4 ms·

All war is remote war unless the people who actually start the wars and profit from them are first to the front. Let Congress and the rich fight their own battl

All war is remote war unless the people who actually start the wars and profit from them are first to the front. Let Congress and the rich fight their own battles for once.

KorematsuFred 7y ago
I was here to comment the exact same thing. My phrasing however was that "All wars are bad wars if the people handling it remotely wont send their loved once on the frontline". The real issue with remote wars is that people sit in their air conditioned offices in Washington DC and move other people's sons into the deserts. They pay no personal cost for the failed operations and accidental drone strikes.
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  Why should the war pigs' kids suffer for their parents' greed and ambition? Let those who start wars for their own political and financial gain be the first to die in the trenches.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Why should the war pigs' kids suffer for their parents' greed and ambition? Because those kids are more than willing to, say, accept extremely lucrative directorships at foreign oil companies, despite lacking any discernible expertise in the industry.
    - Porthos9K 7y ago
      Which makes them war pigs themselves, and thus suitable cannon fodder.
ptah 7y ago
fully agree, the person declaring the war used to fight at the front for good reason
- notahacker 7y ago
  except that the "good reason" tended to be that such cultures valued perceived bravery and martial skill as amongst the most important traits of a leader. Since this was best demonstrated by waging wars of aggression, such cultures certainly didn't tend to fight fewer futile conflicts, or offer social advancement opportunities to pacifists. The theory that leaders' proximity to conflict leads towards decisions being made with caution and/or compassion for one's potential adversaries is not one which survives contact with history.
  - Porthos9K 7y ago
    I just think leaders should die first.
  - ptah 7y ago
    the reason for the leader fighting at the front was so that they would take on most of the risk of their decision. This is important to ensure balanced decision making valuing bravery and martial skill came later when leaders started shifting the risk of their decisions onto others while still keeping most of the upside.
buboard 7y ago
Alternatively, conscription should come back. People are going to be a lot more hesitant to fire nukes if their own life is on the line.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  conscription should come back. Selective Service is probably the last remaining bastion of sexism in the US. Take the opportunity to fix that at the same time!
  - Porthos9K 7y ago
    Juan Rico would approve: "Everybody works. Everybody fights."
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  We already have economic conscription, and it's worked wonderfully for the military as long as there are enough young poor people with no other options. > When domestic economic prospects are grim, the military has no problem recruiting soldiers. When those prospects improve, recruitment falls. How do we know? We can see a micro-version of this process happening right now. > This year, for the first time in thirteen years, the Army reported it was short thousands of recruits. This year’s unemployment rate is also the lowest we’ve seen in that same time period. These facts are related, and the military agrees. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/military-recruits-full-employment-welfare-state https://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/military-recruits-full-employ...
  - buboard 7y ago
    It's not the same, economic conscription always existed throughout history. I also find the idea that a country's military can be staffed with calculating mercenaries laughable. Nobody could build a state like that
    - Porthos9K 7y ago
      We've been doing it since Vietnam.
rayiner 7y ago
I think this sentiment is rooted in a misconception of the U.S. military industrial complex. First, people from higher income households are disproportionately represented among those who serve: http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/posts/Enlisted2.jpg; http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/posts/Enlis... https://www.heritage.org/node/15058/print-display https://www.heritage.org/node/15058/print-display > Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented. Officers, of course, and civilian leadership tend to come even more from the upper part of the income spectrum. The idea that wars are fought by the poor for the rich is a myth--the lowest 20% of households in terms of income account for just 10% of enlisted ranks. As to "profit"--war isn't particularly profitable. Raytheon, the third largest defense contractor, is about as profitable as Starbucks (both in terms of absolute profit and profit margin). The defense industry doesn't mint billionaires or enjoy 30%+ profit margins like say tech. Raytheon has a valuation similar to WeWork. With the exception of a few highly-compensated CEOs, defense contractors are dominated by upper-middle class scientists and engineers. The U.S. has a middle class military that serves middle class interests. Anti-war people fail to understand that because they fail to understand that Americans aren't anti-war. We're an ideological people and we're not afraid to use the military to achieve a wide variety of ends. For example, what are we doing in Syria? I don't know, but a slight majority of Americans oppose Trump's decision to withdraw: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/18/americans-divided-over-decision-to-withdraw-from-syria https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/18/americans-d.... 43% of Americans still think the iraq war was the right decision: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-continues-to-divide-u-s-public-15-years-after-it-began https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-co.... Only 30% of Americans think that reducing our overseas military commitments should be a "top priority." https://www.people-press.org/2018/11/29/conflicting-partisan-priorities-for-u-s-foreign-policy https://www.people-press.org/2018/11/29/conflicting-partisan.... Many policies that would involve the opposite, like fighting terrorism, limiting the influence of China, etc., enjoy more support. 45% of Americans self-identify as "hawks." https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/images/2017-handbook/img-741-1.png?itok=RHUVfzVP https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public.... And more than 50% of Americans believe the following would justify military intervention: stopping genocide (70%), humanitarian crisis (70%), stopping Iran nukes (69%), ensurign oil supply (55%), peacekeeping in the middle east (50%). Over 70% of both Democrats and Republicans support: U.S. airstrikes against terrorist training camps, drone strikes to assassinate terrorist leaders, and assassination of terrorist leaders generally.

