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.
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'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.
I think given your unwillingness to even accept the judgement of non-affiliated organisations who rate democracies
and your unwavering but quite frankly unsubstantiated optimism about how easy future wars will be,
that our disagreement is fairly well clarified but I don't see a way to proceed beyond that.
The Iraq war may not even deserve to be called a war of liberation,
the US has made it clear many times that the war was to prevent Iraqi acquisition of WMDs.
The war cost billions of dollars for the US,
many lives were lost
and WMDs weren't even there.
The war damaged US credibility,
it undermined US leadership
and still today, Iraq is not far from anarchy, it is a place of instability and violence and its very existence is under threat.
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.
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.
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.
You have this optimism for future wars despite every previous war being messy and horrible,
I don't think it comes from analysis of history, it's just wishful thinking?
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.
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.
I'm not sure you're fully taking in to account the results of the last two invasions.
We've been in Afghanistan for 20 years and the outcome is still unknown.
We're being forced to leave because the Taliban have succeeded in exhausting the patience of the American people, just like in Vietnam.
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.
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.
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".
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.
If Afghanistan takes 20 years, and Iraq takes ten, Iran could take a generation.
As evidence, note how determined the mullahs were in resisting the invasion of Saddam. A million dead.
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.
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.
You have excellent goals, we just need a more sophisticated strategy. This is a very long chess game.
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
Although I guess Senegal did liberate Gambia. But that's about it. — Paul Edwards
What are you talking about?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
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.There were long queues of Iraqis willing to join the new Iraqi security forces. — Paul Edwards
This is totally delusional.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
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.
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.
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.
what better choice than to make hundreds of thousands of military trained men unemployed. — ssu
The ground forces weren't actually used. The Yugoslav wars were another example of air-alone. — Paul Edwards
Again wrong. Read the UN articles.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
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.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
Please inform yourself of actual events. IFOR was a 60 000 strong NATO force deployed into Bosnia.
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.
Something similar to Afghanistan and Libya — Paul Edwards
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. 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're still disputing what can be done from the air. — Paul Edwards
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 absolutelyNobody 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
But since you're not accepting Libya, we need to try again, preferably on Iran. — Paul Edwards
The hubris and the moralistic ideology — ssu
The way to do it is to portray them as psychopaths gunning down innocent people — ssu
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.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
To debate those tactics one needs knowledge about modern warfare, politics and the regional history.Debates regarding tactics for defeating the psychopaths can be reasonable. — Hippyhead
"Of course Saddam is bad (five words) but but but [insert 23 paragraphs against Bush here]". — Iraq war critic
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
1) Soviets invade Afghanistan
2) Fundies fight Soviets
3) Soviets leave
4) Fundies take power in Afghanistan
5) Victory for fundies
What Vietnam should have taught us is that whoever wants victory the most is usually who wins.
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 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?
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
What reality are you talking about?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
Have you served in the military? Are you an active reservist?
Si vis pacem, Para bellum
Should he win this time, do we start bombing ourselves?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.