3 ms·
The article draws a parallel between WW1 and the present conflict. Possibly the difference between than and now is the sheer number of people directly involved
by hardlianotion 9y ago
The article draws a parallel between WW1 and the present conflict.
Possibly the difference between than and now is the sheer number of people directly involved in the War. With great respect to those who have been affected by the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, it is possible for many people (especially here in Western Europe) to ignore the conflict altogether in ways that it was not possible back then.
- adventured 9y agoThe reason the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have gone on as long as they have, is because even most Americans have been able to personally ignore what's going on, particularly the last five or so years of it (obviously in the years immediately after 9/11, the war & terror propaganda was so overwhelming it was nearly impossible to avoid). Around 140 US soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in the last four years. Most Americans will ignore conflict at that scale if they're told it's beneficial. Although Trump managed to get a lot of traction out of pointing out the financial cost while directly contrasting that with America's various domestic financial problems (such as the need to spend vast sums on infrastructure). A large majority of the US population understands very well at this point that the US can't afford the perpetual war machine any longer; we'll see what the war machine does to counter that cultural shift.