All war is remote war unless the people who actually start the wars and profit from them are first to the front. Let Congress and the rich fight their own battles for once.

KorematsuFred 7y ago

I was here to comment the exact same thing. My phrasing however was that "All wars are bad wars if the people handling it remotely wont send their loved once on the frontline". The real issue with remote wars is that people sit in their air conditioned offices in Washington DC and move other people's sons into the deserts. They pay no personal cost for the failed operations and accidental drone strikes.

Porthos9K 7y ago
Why should the war pigs' kids suffer for their parents' greed and ambition? Let those who start wars for their own political and financial gain be the first to die in the trenches.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Why should the war pigs' kids suffer for their parents' greed and ambition? Because those kids are more than willing to, say, accept extremely lucrative directorships at foreign oil companies, despite lacking any discernible expertise in the industry.
  - Porthos9K 7y ago
    Which makes them war pigs themselves, and thus suitable cannon fodder.

ptah 7y ago

fully agree, the person declaring the war used to fight at the front for good reason

notahacker 7y ago
except that the "good reason" tended to be that such cultures valued perceived bravery and martial skill as amongst the most important traits of a leader. Since this was best demonstrated by waging wars of aggression, such cultures certainly didn't tend to fight fewer futile conflicts, or offer social advancement opportunities to pacifists. The theory that leaders' proximity to conflict leads towards decisions being made with caution and/or compassion for one's potential adversaries is not one which survives contact with history.
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  I just think leaders should die first.
- ptah 7y ago
  the reason for the leader fighting at the front was so that they would take on most of the risk of their decision. This is important to ensure balanced decision making valuing bravery and martial skill came later when leaders started shifting the risk of their decisions onto others while still keeping most of the upside.

buboard 7y ago

Alternatively, conscription should come back. People are going to be a lot more hesitant to fire nukes if their own life is on the line.

goatinaboat 7y ago
conscription should come back. Selective Service is probably the last remaining bastion of sexism in the US. Take the opportunity to fix that at the same time!
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  Juan Rico would approve: "Everybody works. Everybody fights."
Porthos9K 7y ago
We already have economic conscription, and it's worked wonderfully for the military as long as there are enough young poor people with no other options. > When domestic economic prospects are grim, the military has no problem recruiting soldiers. When those prospects improve, recruitment falls. How do we know? We can see a micro-version of this process happening right now. > This year, for the first time in thirteen years, the Army reported it was short thousands of recruits. This year’s unemployment rate is also the lowest we’ve seen in that same time period. These facts are related, and the military agrees. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/military-recruits-full-employment-welfare-state https://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/military-recruits-full-employ...
- buboard 7y ago
  It's not the same, economic conscription always existed throughout history. I also find the idea that a country's military can be staffed with calculating mercenaries laughable. Nobody could build a state like that
  - Porthos9K 7y ago
    We've been doing it since Vietnam.

rayiner 7y ago

I think this sentiment is rooted in a misconception of the U.S. military industrial complex. First, people from higher income households are disproportionately represented among those who serve: http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/posts/Enlisted2.jpg; http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/posts/Enlis... https://www.heritage.org/node/15058/print-display https://www.heritage.org/node/15058/print-display > Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented. Officers, of course, and civilian leadership tend to come even more from the upper part of the income spectrum. The idea that wars are fought by the poor for the rich is a myth--the lowest 20% of households in terms of income account for just 10% of enlisted ranks. As to "profit"--war isn't particularly profitable. Raytheon, the third largest defense contractor, is about as profitable as Starbucks (both in terms of absolute profit and profit margin). The defense industry doesn't mint billionaires or enjoy 30%+ profit margins like say tech. Raytheon has a valuation similar to WeWork. With the exception of a few highly-compensated CEOs, defense contractors are dominated by upper-middle class scientists and engineers. The U.S. has a middle class military that serves middle class interests. Anti-war people fail to understand that because they fail to understand that Americans aren't anti-war. We're an ideological people and we're not afraid to use the military to achieve a wide variety of ends. For example, what are we doing in Syria? I don't know, but a slight majority of Americans oppose Trump's decision to withdraw: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/18/americans-divided-over-decision-to-withdraw-from-syria https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/18/americans-d.... 43% of Americans still think the iraq war was the right decision: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-continues-to-divide-u-s-public-15-years-after-it-began https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/19/iraq-war-co.... Only 30% of Americans think that reducing our overseas military commitments should be a "top priority." https://www.people-press.org/2018/11/29/conflicting-partisan-priorities-for-u-s-foreign-policy https://www.people-press.org/2018/11/29/conflicting-partisan.... Many policies that would involve the opposite, like fighting terrorism, limiting the influence of China, etc., enjoy more support. 45% of Americans self-identify as "hawks." https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/images/2017-handbook/img-741-1.png?itok=RHUVfzVP https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public.... And more than 50% of Americans believe the following would justify military intervention: stopping genocide (70%), humanitarian crisis (70%), stopping Iran nukes (69%), ensurign oil supply (55%), peacekeeping in the middle east (50%). Over 70% of both Democrats and Republicans support: U.S. airstrikes against terrorist training camps, drone strikes to assassinate terrorist leaders, and assassination of terrorist leaders generally.