5 ms·
That's certainly true about total war where the nation's survival is threatened by defeat, but it's not true about the kind of limited wars was have seen since
by arglebarnacle 9y ago
That's certainly true about total war where the nation's survival is threatened by defeat, but it's not true about the kind of limited wars was have seen since world war 2. In fact, because these wars are limited wars for the world powers that start them, but total wars for the postcolonial states in the receiving end, I think it's very correct that the public e.g. in the US continue to aggressively question the rationale for war even after it's begun in e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, and so on.
Henry Kissinger would certainly have been happier to see a US public united behind the Vietnam war effort because it would have made it easier to win in a geopolitical sense, but what about in a moral sense? The US wasn't threatened existentially by failure in Vietnam, and it's right that we didn't adopt the attitude expressed in your comment.
- thomastjeffery 9y agoOn that note, the US spends almost as much in defense as the entire rest of the world. Losing a "war" in the middle East would not affect the US very much outside reputation.
- robocat 9y agoCalling it “defence” is almost Orwellian... when the majority of the budget is spent on attack and offence in other countries?
- mistermann 9y agoThis is true with the current realities of oil supply, maybe not so much 10 or 20 years ago. With indefinite domestic/local supplies now established, I really wish we could let them live their lives without our interference.
- dragonsky67 9y agoI would respectively suggest that most countries in the rest of the world don't behave in such a was as to require this level of excessive spending on "defence". As you state, if you are conducting defensive operations, how can it be that failure of that defence will not impact your country.