychopaths can be reasonable. — Hippyhead

To debate those tactics one needs knowledge about modern warfare, politics and the regional history.

This thread just reminds me how ignorant people were of the Iraqi war when it was in the media focus and how ignorant they still are.

Imho, the appropriate place to start a debate about tactics is with the clear minded moral vision which Paul has provided. I'm totally on board with that vision. Once one has a clear understanding that despots are a disease afflicting humanity, then a reasonable conversation can begin regarding how to treat the disease.

My objection to most Iraq war critics is that they typically get really confused and think that one of doctors attempting to treat the illness is the disease. And so for example we see endless bile aimed at Bush, and nary a word said against Saddam. A typical post from an Iraq war critic goes something like this...

"Of course Saddam is bad (five words) but but but [insert 23 paragraphs against Bush here]". — Iraq war critic

A reasonable critique might have suggested that a full blown invasion and occupation was an excessive treatment for the disease, so instead let's fire cruise missiles at Saddam and his buddies until we finally hit them personally and remove them from the planet. Or perhaps some other alternative to invasion.

And maybe the correct judgment will be that we can't really do anything about a particular despot at this moment in time, North Korea for example. That could be a reasonable conclusion, so long as we remain clear minded about what the North Korean regime really is, a gang of murderous thugs who are raping the North Korean people while stealing their freedom. That's not propaganda, that's just an accurate description of what's happening.

All these despots are just criminal gangs who are smart enough to steal entire countries instead of just robbing banks. Why worry about the cops when you can be the cops?

Well, I've tried to say Paul (and you) just what the US did wrong, but from your 'clear minded moral vision' similar to a view from an ivory tower you simply dismiss any critique. Your 'moral vision' turns into blinders when we talk about the actual stuff of what went wrong. Yes, one has to have a moral vision, but then the part "how to get there" and "do more good than bad" are things to take into consideration. Let's not forget that the invasion and following war cost at least over hundred thousand deaths, but some estimates put the figure to near one milion. That ought to weigh a bit in your moral vision.

So Iraq.

Starting from reality that the argument was a) Saddam Hussein was a threat because of WMD's and b) his alleged links with Al Qaeda and that solely Paul's argument would not have gotten the US to invade one Middle Eastern country without reasons a) and b). Or do you dispute this?

Then for those details. Let's just start from the beginning:

1. The difficulty of invading Iraq and toppling Hussein is explained perfectly by Dick Cheney in 1994 with his argumentation. Cheney gavethe following and understandable reason how Iraq would become a quagmire that would (and did) happen ten years later.

Paul Edwards gave this answer, which doesn't at all even focus on Iraq and doesn't at all respond to what Cheney says:

I listened to it, but I didn't need to. In 1991 the Cold War hadn't been won. Securing Europe was FAR more important than Iraq. We didn't want to do anything to spook the USSR. We wanted the USSR on our side and to not fear anything from us. Western security was and is more *important* than the more *beautiful* goal of liberating Iraq. — Paul Edwards

The USSR was in no condition to respond to this AND Iraq isn't it's "near abroad", so this is simply false. And an answer a neocon would give. The real reasons were given by Cheney.

I'll repost it below.

Now, to start the discussion (again): What is in your view wrong in Cheney's argumentation here?


In fact Saudi Arabia warned older Bush that (as Cheney says) that they and the GCC wouldn't go and invade a fellow Arab country and that this would be highly destabilizing for the region and likely would in the end benefit just Iran (which has happened). Then older Bush listened to his Saudi friends.

1) Soviets invade Afghanistan
2) Fundies fight Soviets
3) Soviets leave
4) Fundies take power in Afghanistan
5) Victory for fundies

That is technically true, but obscures the fact that the war was won by Yeltsin being against communist dictatorships.

What Vietnam should have taught us is that whoever wants victory the most is usually who wins.

What Vietnam *should* have taught us is that TANKS WORK. In 1975, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam with 2 armored columns and won.

Everyone has learnt the wrong lessons from Vietnam and Afghanistan, and the record needs to be cleared up now that it is important to do so.

Note that Vietnam has a capitalist economy now. So as far as the war to defeat communism is concerned, the US won in Vietnam too.

What we're seeing now is the "Vietnamization" of the Afghan conflict. Face saving negotiations with the enemy, leading to our retreat, while pledging ongoing support. Government collapses. Enemy wins.

There is no reason for a government (a democratically-elected government) to collapse. Just keep funding them, or make sure someone else is funding them.

Nobody needed to "stand up" the Taliban. They stood themselves up, and sustained their assault without much assistance from outside powers. The Afghan government needs "standing up" because they don't want freedom as much as the Taliban wants to dominate.

That is not true. The Afghan president said in one interview that he would fight for generations if need be. They're not going to surrender to a bunch of terrorists.

What the Libyan example seems to illustrate is that while it is indeed possible to depose the dictator from air, that doesn't automatically lead to democracy.

Ok, this I can agree with. And it's the same deal with a revolution. So many revolutions replace one dictator with another, as happened in Iran for that matter.

Does that mean revolutions are wrong? If not, wars of liberation are also not wrong. But the result from Libya was actually very good. Even without bombing or ground troops, the revolutionaries adopted democracy. They had 2 elections. Yes, they had problems after that, but since both sides in the civil war support democracy, I fully expect a return to democracy. And we haven't seen what happens if we simply bomb one side or the other in that civil war. It's never been tried. ie add purely air power again. When Libya returns to democracy, as I fully expect to happen, will you agree that Libya is an example of "air alone" working to install democracy? Or does the messiness between the 2nd and 3rd elections invalidate the success?

