Not exactly a red pill. Even if we pretend American hasn’t practically been at war since its inception, the politicians have told you that the WOT will be a multi-generational conflict and if we want to “win” we have to occupy these countries for decades.
Only if you don’t count proxy wars and major CIA operations, like Condor and Typhoon.
I think the longest period of American peace in the 20th century was from the end of the Banana Wars in 1934 to WWII. That was an uncharacteristically isolationist period.
The terror war target list goes all throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The neo-cons hoped a democratic Iraq would have a domino effect on the rest of the region, but I think it’d be more likely success there would spur more invasions and conflict to capitalize on the gains. Maybe we’d be occupying Syria right now.
The current spate of terrorism is more or less the product of a power vacuum. Until the end of WW2 Britain and France maintained colonial empires that unapologetically suppressed “native uprisings”, the ruthlessness of said suppressions going unremarked except by a handful of gadflies. Then after WW2 the Cold war divided much of the third world into Marxist and/or Soviet-allied nationalists on the one hand and American-back anti-communist dictatorships on the other. Neither side was overly worried about kindness or fairness.
Since 1991 however the old framework has disappeared and nothing put in its place. The neocons had visions of America as a hyperpower imposing a global pax Americana, but they made the mistake of thinking it could be done without resorting to measures too brutal and ugly to be palatable to Americans in the information age. The savagery of the current civil wars/ uprisings/ terrorists is pretty much what happens when rival would-be governments are trying to gain and keep power.
One could almost cynically wish that a new Caliphate would conquer the middle east, if it was only willing to make peace with the west and keeping selling us oil. We’d tut-tut at the barbarities, chalk it up to “oriental despotism”, and look the other way.
If a few drones could be permanently based in the Middle East and strike terrorists 365 days a year for just a few million dollars a year…what would be so bad about such a state of ‘endless war?’
Seriously, you’re putting forward the suggestion that having remote controlled hunter killer drones permanently flying over dozens of countries is a good idea and you’ve never ever stopped to consider “are we the baddies?”
I bet there’s quite a few people who look at violent extremists who plot ways to blow up airliners with underwear bombs and never stop to think whether we - not they - are the victims.
Anyways, yeah, imaginable paths to peace, from most likely to least likely:
One way or the other, the Middle East reaches a level of “stability” which, while far from Scandinavian, is still deemed good enough for some future “realistic hawk” of a President to shrug and say “eh, fuck it, mission accomplished.” War lobby protests; Prez ignores them; peace is achieved.
For whatever reason, the American people tire of the whole eternal-warfare-thing, and elect a dovish / non-interventionist / anti-war-or-at-the-very-least-against-this-war president. War lobby protests; Prez ignores them; peace is achieved.
After a sudden breakthrough in anti-drone technology sometime in the next 30 years, America’s foes in the region start knocking your drones out of the skies with great ease. The prospect of (yet another) land invasion is deemed too unpopular, or too expensive, or just straight up too damn hard to pull off. So whaddyagonnado. War lobby protests; Prez ignores them; peace is achieved.
Life is complicated and only simple people think there are simple answers to every question.
Just because America fighting in World War II was a good idea doesn’t mean America fighting in Vietnam was a good idea. It was a good idea to fight Iraq in 1991 and a bad idea to fight Iraq in 2003. Sometimes intervening in a foreign crisis is a good idea and sometimes it’s a bad idea.
I know some guys who served in Afghanistan (some as civilian contractors) and their assessment is very similar to yours. In post-WWII Germany, a mayor saw a new road as a national asset of Germany, helping to promote the common good. In Afghanistan, the local equivalent of a mayor would see it as HIS road available to promote HIS individual good, and would quite happily dig it up and sell the materials for use in building the road in the next town. One guy was quite emphatic in his opinion that no amount of resources would enable you to rebuild Afghanistan faster than the tribal leaders would take it apart.
No, they didn’t. They made counter-offers, which included extradicting bin Laden to another country, and the U.S. government refused to negotiate or let them save face.
They really didn’t. A 13+ year war was not necessary to bring bin Laden to justice, the entire war was a colossal waste. The Taliban condemned the 9/11 attacks, and weren’t sheltering bin Laden to any meaningful extent.
However it will continue forever (without any success or targets achieved) since politicians love saying they are tackling the ‘drug menace’.
In the ‘War against Terror’, the US has supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, supported Saudi Arabia against Saddam, supported action against Syria and is now embarrassed that Syria is an enemy of ISIS.
However it will continue forever (without any success or targets achieved) since politicians love saying they are tackling the ‘terrorist menace’.