5 ms·

Terrorism is the current justification for military operations abroad. Likewise, there are some who believe terrorism to be an externality of our operations ab

by dpwm 9y ago

Terrorism is the current justification for military operations abroad. Likewise, there are some who believe terrorism to be an externality of our operations abroad, in which case there is positive feedback. We are told by our leaders as the justification for war that it will cause negative feedback, though the recurrence of terrorism would suggest this is not the case. Even without any feedback, to look at this economically you would have to take into account the news, the journalists, the wars, the arms sales, the rebuilding, the cable-laying that comes from war and the attempt at peace. Consider two countries at war with the other. Now imagine that both are part of the same territory but the planes still fly and the bombs still fall on the same places. It is clear that this is economic and political madness. So as a combined system, the two warring countries are better off not engaging in war. But if one country can make money from war then it is beneficial for it to be at war. The answer is for those who govern to think in terms of the whole system, i.e. both countries. That is unpopular with patriotic voters who accuse such leaders of being traitors.

meric 9y ago
Now imagine that both are part of the same territory but the planes still fly and the bombs still fall on the same places. It is clear that this is economic and political madness. For example, China/Taiwan, North Korea/South Korea, which no longer fight.
eveningcoffee 9y ago
>Terrorism is the current justification for military operations abroad. It seems to me more and more that people are living in some kind of lala land today. They seem to believe that military action against some group of people will not result in some kind of recoil. Especially when part of the group they are engaging military action against is living among them or has free access to enter the country. I think that this is pretty disconnected thinking. Asking intelligence agency to do better job feels is kind of ridiculous. They just have to follow too many people to be 100% effective.
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  We're literally at war. In a war, it's not just "their" guys that get killed. It's a two-way thing. It's amazing how many people don't seem to get this.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    I blame the media. They've conditioned two generations of voters that war is something that you see on TV or read about online, not something that involves you or your neighborhood, you 'go to war', it never comes to you. This kind of verbal white-washing causes all kinds of problems when the inevitable adjustment happens which shows that we can play word games all we want but it won't make an actual difference.
    - cmurf 9y ago
      The media is reporting what it is, which is a war that happens elsewhere. It's verbal white washing because it is socio-economically and politically white washed. A draft would change this. But the military is a product like anything else. It's not civil service. It's not something that every family suffers from. The U.S. professional military is overwhelmingly middle and lower class. There's no meaningful representation of aristocratic families in the military. They have nothing to lose by supporting politicians who in turn support interventionist policies abroad.
  - dpwm 9y ago
    We're fighting an insurgency that is distributed across organizations and borders. Historical precedent would suggest this will not end with the annihilation of the insurgency, some of whom will currently be civilians, but with some kind of peace process. The problem with calling this a war is that the right-wing press are calling this a war. This is not an existential threat to us in the way, say, WW2 was to the Soviet Union or to the UK once we had engaged militarily. We could withdraw from bombing campaigns in the middle east tomorrow and see almost no immediate detrimental domestic repercussions. That is probably a sign that this is not so much a war but something else. If it was domestic we would call it a massacre. The more we go down the road of annihilation, the more costly that peace process will be and the more people will die purely for war. That includes our own.

by dpwm 9y ago

meric 9y ago

Now imagine that both are part of the same territory but the planes still fly and the bombs still fall on the same places. It is clear that this is economic and political madness. For example, China/Taiwan, North Korea/South Korea, which no longer fight.

eveningcoffee 9y ago

>Terrorism is the current justification for military operations abroad. It seems to me more and more that people are living in some kind of lala land today. They seem to believe that military action against some group of people will not result in some kind of recoil. Especially when part of the group they are engaging military action against is living among them or has free access to enter the country. I think that this is pretty disconnected thinking. Asking intelligence agency to do better job feels is kind of ridiculous. They just have to follow too many people to be 100% effective.

SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
We're literally at war. In a war, it's not just "their" guys that get killed. It's a two-way thing. It's amazing how many people don't seem to get this.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  I blame the media. They've conditioned two generations of voters that war is something that you see on TV or read about online, not something that involves you or your neighborhood, you 'go to war', it never comes to you. This kind of verbal white-washing causes all kinds of problems when the inevitable adjustment happens which shows that we can play word games all we want but it won't make an actual difference.
  - cmurf 9y ago
    The media is reporting what it is, which is a war that happens elsewhere. It's verbal white washing because it is socio-economically and politically white washed. A draft would change this. But the military is a product like anything else. It's not civil service. It's not something that every family suffers from. The U.S. professional military is overwhelmingly middle and lower class. There's no meaningful representation of aristocratic families in the military. They have nothing to lose by supporting politicians who in turn support interventionist policies abroad.
- dpwm 9y ago
  We're fighting an insurgency that is distributed across organizations and borders. Historical precedent would suggest this will not end with the annihilation of the insurgency, some of whom will currently be civilians, but with some kind of peace process. The problem with calling this a war is that the right-wing press are calling this a war. This is not an existential threat to us in the way, say, WW2 was to the Soviet Union or to the UK once we had engaged militarily. We could withdraw from bombing campaigns in the middle east tomorrow and see almost no immediate detrimental domestic repercussions. That is probably a sign that this is not so much a war but something else. If it was domestic we would call it a massacre. The more we go down the road of annihilation, the more costly that peace process will be and the more people will die purely for war. That includes our own.