5 ms·

We have the largest standing army in the world. The same people you refer to as taking up arms for an insurrection are the same people who voted for the increas

by chb 7y ago

We have the largest standing army in the world. The same people you refer to as taking up arms for an insurrection are the same people who voted for the increasingly exorbitant defense budgets that made such an army possible. The DoD has a vested interest in a stable and orderly society and, in a stroke of irony, would suppress such an insurrection. Why let small bands of rural reactionaries threaten a military-industrial complex that generates tens of trillions of dollars annually?

jessaustin 7y ago
I'm not sure what types of wars USA military is good at winning, because they haven't won a war in my parents' lifetimes, but these definitely don't include "impose unpopular policies on broadly dispersed heavily armed rural population". Never winning wars is no obstacle to blazing through those trillions of dollars you reference, but I imagine that killing voters and their families might constitute such... they'd need to kill these "flyover" voters in some fashion that would appeal to coastal voters enough to inspire deeper political commitment to the continued prosperity of the military-industrial complex. Frankly the whole idea seems too risky for these chickenhawk cowards.
- djohnston 7y ago
  you can only win a winnable war, obviously. the USA could turn afghanistan into glass if they posed an existential threat, but we keep entering conflicts with no criteria for exit with stateless foes.
- killjoywashere 7y ago
  The frontier wars of empires are rarely about winning. Truman didn't really want to win Korea but he'd have been happy to let MacArthur win if Mac hadn't been such an arrogant son of a bitch. Johnson, McNamara, et al weren't willing to win Vietnam, as a statement of historical record. Grenada was forgettable because of its success. Clinton won Bosnia by accident via third-order effects of Richard Holbrooke's chase vehicle falling down the side of a mountain. We achieved our stated objectives in Afghanistan (take out Bin Laden) and Iraq (regime change) but successive administrations of both parties have found it advantageous to keep a presence in the region. It is worth noting that presence includes things like having Iran almost surrounded. Yes, surrounding our enemies on their own continent is the definition of the US frontier. We have agreements with many Asian countries(1) with the net effect of having pushed our "frontier" up the borders of Russia, China, and Iran. If you think the small number of troops in some of these locations is trivial, keep in mind there were only a few thousand troops in Korea before the North crossed the 38th parallel and pummeled Seoul. The key was to have US engagement at the country level, and the death of a single US troop. That created the diplomatic opening to bring unlimited military power into South Korea. This created a model, and this is important to Pax Americana, so pay attention: a model where any country allied with the US is relatively safe from its neighbors, as long as such neighbors are not allied with the US, and the US presents a credible ability to threaten the non-allied country. This is why Iran is not happy about US alignment with Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the Gulf states. Note the US even has deals with Turkmenistan. And that is what makes the US non-response to drone strikes in Saudi Arabia a sensitive issue. The Iranians are trying to draw a picture where the US has lost its ability to present a credible threat. Which is bullshit, but the Iranian economy is in a bad way and getting worse and that makes for desperate politicians. (growth went from 13.4% in 2016 to a projected -4.5% this year). However, while the US has plenty of agreements with the House of Saud, no US servicemembers were harmed by overt aggression by Iranian combatants (as defined by the Geneva conventions, law of armed conflict, etc). So the US threshold for response has not been met. Not by a long way. While I'm sure the price of gas in LA is up, it will be temporary. Those refineries were no doubt diverting processing to offline capacity even as the fires were burning. tl;dr: arguing about whether the military is 'winning' misses the problem of empire entirely. Pax Americana is still here and you're enjoying it despite the shitshow at home. (1) Backing out of TPP and electing Trump were terrible for our long-term strategic interests in Asia, particularly with respect to the Middle Kingdom and it's satellites. We pissed away a hell of a hand there. E.g. seeing a few Apple-related factory jobs show up in Austin will never compensate for the net weakening of our new ally in the modern version of Vietnam.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Wow that is an impressive... deposit of special pleading, post hoc Panglossian reverse logic, argument by novel definition, and misguided historical reinterpretation. Nowhere in this whole page of text do we find consideration of any actual interest of USA citizens as such. No one down at the filling station cares about Turkmenistan. If asked to consider the "problem of empire", they'd answer, "Yep, it's a problem." Nor do we find here the actual reason that the war media are constantly inciting more wars in more unfortunate foreign locales: to feed more money into the maw of the military-industrial complex. Face it, USA military spends money and kills random people. They don't win wars. It's one of the more obvious facts of modern life. Only constant gaslighting from the war media has created the sort of psychological prisons from whence could issue the specious reasoning seen here.
    - killjoywashere 7y ago
      You're missing the central issue that the enemy gets a vote. We all want to go home.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        (Thanks for moderating the earlier statement, Major.) I have a great deal more sympathy for this argument than for those upthread. This man [0] certainly wanted to go home. If we're moving the goalpost to this location, however, the debate is over. If "going home" is the aim, why not stay home in the first place? Nothing that USA military has done in the Middle East in my parents' lifetimes has made life better or safer for Americans or for humans in general. The only reason "the enemy" has "a vote" is that we're in their countries destroying their governments and killing their families. When we leave their countries, they'll lose any ability to affect us in any way. We should do that. Many proud people have publicly claimed otherwise, so they'll be disappointed that we've finally rejected their bullshit. Still, the lives, health, and fortunes of Americans and other human beings is more important than the feelings of politicians and newsreaders. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i5ZUfpxnV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i5ZUfpxnV0
goatinaboat 7y ago
in a stroke of irony, would suppress such an insurrection No one understands better than the US Army that their size and technology was futile in the face of an insurgency. If “the boogaloo” happens they will not be able to suppress it any more than they were able to beat the Taliban. In fact it will be much harder than that.