Let's assume we could take out the entire Iranian leadership with precision air strikes. I doubt that's possible, but let's assume it is for now. What happens next?

What happens next in a revolution which so many people demand the Iranians do if they want freedom?

The revolution (or pure air war) provides an opportunity for democracy, but no guarantee of it. This is the reality we need to live with.

What do you think would have happened if we had chosen to liberate Tunisia from dictatorship in 2010, ie prior to their revolution? Note that their revolution essentially triggered a military coup. Maybe then you'd agree that air wars can be totally successful, it depends on the quality of the target country.

Actually, I must say I agree with part of what you are saying. Air wars (and revolutions) don't guarantee democracy, which is what we actually want. We need to maneuver the world to get behind democracy. The main threat to democracy is actually military coups, as we saw in the Philippines. The US used air power to put down a military coup there in 1989. Purely from the air. THAT is the position we need to be in. All we need to do is support some faction of the local military that supports democracy. All military coup plotters should be put in a position where they can call in US air support instead of being expected to be successful on their own.

So my suggestion in Iran is that we drop noise bombs (and a note and a satellite phone) on different Iranian military bases to see if they are interested in supporting democracy. Of course, they could lie and say they support democracy, and instead install themselves as dictators, but if that happens, all we need to do is repeat the process, until we get someone who is genuinely democratic.

As I said before, we really need 20 liberations under our belt so that we have at least one example like Tunisia under our belt, that hopefully people don't dispute. Libya came very close to that. Afghanistan in 2001 came close. But even if we have a Tunisia under our belt, it doesn't mean the next country will be a repeat of Tunisia, which is probably the real point. ie the real point is we cannot guarantee democracy from the air in the initial phase. We MAY need to repeat an air war several times until we get the result we want. I think the world is pretty much in agreement that there is no real alternative to democracy though. So I think the future is bright.

But yeah, western ground troops are the best way of guaranteeing a democracy is installed. I can agree with that. A 500,000 invasion force would be best for immediate standing up of democracy. I can agree to that too. But it's not what I want in the long term. In the long term I want a repeat of Philippines 1989. So that we can stand down our enormous ground forces, and engage in air wars that the US public can stomach. And a UN full of democracies that approve of these air wars. We just need a plan on how to get from here to there. So that is why I support doing "light touch" wars similar to Libya. To prove the technology and get a Tunisia under our belt. Otherwise, even when the whole world is democratic, we'll never know whether the US military ground forces can be stood down or not. And instead people will be insisting that 500,000 ground troops need to be maintained forever. I'd rather spend that money on medical research. Go to war with viruses instead of other humans.

Well, I've tried to say Paul (and you) just what the US did wrong, but from your 'clear minded moral vision' similar to a view from an ivory tower you simply dismiss any critique — ssu

The moral clarity is a requirement for credibility in such conversations. That's how I look at it anyway.

If Saddam and his sons moved in next door to your family you'd freak out, yes? You'd want something done about that, right? Your posts don't show much recognition of this reality. Thus I would ask, which of us is really living in the ivory tower?

Your posts don't show much recognition of this reality. Thus I would ask, which of us is really living in the ivory tower? — Hippyhead

What reality are you talking about?

Have you served in the military? Are you an active reservist? Do you have a summer place less than 10 kilometers from a country that people here define to be a dictatorship?

Is, again, your only argument that "What if Saddam and sons moved in next door to your family"?

Answer to your question: No. That is my reality. And I'm not freaking out. Si vis pacem, Para bellum has been a motto for me, really. It works. And I'm happy if I or my children never see war in our country.

Again a question for you: What is wrong in the reasoning that Cheney (in 1994) gave why invading Iraq would have not been a wise decision?

What reality are you talking about? — ssu

Don't mean this personally, but you are hereby dismissed as a commentator on this subject.

Have you served in the military? Are you an active reservist?

If only soldiers can have an opinion on military matters, you should talk to these two guys.

Si vis pacem, Para bellum

(If you want peace, prepare for war).

Unfortunately when people talk about "peace" what they really mean is non-combat. The Mullahs of Iran would spread their Islamic "revolution" worldwide if they had the ability to do so. Keeping them in check for eternity is a lousy strategy. A better strategy is to have true peace, where every country in the world is trying to HELP every other country in the world. Because we're all clones of Estonia/Taiwan.

And I'm not even content with 100% allied governments. 9/11 forced us to deal with NGOs too. I want EVERY INDIVIDUAL on this planet to be allied with the US/Australia/Taiwan.

I want everyone to be willing to risk their own lives to PROTECT America, not giving their lives to HARM America as happened on 9/11.

Or at the very least be neutrals.

What's the equation if a country willingly chooses by election some form of dictatorship?

Trump won nearly half the American vote, twice, in a legal democratic process.

Should he win this time, do we start bombing ourselves?

Should he win this time, do we start bombing ourselves?

Good question. It is in America's long-term interest that the rest of the world (now all members of NATO, including China and Russia), be able to liberate the US from someone like Trump who doesn't respect the democratic process. That means you need to get rid of your nukes.

But you need to go through the process of getting everyone else to give up their nukes too. Because they're all NATO allies and no longer need them.

But first things first. Let's take down enemy governments.