4 ms·

unnecessarily using the might of the military for nebulous gains I would say those actions were 'half-hearted' due to the risk of angering the public. But if

by kiba 10y ago

unnecessarily using the might of the military for nebulous gains I would say those actions were 'half-hearted' due to the risk of angering the public. But if we're going to use the military, I would like it to be in a decisive and overwhelming manner with a well defined objective. To do that, we must be willing to accept casualty. If we aren't willing to commit to our goal, whatever that may be, with all the necessary resources, why are we fighting there? Let just stay home.

benbenolson 10y ago
Yeah, that's a good point: if force absolutely needs to be done, let it be swift and to the point. Drawing out a foreign war, and then griping about casualties, is no way to keep the peace. Let alone the unknown intentions of said war.
- Animats 10y ago
  War doesn't work like that any more. "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Zedong. The enemy today is distributed amongst people you don't want to kill. Nobody stands up a big army in one place any more, unless they have absolute air superiority. The last one to try was Saddam Hussein. The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Eco points out that the resistance movement was more of a political exercise in keeping opposition alive than a military success. That was also true of the French Resistance. The efforts of the French Resistance before D-Day didn't accomplish much. They were supported by the Allies primarily so that they could do some key attacks on D-Day to confuse the situation and maintain the deception that the attack was at Calais. The most important function of the Resistance was that they provided the core of the French government once it was back in power. "The Third Republic has never ceased to exist" - de Gaulle.
  - benbenolson 10y ago
    Fair point. Surely my solution would not work against such an enemy, since there is no "head" to attack swiftly.
  - kiba 10y ago
    I was thinking more about the insurgency the Americans had to fight more than invasion. The answer is still the same, have clear objectives, devote the necessary resource and expertise, and accept casualty in the pursuit of those goal. If we are unwilling to do those kind of things, then we have no business in waging a counterinsurgency.
    - Animats 10y ago
      The usual buzzwords don't help. Read "Nation Building is an Oxymoron", from Parameters.[1] [1] http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring_2016/10_Mason.pdf http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/is...
  - syngrog66 10y ago
    great comment, sir. I'm one of those geeks who is into history as much as computer science so I get a particular pleasure in stumbling across contributions like this here on HN. on a related note, that's a huge factor in why I'd vote Hillary over Trump. I don't think Hillary is a perfect person or candidate, but when I compare to Trump, well, the latter pushes too many of my "disaster-in-the-making" buttons. I increasingly try to think of the next 5 years, the next 20, the kind of world that's better for children, grandchildren, etc. And a big factor in informing that, for me, is to look back on history, whether recent or ancient.
  - douche 10y ago
    > The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Bingo. Then they mustered out the veteran legionaries there on the now-mostly-depopulated land, simultaneously exporting their own restive, landless population, and installing both a colony of Roman culture, and a permanent garrison.
abpavel 10y ago
With "stay home" plan, the only thing "decisive and ovewhelming" is going to be the enemy's strike., when it's too late. Today politics are global, requiring constant control and supervision. From East Chinese Sea, to the Baltic Sea, each side is constantly probing the boundaries. Once a weakness in the global enforcement is spotted, another Crimea or Burma or North Korea or Syria flares up. Global military policy fights fires at the source, when still small, not waiting for the fire to become an inferno, letting itself in into backyard without knocking.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  The problem is the manner in which we (the US) have chosen to fight those fires. Attack two nations, at once, without sufficient troops for such action, without a solid plan for how to remove ourselves, killing and dislocating millions of civilians. Followed by attacks on civilian populations while attempting to target specific individuals or small groups, resulting in casualties like wedding parties. Those fires have become an inferno for the western world in ISIS (recently) and Al Qaeda (the last 20-30 years) precisely because of the way that a large portion of the world's population has been disenfranchised and discarded by the West.
- benbenolson 10y ago
  The comment that you commented on didn't say that we should stay home from all wars; he/she said that the government should be decisive about when and where to attack. The final sentence, that we should just stay home, was referring to the wars which the United States chose poorly to become involved in, and which have been drawn out beyond a "decisive and overwhelming" attack.
- kiba 10y ago
  Global military policy fights fires at the source, when still small, not waiting for the fire to become an inferno, letting itself in into backyard without knocking. I don't advocate the nonsense that we should all stay at home and do nothing. That's not my position. But if the American people are unwilling to live with the idea of servicemen dying in some foreign war in the East China Sea or the Baltic, maybe we should take a good look at ourselves and decide how much agony we should endure.

by kiba 10y ago

benbenolson 10y ago

Yeah, that's a good point: if force absolutely needs to be done, let it be swift and to the point. Drawing out a foreign war, and then griping about casualties, is no way to keep the peace. Let alone the unknown intentions of said war.