by chb 7y ago

jessaustin 7y ago

I'm not sure what types of wars USA military is good at winning, because they haven't won a war in my parents' lifetimes, but these definitely don't include "impose unpopular policies on broadly dispersed heavily armed rural population". Never winning wars is no obstacle to blazing through those trillions of dollars you reference, but I imagine that killing voters and their families might constitute such... they'd need to kill these "flyover" voters in some fashion that would appeal to coastal voters enough to inspire deeper political commitment to the continued prosperity of the military-industrial complex. Frankly the whole idea seems too risky for these chickenhawk cowards.

djohnston 7y ago
you can only win a winnable war, obviously. the USA could turn afghanistan into glass if they posed an existential threat, but we keep entering conflicts with no criteria for exit with stateless foes.
killjoywashere 7y ago
The frontier wars of empires are rarely about winning. Truman didn't really want to win Korea but he'd have been happy to let MacArthur win if Mac hadn't been such an arrogant son of a bitch. Johnson, McNamara, et al weren't willing to win Vietnam, as a statement of historical record. Grenada was forgettable because of its success. Clinton won Bosnia by accident via third-order effects of Richard Holbrooke's chase vehicle falling down the side of a mountain. We achieved our stated objectives in Afghanistan (take out Bin Laden) and Iraq (regime change) but successive administrations of both parties have found it advantageous to keep a presence in the region. It is worth noting that presence includes things like having Iran almost surrounded. Yes, surrounding our enemies on their own continent is the definition of the US frontier. We have agreements with many Asian countries(1) with the net effect of having pushed our "frontier" up the borders of Russia, China, and Iran. If you think the small number of troops in some of these locations is trivial, keep in mind there were only a few thousand troops in Korea before the North crossed the 38th parallel and pummeled Seoul. The key was to have US engagement at the country level, and the death of a single US troop. That created the diplomatic opening to bring unlimited military power into South Korea. This created a model, and this is important to Pax Americana, so pay attention: a model where any country allied with the US is relatively safe from its neighbors, as long as such neighbors are not allied with the US, and the US presents a credible ability to threaten the non-allied country. This is why Iran is not happy about US alignment with Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the Gulf states. Note the US even has deals with Turkmenistan. And that is what makes the US non-response to drone strikes in Saudi Arabia a sensitive issue. The Iranians are trying to draw a picture where the US has lost its ability to present a credible threat. Which is bullshit, but the Iranian economy is in a bad way and getting worse and that makes for desperate politicians. (growth went from 13.4% in 2016 to a projected -4.5% this year). However, while the US has plenty of agreements with the House of Saud, no US servicemembers were harmed by overt aggression by Iranian combatants (as defined by the Geneva conventions, law of armed conflict, etc). So the US threshold for response has not been met. Not by a long way. While I'm sure the price of gas in LA is up, it will be temporary. Those refineries were no doubt diverting processing to offline capacity even as the fires were burning. tl;dr: arguing about whether the military is 'winning' misses the problem of empire entirely. Pax Americana is still here and you're enjoying it despite the shitshow at home. (1) Backing out of TPP and electing Trump were terrible for our long-term strategic interests in Asia, particularly with respect to the Middle Kingdom and it's satellites. We pissed away a hell of a hand there. E.g. seeing a few Apple-related factory jobs show up in Austin will never compensate for the net weakening of our new ally in the modern version of Vietnam.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Wow that is an impressive... deposit of special pleading, post hoc Panglossian reverse logic, argument by novel definition, and misguided historical reinterpretation. Nowhere in this whole page of text do we find consideration of any actual interest of USA citizens as such. No one down at the filling station cares about Turkmenistan. If asked to consider the "problem of empire", they'd answer, "Yep, it's a problem." Nor do we find here the actual reason that the war media are constantly inciting more wars in more unfortunate foreign locales: to feed more money into the maw of the military-industrial complex. Face it, USA military spends money and kills random people. They don't win wars. It's one of the more obvious facts of modern life. Only constant gaslighting from the war media has created the sort of psychological prisons from whence could issue the specious reasoning seen here.
  - killjoywashere 7y ago
    You're missing the central issue that the enemy gets a vote. We all want to go home.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      (Thanks for moderating the earlier statement, Major.) I have a great deal more sympathy for this argument than for those upthread. This man [0] certainly wanted to go home. If we're moving the goalpost to this location, however, the debate is over. If "going home" is the aim, why not stay home in the first place? Nothing that USA military has done in the Middle East in my parents' lifetimes has made life better or safer for Americans or for humans in general. The only reason "the enemy" has "a vote" is that we're in their countries destroying their governments and killing their families. When we leave their countries, they'll lose any ability to affect us in any way. We should do that. Many proud people have publicly claimed otherwise, so they'll be disappointed that we've finally rejected their bullshit. Still, the lives, health, and fortunes of Americans and other human beings is more important than the feelings of politicians and newsreaders. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i5ZUfpxnV0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i5ZUfpxnV0

goatinaboat 7y ago

in a stroke of irony, would suppress such an insurrection No one understands better than the US Army that their size and technology was futile in the face of an insurgency. If “the boogaloo” happens they will not be able to suppress it any more than they were able to beat the Taliban. In fact it will be much harder than that.