3 ms·

“I'm starting to feel like my generation may be the last American generation to remember a time when we weren't at war.” I suggest taking a look at something l

“I'm starting to feel like my generation may be the last American generation to remember a time when we weren't at war.” I suggest taking a look at something like Max Boots _The Savage Wars of Peace_. The short of it is that the US has been engaged in near constant active armed conflict since the earliest days of the republic. Post tonkin, and especially the last 2-3 decades, the size and scale of that engagement has certainly turned up. And putting media first (like cnn on the beach during landings in somalia) has changed the public visibility. But we’ve always had men and women dying overseas in service to the country.

wahern 7y ago
You can say that of any major power throughout the entirety of written history. What distinguishes the United States is a comparative aversion to military adventurism, especially given its means and interests. I think the OP has a point: since 9/11 we've internalized an ethos and logic of security matters that necessitate our perpetually making war in the Middle East. Other than Vietnam, nothing in our history is comparable. I've said it before: President Obama's decision not to invade Syria was one of the most respectable and admirable decisions of any president in our history. He made the correct decision within a political culture that demanded he do the opposite. Every leader domestically, across party lines; all his advisors; and all of America's allies demanded and even attempted to shame him publicly into invading, despite it being obvious and beyond dispute it could not have possibly turned out any better than Iraq; indeed, that it was precipitated by Iraq. And he made the correct decision despite the fact that he had already, unwisely drew a red line committing the U.S. to intervention. Not since Khrushchev and (in the American narrative) JFK has someone proven that kind of leadership--to recognize your mistake and own up to it in the most consequential way possible. Of course, choosing not to invade Syria meant condemning thousands to die. But it was going to be a slaughter either way. The sin of leaving Syrians to their deaths had been committed more than a decade prior, and revisited every time someone demanded more military intervention.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Not to mention Hillary Clinton running away from Secretary of State right before Syria and Iraq blew up in her face. Leaving John Kerry to clean up the mess.
- donavanm 7y ago
  Not sure where Syria came in. The original comment expressed a desire to get back to a more civilized age where “American soldiers [were not] dying in other people's wars.” My point is not the morality or efficacy of that adventurism. My assertion is that time never really existed. The best probable outcome for the current go round in Afghanistan & Iraq was something like Korea. Armistice or not we’ve had 30-50,000 soldiers stationed in an active war zone for 60 years. Earlier the US military fought and controlled the Philippines for 50 years. Before that it was China and central America. The 5 declared wars, with a tidy declaration and cessation, are the exception not the rule. The US public may have an aversion to adventurism, but the US state certainly does not. Edit: the first found reasonably complete list of these “small wars” with US combat deaths https://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp https://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp I dont have a citation for how it compares to other major nations, but Im skeptical thats its substantially “smaller”.
  - wahern 7y ago
    > Not sure where Syria came in. I think it exemplifies the political forces that channel the nation into perpetual war, particularly this latest 18-year phase. It illustrates that the leadership[1] necessary to counteract these forces isn't understood as leadership but as weakness. [1] Namely, taking the reins, cutting our loses, and making as much lemonade out of the lemons as possible (e.g. Iran nuclear deal), rather than fecklessly stumbling crisis to crisis trying to minimize loss of face instead of minimizing loss of credibility.

wahern 7y ago

You can say that of any major power throughout the entirety of written history. What distinguishes the United States is a comparative aversion to military adventurism, especially given its means and interests. I think the OP has a point: since 9/11 we've internalized an ethos and logic of security matters that necessitate our perpetually making war in the Middle East. Other than Vietnam, nothing in our history is comparable. I've said it before: President Obama's decision not to invade Syria was one of the most respectable and admirable decisions of any president in our history. He made the correct decision within a political culture that demanded he do the opposite. Every leader domestically, across party lines; all his advisors; and all of America's allies demanded and even attempted to shame him publicly into invading, despite it being obvious and beyond dispute it could not have possibly turned out any better than Iraq; indeed, that it was precipitated by Iraq. And he made the correct decision despite the fact that he had already, unwisely drew a red line committing the U.S. to intervention. Not since Khrushchev and (in the American narrative) JFK has someone proven that kind of leadership--to recognize your mistake and own up to it in the most consequential way possible. Of course, choosing not to invade Syria meant condemning thousands to die. But it was going to be a slaughter either way. The sin of leaving Syrians to their deaths had been committed more than a decade prior, and revisited every time someone demanded more military intervention.

Gibbon1 7y ago
Not to mention Hillary Clinton running away from Secretary of State right before Syria and Iraq blew up in her face. Leaving John Kerry to clean up the mess.
donavanm 7y ago
Not sure where Syria came in. The original comment expressed a desire to get back to a more civilized age where “American soldiers [were not] dying in other people's wars.” My point is not the morality or efficacy of that adventurism. My assertion is that time never really existed. The best probable outcome for the current go round in Afghanistan & Iraq was something like Korea. Armistice or not we’ve had 30-50,000 soldiers stationed in an active war zone for 60 years. Earlier the US military fought and controlled the Philippines for 50 years. Before that it was China and central America. The 5 declared wars, with a tidy declaration and cessation, are the exception not the rule. The US public may have an aversion to adventurism, but the US state certainly does not. Edit: the first found reasonably complete list of these “small wars” with US combat deaths https://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp https://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp I dont have a citation for how it compares to other major nations, but Im skeptical thats its substantially “smaller”.
- wahern 7y ago
  > Not sure where Syria came in. I think it exemplifies the political forces that channel the nation into perpetual war, particularly this latest 18-year phase. It illustrates that the leadership[1] necessary to counteract these forces isn't understood as leadership but as weakness. [1] Namely, taking the reins, cutting our loses, and making as much lemonade out of the lemons as possible (e.g. Iran nuclear deal), rather than fecklessly stumbling crisis to crisis trying to minimize loss of face instead of minimizing loss of credibility.