Step 1: New president listens calmly and patiently to the lobbyists from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman as they explain the facts of life.
Step 2: New president says one word: “No.”
There’s your “Realistic path” right there.
Step 3: A new international threat arises and he is forced to take action because of simple political realities that have nothing to do with elaborate backdoor conspiracies.
Isn’t endless war pretty much just real life?
The OP talks about US policy, so let’s just focus on the US. Since WWII, there have been military operation at least every 9 years (Source)
This only lists US conflicts, of course, so it omits things like Russia-Chechnya, Israel-Palestine, Iran-Iraq, Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, UK-Argentina (Falklands). These are just the first things that come to mind, not any attempt at a comprehensive list.
So it’s my perception that any acknowledgement of a permanent war state by the US is simply an admission that we intend to continue being involved with life on planet Earth. We can (and should) debate the merits of each individual engagement, but war is a reality. Another poster compared it to crime, and I agree completely.
I’m not an immunologist, and I know you’ll correct me if I’m really showing my ass here, but bear with me.
Does my immune system actually send white blood cell robots to the other side of the planet to blow cells up who it thinks might be interested in giving me Ebola? No, right?
Appeal to emotion. How about the 15,000 people who are victims of homicide each year? Should we start a war for them? Thousands of people drown in pools each year. Should they get their own war too?
Somebody dying does not necessitate a war.
This is vague politician-speak. Be specific. The quoted “reasons” could be used to justify a war against any of our allies, Wall Street bankers, homeless people, moon landing deniers, etc. Give me a reason that singles out the handful of radical Muslim cave dwellers we’ve been spending trillions of dollars on “stopping” for the past decade and a half.
No, because ISIS is not in the US, and has not done anything to the US. Those responsible for beheading Americans should have arrest warrants issued and we should use the police capabilities of the international community to ensure they are brought to trial and justice.
Exactly. We fought the Confederacy on our own soil. We had no legitimate complaint against those other military organizations. The Taliban and Viet Cong were bad guys, but nevertheless someone else’s problem.
No, we don’t. We tried “cleaning it up” last time. We made it worse. We will not ever make it better. We should leave them alone for Iraqi citizens to fix, because any US involvement will inevitably make more of a mess. Sending the military in to “clean up” Iraq is like trying to “help out” with a house fire by using a flamethrower.
What is this, GI Joe? Get real. The US’s foreign policy is far more deadly than ISIS, or the Taliban, or Al-Qaida or Khorasan or whatever. Foreign citizens are justified in disliking the US military.
Yep. ISIS is bad. Ever heard of China? Saudi Arabia? North Korea? Any of the jungle hellholes in Africa? Why does this particular band of ruthless warlords deserve more attention than anyone else? Because we have to fight someone to keep the proles back home quiet, and ISIS seems easier than North Korea?
No, but I’ll tell them it’s better to have one band of murderers in their midst than two or a dozen.
Yes.
I believe I gave you 3,000 reasons already.
So the Americans they’ve killed, the American equipment they’ve stolen, the statements they’ve made that they intend to kill Americans… all of that was just imaginary?
Great. We’ll just alert the local police in that area that we want those people arrested. Oh, wait, ISIS is the local police in that area…
Except that we did - the Taliban was sheltering the man responsible for 9/11, and the Viet Cong was attacking US forces and our allies in South Vietnam.
Does ISIS need to show up on our front lawn and start beheading people before they become “our problem”?
So your message to our Mideast allies is “You’re fucked and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do about it.” I’m sure that’ll go over great in treaty negotiations.
We tried “leaving it alone for Iraqi citizens to fix”. That’s why ISIS is now as powerful as it is.
You do realize that flamethrowers are an essential tool for putting out large-scale conflagrations, right?
So go sign up if you think hating America is so justifiable.
Because we have a legitimate interest in the well-being of the people in that region, and the political ability to do something about it.
And it would be even better to have none, but you’re opposed to taking the steps to make that happen.
Metaphors imply meaning. That’s why we have a war against terrorism instead of a dance-off against terrorism.
I think most people would agree that war, however common it might be, is not the normal state of affairs. War represents an aberration - a temporary situation which we will address and complete using extraordinary means if necessary.
Once you get into an ongoing or endless war, the rules are different. Now you need to look at the situation in a different way because you’re making it permanent rather than temporary. Government actions which might be acceptable for a few years become unacceptable if they’re going to keep going indefinitely.
