4 ms·

It's difficult to claim that America's actions in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world have been good for America. In fact, the only war America particip

It's difficult to claim that America's actions in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world have been good for America. In fact, the only war America participated in that ended up being a net good for America was World War 2, which resulted in the devastation of much of Europe and allowed American industries to expand and advance virtually unchallenged for almost 50 years. The Vietnam War however was a disaster of epic proportions. So was the Iraq War. The latter, instead of installing a friendly regime that guaranteed the uninterrupted flow of cheap oil, resulted in even more instability in the region, not to mention further radicalization of extremist forces. And things continue to go downhill. At the end of the day, it is worth understanding that America's wars benefit only a small number of people in America: higher ups in the military-industrial complex, the oil companies and the construction conglomerates. For everyone else, it's a waste.

blahi 10y ago
What do you think were the objectives in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and the prolonged interference in the middle east as a whole?
- nickik 10y ago
  Its a hard question. The original military involvement start with Carter and the Carter Doctrine, declaring the Golf as a vital US interest. From there is spiral out of control quite a bit and its to long a story for this comment. Lets jump to the 'current' wars. Afghanistan was pretty clear cut. AQ was there, the US wanted to kick them out and install a regime that would prevent further use of Afghanistan at a base, so the Taliban had to go. There is little argument about this. Iraq is the real question. I have spent quite a bit of time on this. Its really a mystery because it simply does not make sense. There were a combination of ideas that 'infected' a small group of top military and political people. Iraq was actually the just a first step of a grand policy to rework the middle east. You can say about Bush and friends what you like, but at least they had a strategy. They basically wanted to demonstrate US power and US ability to install liberal democracy. This would split the Iran-Syria-Hezebolla Axis. It would pressure Iran and be helpful to Israel. With this success in hand, they could use soft power way more effectively to 'control' weak regimes like Sudan. The idea was, join the US and if you don't you will get hammer in the ground and replaced with a democracy. This strategy was of course thrown overboard when the Republicans lost the congress, Bush dumped Rumsfeld over board with it. Since then they are back to having no strategy and a ad-hock fire brigade style of policy making.
jwtadvice 10y ago
The purpose of the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the support of the Afghanistan insurgency weren't intended to be net positives for the United States. They were intended to be net negatives for the Soviet Union. And they were. Now we have instable areas, but the US prevented the Soviet Union from continuing to expand and collapsed it by overwhelming it with military costs to stabilize its periphery. In some circles that counts as a net positive to the US.
- nickik 10y ago
  A net negative for the Soviets is a positive for the US. That is fair enough but it does not mean that your statement is true. The War in Vietnam was far more costly and destructive then any 'damage' that was done to the Soviets. It was a absolute net lose in every way, money, lives, credibility and so on. It was a major victory for communism and all anti-imperialist colonialist struggles. You are just repeating the same failed and disproven logic that people like J.F. Dulles were advocating. They looked at everything in cold war terms, black and white. The reality however is different. Just because some countries are neutral or maybe communist does not make them automatically Soviet puppets and the countries in the same region do not automatically fall to communism because of that. Had J.F. Dulles just accepted the situation in 1953 the US would have been in a much better position during the cold war. Vietnam would not have been allied with China and Russia against the US. The idea of "world communism" is a fantasy that should not be a guid to policy. > support of the Afghanistan insurgency That was a great policy. Problem is just that even at the time people pointed out that it was unlikely (almost impossible) that the Soviets would attack threw Iran to the Golf. So there were no vital US interests at stack. The Soviet, we now know, had no plans to do so, and not the capability. In order to support the insurgency the US had to massively support Pakistan, they ignored Pakistani spread of extremism, they ignored the Pakistani nuclear program and the money flowed to the kind of insurgence that should not get money, rather then to the moderate afghani nationalists that should have gotten the money. How people defend this policy in still today is insane to me. A nuclear Pakistan and India is one of the greats dangers for nuclear war in the world right now.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago

blahi 10y ago

What do you think were the objectives in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and the prolonged interference in the middle east as a whole?

nickik 10y ago
Its a hard question. The original military involvement start with Carter and the Carter Doctrine, declaring the Golf as a vital US interest. From there is spiral out of control quite a bit and its to long a story for this comment. Lets jump to the 'current' wars. Afghanistan was pretty clear cut. AQ was there, the US wanted to kick them out and install a regime that would prevent further use of Afghanistan at a base, so the Taliban had to go. There is little argument about this. Iraq is the real question. I have spent quite a bit of time on this. Its really a mystery because it simply does not make sense. There were a combination of ideas that 'infected' a small group of top military and political people. Iraq was actually the just a first step of a grand policy to rework the middle east. You can say about Bush and friends what you like, but at least they had a strategy. They basically wanted to demonstrate US power and US ability to install liberal democracy. This would split the Iran-Syria-Hezebolla Axis. It would pressure Iran and be helpful to Israel. With this success in hand, they could use soft power way more effectively to 'control' weak regimes like Sudan. The idea was, join the US and if you don't you will get hammer in the ground and replaced with a democracy. This strategy was of course thrown overboard when the Republicans lost the congress, Bush dumped Rumsfeld over board with it. Since then they are back to having no strategy and a ad-hock fire brigade style of policy making.

jwtadvice 10y ago

The purpose of the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the support of the Afghanistan insurgency weren't intended to be net positives for the United States. They were intended to be net negatives for the Soviet Union. And they were. Now we have instable areas, but the US prevented the Soviet Union from continuing to expand and collapsed it by overwhelming it with military costs to stabilize its periphery. In some circles that counts as a net positive to the US.

nickik 10y ago
A net negative for the Soviets is a positive for the US. That is fair enough but it does not mean that your statement is true. The War in Vietnam was far more costly and destructive then any 'damage' that was done to the Soviets. It was a absolute net lose in every way, money, lives, credibility and so on. It was a major victory for communism and all anti-imperialist colonialist struggles. You are just repeating the same failed and disproven logic that people like J.F. Dulles were advocating. They looked at everything in cold war terms, black and white. The reality however is different. Just because some countries are neutral or maybe communist does not make them automatically Soviet puppets and the countries in the same region do not automatically fall to communism because of that. Had J.F. Dulles just accepted the situation in 1953 the US would have been in a much better position during the cold war. Vietnam would not have been allied with China and Russia against the US. The idea of "world communism" is a fantasy that should not be a guid to policy. > support of the Afghanistan insurgency That was a great policy. Problem is just that even at the time people pointed out that it was unlikely (almost impossible) that the Soviets would attack threw Iran to the Golf. So there were no vital US interests at stack. The Soviet, we now know, had no plans to do so, and not the capability. In order to support the insurgency the US had to massively support Pakistan, they ignored Pakistani spread of extremism, they ignored the Pakistani nuclear program and the money flowed to the kind of insurgence that should not get money, rather then to the moderate afghani nationalists that should have gotten the money. How people defend this policy in still today is insane to me. A nuclear Pakistan and India is one of the greats dangers for nuclear war in the world right now.
- jwtadvice 10y ago