4 ms·

That's a manufactured narrative. In actual war, the US attacked civilians all the time. If nothing else, we constantly bombed entire cities and strafed civilian

That's a manufactured narrative. In actual war, the US attacked civilians all the time. If nothing else, we constantly bombed entire cities and strafed civilian populations during World War 2. Attacking civilian populations during war is meant to place pressure on the government to surrender. It serves the exact same purpose that a "terrorist" is seeking to achieve by attacking civilian populations. It's ridiculous that the only way Americans can justify their violence is through caricatures of their own behavior and through propaganda about their enemies. It should be really, really easy to justify attacking Al Qaeda or ISIS without the linguistic gymnastics, but America is so culturally bankrupt that they can't make a simple argument for an obvious good without manipulating the public.

Aqueous 11y ago
It is also a manufactured narrative to argue US foreign policy has not evolved considerably. We no longer firebomb entire cities. We have not dropped an A-Bomb since 1945. In fact the US has lead the way in nuclear disarmament. In drone strikes, we take great care to identify targets with armed combatants as opposed to civilians in them. In the last 8 years we have de-escalated military operations in the Middle East. You don't see US soldiers wandering into a random concert hall and machine gunning hundreds of unarmed innocents and then blowing themselves up - especially not on orders from the high command.
- ashark 11y ago
  This is only because we and our allies don't face an existential threat from our adversaries. It'd likely be much more effective to, say, ruthlessly hunt down and murder the extended families and friend networks of known terrorists or insurgents to discourage terrorism and uprisings, but the diplomatic cost of such actions in what amount to wars of choice is too high, and it would do too much damage to our narrative of "good guys versus bad guys". We're bad at fighting these types of groups because we choose to be bad at it, because the narrative matters more than winning—the cost of losing, or at least of a perpetual draw, isn't nearly as high as the cost of winning using effective but brutal strategies. In a "real" war, that likely wouldn't be true. Give us an actual threat and we'll go right back to flattening cities and firebombing civilians in no time. (note: I'm not advocating these tactics, I just think our relative restraint is a consequence of our position in current geopolitics, not of some ethical enlightenment on our part)
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
I think we can all agree that WWII was a pretty terrible war for everybody, and every side saw the darkest corners of the human heart. As to America being "so culturally bankrupt that they can't make a simple argument for an obvious good without manipulating the public," I would have to counter that without effective propaganda mechanisms, a simple argument for an obvious good may not be palatable or worth the time of the average citizen. In other words, if the choice is between a "simple argument" that may work, and a concerted propaganda effort that will work, propaganda will win every time. This is what I get for reading Edward Bernays' "Crystallizing Public Opinion" between bug fixes.

Aqueous 11y ago

It is also a manufactured narrative to argue US foreign policy has not evolved considerably. We no longer firebomb entire cities. We have not dropped an A-Bomb since 1945. In fact the US has lead the way in nuclear disarmament. In drone strikes, we take great care to identify targets with armed combatants as opposed to civilians in them. In the last 8 years we have de-escalated military operations in the Middle East. You don't see US soldiers wandering into a random concert hall and machine gunning hundreds of unarmed innocents and then blowing themselves up - especially not on orders from the high command.

ashark 11y ago
This is only because we and our allies don't face an existential threat from our adversaries. It'd likely be much more effective to, say, ruthlessly hunt down and murder the extended families and friend networks of known terrorists or insurgents to discourage terrorism and uprisings, but the diplomatic cost of such actions in what amount to wars of choice is too high, and it would do too much damage to our narrative of "good guys versus bad guys". We're bad at fighting these types of groups because we choose to be bad at it, because the narrative matters more than winning—the cost of losing, or at least of a perpetual draw, isn't nearly as high as the cost of winning using effective but brutal strategies. In a "real" war, that likely wouldn't be true. Give us an actual threat and we'll go right back to flattening cities and firebombing civilians in no time. (note: I'm not advocating these tactics, I just think our relative restraint is a consequence of our position in current geopolitics, not of some ethical enlightenment on our part)

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

I think we can all agree that WWII was a pretty terrible war for everybody, and every side saw the darkest corners of the human heart. As to America being "so culturally bankrupt that they can't make a simple argument for an obvious good without manipulating the public," I would have to counter that without effective propaganda mechanisms, a simple argument for an obvious good may not be palatable or worth the time of the average citizen. In other words, if the choice is between a "simple argument" that may work, and a concerted propaganda effort that will work, propaganda will win every time. This is what I get for reading Edward Bernays' "Crystallizing Public Opinion" between bug fixes.