I’ve always wondered about this very point. Since the day it happened, the response to 9/11 has seemed like overkill to me given its real effect on the US as a whole that day. I mean, sure, it was big news, and it was certainly a terrible event, but on the grand scale it seemed more like a major crime than an act of war. A novel type of bomb (i.e. the airplanes) went off, four at once, and caused a few thousand people to die. Terrible, but similar in kind to what people in other countries have been enduring for a long, long time. The IRA killed a lot of civilians with their bombs, for example. It just seemed that Americans had, rather foolishly, believed ourselves immune, and were disproportionately upset because we weren’t.
I think we would have been better off cleaning up the mess and steadfastly ignoring the criminals, beyond the trials for the immediate perpitrators and the obvious preventative steps needed to stop similar bombings. And Security Theater, as better minds than mine have pointed out, is not an effect prevention. The families of the victims of 9/11 are no more special than the families of the victims of any other crime or tragedy.
Endless war is a bad idea. People who make money by killing other people are evil, pure and simple.
It is a worrisome descent towards societal dysfunction that the notion of an endless war against an emotion is considered acceptable, if not the new paradigm of our existence.
People are frail.
Once you get over the shock value of the thought of endless war, I believe the two relevant questions become 1. Do the ends justify the means and 2. Can we afford it?
Completely ignoring any cultural/ethical problems attending an “endless war” footing for a nation, let’s look at the economic consequences of “endless war.”
Hypothetically: if a nation is putting, say, 35% of its resources into building rockets, missiles, drones, bullets, rifles, tanks, military gear, barracks, etc. etc., then that 35% of resources is unavailable to build in-the-nation light-rail transit and bridges and roads, or to fund medical research, or to develop the next generation of computing and all ancillary products.
If you build a factory that makes tanks, you have tanks; you do create a few jobs for tank drivers and mechanics, but that’s about it.
However, if you build a factory that makes a game-changing next-generation computer, then you create a much larger, ever-increasing pool of jobs. You have jobs for the manufacturers, distributors, marketers, retailers of the computers themselves; you have jobs for those who create the software and applications (and market them and retail them); and the largest pool of all: you have jobs for people to use the next-gen computer in their own work.
Non-war spending–investing tax dollars in engineering projects, medical advances, and non-military manufacturing, for example–has a higher multiplier effect than does war spending. Non-war spending has much higher potential to grow the national economy.
That’s the economic reason that Endless War is a bad thing.
If war is endless, it is only because our enemies are as well. Refusing to fight will not make them go away.
We kindly asked the government of Afghanistan to extradite the immediate perpetrator. They said no.
Extraordinary actions became necessary thereafter.
Reasonable minds can disagree here. There are a range of diplomatic responses short of invasion. And besides, if you’re referring to Osama bin Laden, he wasn’t the immediate perpetrator. He was the mastermind. That certainly makes him criminally responsible, but I’m not at all sure that killing thousands of people in order to be able to kill him is a good demonstration of the American commitment to justice.
How is it not? It demonstrates a firm commitment and resolve - if you commit acts of terrorism and mass murder against our people, we will go to whatever lengths necessary to destroy you.
Was bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki a “disproportionate response” to Pearl Harbor?
That’s a serious misconception. The A-bombs weren’t dropped as vengeance. They were dropped to induce the Japanese leaders to surrender.
I was thinking along these same lines. When have we NOT been in a state of military engagement somewhere on Earth since WWII? We’ve got military bases on every continent and the military-industrial complex at home with military bases in every state. This amounts to a large portion of the economy tied-up in military spending on a perpetual basis. No local politician is going to vote for reduced military spending in THEIR district (altho cuts are OK in someone else’s district).
Moreover, people in favor of the endless war have the perfect enemy right now - one that is based on an idea/emotion rather than geography, that when attacked today breeds even more enemies for tomorrow - an endless supply of enemies to fight and consume military goods and services. It’s all about supply and demand, right?
And Afghanistan wasn’t invaded as vengeance. It was invaded to capture Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaeda’s ability to launch further attacks.
It demonstrates the strength of our resolve, sure, and the vigor behind it. Justice, though, requires a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence, and I don’t see our response as being a dispassionate display of the pursuit of justice. Rather, it was an impassioned act of vengeance against the wrongdoer.
Well, no, in my opinion, that too was overkill, especially given the death and long-term suffering of the civilian population. On the other hand, given the situation in 1945 (both in the war and among nations in general), I think it was an understandable response, and it has been effectively argued that in the long run it prevented much more suffering and death. I don’t think you can say that about the War on Terror(ism). Both Japan and the US recovered much better culturally and economically in the 13-year period 1945–1959 than either Afghanistan or the USA has 2001–2014, though obviously that’s such a crude parallel that it may not be useful.
As George Carlin would say, we like war! We’re a warlike people and bombing people is the only thing left we’re good at. It’s our job.