3 ms·

A very common misconception is that the US Army goes to war because it wants to. That is simply not how it works. The US military, unlike most other countries,

A very common misconception is that the US Army goes to war because it wants to. That is simply not how it works. The US military, unlike most other countries, are 100% under civilian control. This is a safeguard the Founding Fathers put in place to prevent a military coup, and a military dictatorship. That civilian control I refer to is of course the politicians elected into office by The People. War is means to an end, and that end is a political one. If you can diplomat your way to your political goal without the need for violence, then that is awesome and should always be the first option over bloodshed. When the US Army fought the Nazis and imperial Japan, were they “promoting violence against civilians to further their causes”?

diggan 7y ago
> When the US Army fought the Nazis and imperial Japan, were they “promoting violence against civilians to further their causes”? I don't think you can say the US Army is promoting any violence against civilians, but it is harming civilians, even though it's not promoting that. Copy-pasting from a previous comment (made by me): > Here is a list of engagements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... > Taking "2017 Shayrat missile strike" as a random example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike) shows that specific mission had at least 9 civilian casualties. > So even if not intended, the US army are in fact using violence against civilians (like probably most armies in the world)