3 ms·

I believe pj_mukh was referring to asymmetrical warfare in the style of Stalingrad being what is more common nowadays rather than before. Regardless, we got a

by npunt 11y ago

I believe pj_mukh was referring to asymmetrical warfare in the style of Stalingrad being what is more common nowadays rather than before. Regardless, we got a clear picture of the cost and lack of result of such a strategy from the last 15 years, so the idea that this time will be different has a very high burden of proof.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
Ummm... no. The last 15 years have been anything but a full-scale war-to-the-knife strategy, ala WWII. While the United States may not be willing to do that sort of thing, others may (cough...Putin, aka the honey badger of heads of state). Also, such policies have a way of changing if the perceived threat level becomes high enough, as the former inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden could attest. I am not arguing (or interested in an argument about) whether those things were justified or not. I am merely pointing out that those things can and do happen. Generalizing from Afghanistan is also not justifiable. Many have tried (and failed) to conquer and hold Afghanistan (in no small degree because there's not really anything there worth owning). Syria, by contrast, has been successfully conquered, and held, many times.
- npunt 11y ago
  Apologies I was only trying to give benefit of the doubt to pj_mukh's comment. Tho 100 years is a stretch, he does have a point about the past ~60. I believe we're saying the same thing aside from that distinction. Also, I was generalizing from Iraq. We didn't do such a great job holding that. This thread is ultimately about military intervention in a place that could be charitably called a total f'n mess, in order to wipe out a terrorist group we helped create from the last total f'n mess we made in the region. Compounding that is the modern challenge of a highly connected world in which every intervention down to the smallest altercation can be caught on video and propagate, creating strife and leading to future acts. Whether or not the territory has been held in the past, the option is not realistically available to us now, nor do we wish to hold the territory, and nor is there a qualified group that could fill the power vacuum that would result if we intervened in a serious way. I don't think Honey badger Putin (btw hilarious) can afford to commit necessary resources to secure Syria in any meaningful way either. Maybe if oil was trading in the $100s and he didn't have Ukraine to worry about, and it was far earlier in the conflict. We obviously have to keep the problem contained with use of both military and non-military means (cut off ISIS $$ for one), but ultimately have to accept that getting mixed up in this is nuts.

by npunt 11y ago

Turing_Machine 11y ago

Ummm... no. The last 15 years have been anything but a full-scale war-to-the-knife strategy, ala WWII. While the United States may not be willing to do that sort of thing, others may (cough...Putin, aka the honey badger of heads of state). Also, such policies have a way of changing if the perceived threat level becomes high enough, as the former inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden could attest. I am not arguing (or interested in an argument about) whether those things were justified or not. I am merely pointing out that those things can and do happen. Generalizing from Afghanistan is also not justifiable. Many have tried (and failed) to conquer and hold Afghanistan (in no small degree because there's not really anything there worth owning). Syria, by contrast, has been successfully conquered, and held, many times.

npunt 11y ago
Apologies I was only trying to give benefit of the doubt to pj_mukh's comment. Tho 100 years is a stretch, he does have a point about the past ~60. I believe we're saying the same thing aside from that distinction. Also, I was generalizing from Iraq. We didn't do such a great job holding that. This thread is ultimately about military intervention in a place that could be charitably called a total f'n mess, in order to wipe out a terrorist group we helped create from the last total f'n mess we made in the region. Compounding that is the modern challenge of a highly connected world in which every intervention down to the smallest altercation can be caught on video and propagate, creating strife and leading to future acts. Whether or not the territory has been held in the past, the option is not realistically available to us now, nor do we wish to hold the territory, and nor is there a qualified group that could fill the power vacuum that would result if we intervened in a serious way. I don't think Honey badger Putin (btw hilarious) can afford to commit necessary resources to secure Syria in any meaningful way either. Maybe if oil was trading in the $100s and he didn't have Ukraine to worry about, and it was far earlier in the conflict. We obviously have to keep the problem contained with use of both military and non-military means (cut off ISIS $$ for one), but ultimately have to accept that getting mixed up in this is nuts.