Looking back on American history, the outcome of many of our major wars have largely been regarded as a positive step forward for mankind. The American Revolution kicked things off with the 13 Colonies breaking away from the King of England and beginning our experiment with democracy (a relatively new concept at the time).
The Civil War (in spite of the opinions of some fringe elements) is largely regarded as an important step in securing the rights of people to not be owned by other people.
World War II marked the defeat of a tyrant bent on world domination.
And for the most part, I think the world is generally happy with the outcome of the Cold War, given the alternatives (at the very least, it provided decades of entertaining fodder for spy and post apocalyptic flicks).
But other than that, have there been any recent (as in past century) armed conflicts where the outcome has be viewed as an objectively positive step forward for humanity? Most of the wars to come to mind seem to involve a new group of radical extremists overthrowing the old ones or bickering between minor states led by petty tyrants.
The Vietnam war comes to mind as one whose “positive outcome” arose from the fact that it terminated before reaching a final stage of total destruction, with the resignation of one of the belligerents.
Maybe Nicaragua, too, where the hostilities ended with a compromise and Ortega returned to power later.
Here’s the problem with the question: it’s very easy to point out bad things that happened as a result of any war. American revolution? Cemented slavery as an institution for the better part of a century, whereas it probably would have died earlier except for independence. WWII? Sure, turned out great until the Soviets took over Eastern Europe and threatened the world with nuclear weapons.
So, given that it is trivially easy to come up with negative outcomes from catastrophic events, I think I’d like to nominate the 1991 Gulf War as being a pretty striking success, as well as the 1999 NATO action against Serbia that resulted in the cessation of ethnic cleansing and a bunch of war criminals being hauled off to the Hague. Sure, neither one changed the course of the galaxy, but major events like wars that change the course of human history simply don’t happen very often.
You’re confusing the Nicaraguan revolution and the overthrow of Somoza by the Sandinistas with the U.S.-orchestrated contra war against the Sandinista government.
The revolution might well have been quite positive were it not for U.S. intervention. The end of the contra war was brought about not so much by compromise as by military stalemate and the end of the Reagan administration.
Ortega’s return to power as caudillo rather than revolutionary is not by any means a good thing. Especially if you happen to be female.
So, not to contradict my own post about being able to criticize any wars to some extent or another, but I certainly don’t think of the Korean War as being a success (cough cough world’s only communist dynasty still in power sending myriad peasants to labor camps cough cough). And Libya, success? Seriously, what the fuck? The country is literally falling apart today.
But the UN & US’s aim in Korea wasn’t to conquer the North; it was to keep the North from conquering the South. And South Korea is doing all right, last I checked.
Sure, except for the sailors who were killed by North Korea by sinking that ship a couple years ago. And there was that time that North Korean commandos attempted to assassinate the South Korean President in his official residence. Threats of nuclear war, missiles launched over Japan… look, if you want to say that the UN achieved its aim of keeping South Korea independent, that’s correct. But a “largely positive outcome” for that war? No way. Just… no.
I didn’t say SK’s position was ideal. But nothing in the real world is. They’re not living under a despot. They have a good economy, the freedom to move about their own country and the world (except NK) pretty freely.
Our side intervened in the Korean peninsula to keep the South from being overrun by the North, not to make the world perfect for them. NOthing’s perfect.
“Largely positive” is a relative term. I would imagine there is a positive and negative result in any war, depending upon which side one is looking from.
I know Skald will disagree with me, but in Iraq, we left a tyrant in power. We had literally the entire world with us, the chance to free the Iraqi people, and passed it up.
I have no written the word “Iraq” in this thread prior to this sentence. You don’t know my opinion on either of our wars with that country; I’ll thank you not to pretend otherwise. If you’re going to name-check me, please respond to what I’ve actually written, not what you imagine I think.
While I suppose it is arguable, I personally don’t believe we ever had such a chance in either case. At least not on any reasonable scale ( i.e. non-nuclear exchange ).
Well, to be honest? I don’t think ANYONE misses Pol Pot.
Not even Mrs Pot.
(…what was She smoking?)
SNL might miss The King of Scotland. Idi, we hardly knew ye!
But maybe thats a good thing. I mean did you really what to
see him medicated and on 60 Minutes? How would they manage that?
“Its called Prolixin…”
“Why is that, advisor peon number three?”
“Because… it tastes good! C’mon, try a few tabs.”
“Will I still get to bed your wife?”
“Yeah… um sure. Hold these in your palm.”
“And her sister? As King, I deserve both. Does she have any cousins?”
“Let me get you some water…”