Animats 10y ago
War doesn't work like that any more. "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Zedong. The enemy today is distributed amongst people you don't want to kill. Nobody stands up a big army in one place any more, unless they have absolute air superiority. The last one to try was Saddam Hussein. The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Eco points out that the resistance movement was more of a political exercise in keeping opposition alive than a military success. That was also true of the French Resistance. The efforts of the French Resistance before D-Day didn't accomplish much. They were supported by the Allies primarily so that they could do some key attacks on D-Day to confuse the situation and maintain the deception that the attack was at Calais. The most important function of the Resistance was that they provided the core of the French government once it was back in power. "The Third Republic has never ceased to exist" - de Gaulle.
- benbenolson 10y ago
  Fair point. Surely my solution would not work against such an enemy, since there is no "head" to attack swiftly.
- kiba 10y ago
  I was thinking more about the insurgency the Americans had to fight more than invasion. The answer is still the same, have clear objectives, devote the necessary resource and expertise, and accept casualty in the pursuit of those goal. If we are unwilling to do those kind of things, then we have no business in waging a counterinsurgency.
  - Animats 10y ago
    The usual buzzwords don't help. Read "Nation Building is an Oxymoron", from Parameters.[1] [1] http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring_2016/10_Mason.pdf http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/is...
- syngrog66 10y ago
  great comment, sir. I'm one of those geeks who is into history as much as computer science so I get a particular pleasure in stumbling across contributions like this here on HN. on a related note, that's a huge factor in why I'd vote Hillary over Trump. I don't think Hillary is a perfect person or candidate, but when I compare to Trump, well, the latter pushes too many of my "disaster-in-the-making" buttons. I increasingly try to think of the next 5 years, the next 20, the kind of world that's better for children, grandchildren, etc. And a big factor in informing that, for me, is to look back on history, whether recent or ancient.
- douche 10y ago
  > The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Bingo. Then they mustered out the veteran legionaries there on the now-mostly-depopulated land, simultaneously exporting their own restive, landless population, and installing both a colony of Roman culture, and a permanent garrison.

abpavel 10y ago

With "stay home" plan, the only thing "decisive and ovewhelming" is going to be the enemy's strike., when it's too late. Today politics are global, requiring constant control and supervision. From East Chinese Sea, to the Baltic Sea, each side is constantly probing the boundaries. Once a weakness in the global enforcement is spotted, another Crimea or Burma or North Korea or Syria flares up. Global military policy fights fires at the source, when still small, not waiting for the fire to become an inferno, letting itself in into backyard without knocking.

Jtsummers 10y ago
The problem is the manner in which we (the US) have chosen to fight those fires. Attack two nations, at once, without sufficient troops for such action, without a solid plan for how to remove ourselves, killing and dislocating millions of civilians. Followed by attacks on civilian populations while attempting to target specific individuals or small groups, resulting in casualties like wedding parties. Those fires have become an inferno for the western world in ISIS (recently) and Al Qaeda (the last 20-30 years) precisely because of the way that a large portion of the world's population has been disenfranchised and discarded by the West.
benbenolson 10y ago
The comment that you commented on didn't say that we should stay home from all wars; he/she said that the government should be decisive about when and where to attack. The final sentence, that we should just stay home, was referring to the wars which the United States chose poorly to become involved in, and which have been drawn out beyond a "decisive and overwhelming" attack.
kiba 10y ago
Global military policy fights fires at the source, when still small, not waiting for the fire to become an inferno, letting itself in into backyard without knocking. I don't advocate the nonsense that we should all stay at home and do nothing. That's not my position. But if the American people are unwilling to live with the idea of servicemen dying in some foreign war in the East China Sea or the Baltic, maybe we should take a good look at ourselves and decide how much agony we should endure.