5 ms·

> "they’re not doing their job" --- their job being what? At some point, a US president may need to send soldiers into a situation in which they will very like

> "they’re not doing their job" --- their job being what? At some point, a US president may need to send soldiers into a situation in which they will very likely die, in order to win a war. It has happened before, and it may happen again. If the president allows visits to wounded veterans to weaken his resolve, the consequences could be very bad. That's what Eliot Cohen is alluding to. He is not suggesting that the president should not care -- he is suggesting that the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens. > Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up. Nobody suggested that the president should not worry about the lives of soldiers. Your interpretation is unreasonably uncharitable and is in fact a straw man.

joslin01 10y ago
I like to think he was being slightly facetious asking what their job is -- like he's saying, "their job is to keep the racket going" which I agree with. He's saying "a president should not be worried.." in the context of a racket. I doubt a legitimate threat to humanity would stop a president or the people from going after it. That's just obvious and not really worth discussing.
qznc 10y ago
> the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens Not all wars can or should be won. For example, the war on drugs cannot be won, just like the war on alcohol was a mistake. Sometimes, the greatest things a leader / president can do, is to acknowledge that he was (we were) wrong. However, pride prevents that. Once you decided to enter a war, you are entirely focused on winning it.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight. It's a figure of speech. The war on terror is so-so.
  - qznc 10y ago
    > The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight Debatable. The police men / DEA involved probably feel like soldiers sometimes. The drug lords and governments in south america certainly have soldiers involved.
    - eponeponepon 10y ago
      They're being trained to think of themselves as soldiers. This will inevitably lead to them being soldiers, and that eventually ends in bog-standard straightforward war, indistinguishable from any waged by "real" soldiers.
      - tracker1 10y ago
        Most soldiers throughout history were not career soldiers or warriors. Most are people brought into the conflict without any intent to be a soldier before whatever brought them in.
    - lostboys67 10y ago
      paintball weekend warriors probably think that to but real soldiers consider them "walts"
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    > The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight. There are a lot of decapitations and mass graves for something that isn't a war. If the people fighting aren't soldiers, what are they?
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Criminals. (By the way, soldiers generally don't decapitate enemies these days; doing so is a war crime.)
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Not all wars can or should be won. For example, the war on drugs cannot be won, just like the war on alcohol was a mistake. I'm talking about real wars, not metaphorical wars.
  - qznc 10y ago
    Yeah, the choice of war was not optimal. I'm looking for a war, which is mostly uncontroversial (on HN). Maybe Vietnam? The crusades?
    - joslin01 10y ago
      Vietnam is a great example that proves original OP right, actually. We should have never been in that war. It was a main driving force in the anti-war attitude of the 60s and 70s.
    - arethuza 10y ago
      Uncontroversial and Vietnam (or indeed the Crusades) aren't words that you see together very often!
tdkl 10y ago
> order to win a war. What war ? That's the war Butler is talking about. There's no winning or loosing endgame in that kind of war, because the most positive (for the initiators) is being done with prolonging it.

joslin01 10y ago

I like to think he was being slightly facetious asking what their job is -- like he's saying, "their job is to keep the racket going" which I agree with. He's saying "a president should not be worried.." in the context of a racket. I doubt a legitimate threat to humanity would stop a president or the people from going after it. That's just obvious and not really worth discussing.

qznc 10y ago

> the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens Not all wars can or should be won. For example, the war on drugs cannot be won, just like the war on alcohol was a mistake. Sometimes, the greatest things a leader / president can do, is to acknowledge that he was (we were) wrong. However, pride prevents that. Once you decided to enter a war, you are entirely focused on winning it.

ptaipale 10y ago
The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight. It's a figure of speech. The war on terror is so-so.
- qznc 10y ago
  > The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight Debatable. The police men / DEA involved probably feel like soldiers sometimes. The drug lords and governments in south america certainly have soldiers involved.
  - eponeponepon 10y ago
    They're being trained to think of themselves as soldiers. This will inevitably lead to them being soldiers, and that eventually ends in bog-standard straightforward war, indistinguishable from any waged by "real" soldiers.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      Most soldiers throughout history were not career soldiers or warriors. Most are people brought into the conflict without any intent to be a soldier before whatever brought them in.
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    paintball weekend warriors probably think that to but real soldiers consider them "walts"
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight. There are a lot of decapitations and mass graves for something that isn't a war. If the people fighting aren't soldiers, what are they?
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Criminals. (By the way, soldiers generally don't decapitate enemies these days; doing so is a war crime.)
twblalock 10y ago
> Not all wars can or should be won. For example, the war on drugs cannot be won, just like the war on alcohol was a mistake. I'm talking about real wars, not metaphorical wars.
- qznc 10y ago
  Yeah, the choice of war was not optimal. I'm looking for a war, which is mostly uncontroversial (on HN). Maybe Vietnam? The crusades?
  - joslin01 10y ago
    Vietnam is a great example that proves original OP right, actually. We should have never been in that war. It was a main driving force in the anti-war attitude of the 60s and 70s.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Uncontroversial and Vietnam (or indeed the Crusades) aren't words that you see together very often!

tdkl 10y ago

> order to win a war. What war ? That's the war Butler is talking about. There's no winning or loosing endgame in that kind of war, because the most positive (for the initiators) is being done with prolonging it.