6 ms·

Well that's the reason the War on Terror is such a stupid concept. There was no win condition, because we never defined one or stuck to it. As Kissinger pointe

Well that's the reason the War on Terror is such a stupid concept. There was no win condition, because we never defined one or stuck to it. As Kissinger pointed out in World Order (love or hate the man, it's a good read) - military force is a political tool to achieve political goals. And just like Kissinger's abject failure to achieve any meaningful political goals other than endless, meaningless war and death, it's because he could never define goals that could be achieved in the first place. And that's the story of American foreign policy in the middle east. Our leaders and political theorists can't even agree on what goals should be or even goals that can be reached - just meaningless diatribe about "presence" and "if we're not there someone else will step in."

throwaway22920 7y ago
Not just the middle east, but the world over. We can't have normal relations with Cuba because they're repressive, yet we'll sell weapons to Vietnam? Politicians get maligned for simply meeting with Bashar al-Assad, but selling weapons to Saudi Arabia gets met with a shrug? The political establishment in the U.S., usually backed by the media, pushes a nonsensical foreign policy that's often against U.S. interests. Turning Iraq, Libya, and Syria into failed states runs contrary to just about any goal you can imagine for the U.S., but the political and media establishment decided to go at it full bore for whatever reason.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  I think you missed my point, which was that the wars in the Middle East failed because we didn't have clear political objectives. That's not true in the other examples you listed, we have pretty clear goals as it relates to the Saudis and Cubans. With respect to Libya and Syria we're more sideline players but the goals are still fairly clear. If you try and apply a consistent morality onto geopolitics you're going to see everyone is hypocritical. But geopolitics is not a debate between philosophers on morality and political theory. It's applied game theory closer to what Sun Tzu wrote than Hobbes or Locke.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The US can't have normal relations with Cuba because the families of those who fled are swing voters in Florida. Whereas nobody cares about Vietnam and they're now a fairly normal far east state (effectively one-party, but so is Singapore) and communist in name only like China. > Turning Iraq, Libya, and Syria into failed states runs contrary to just about any goal you can imagine for the U.S All of them had publicly defied the US at some point. It's the insult that matters to the establishment.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    How much profit did some major USA companies make out of Iraq? Are you sure it's "for honor"?
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  I think if you say "often against the non-ruling population of USA's interests", then you might find a reason why the elite still sell arms to both sides.
- nradov 7y ago
  Vietnam is now seen as an essential military ally to encircle and contain China.
kazen44 7y ago
> Well that's the reason the War on Terror is such a stupid concept. There was no win condition. What if the win condition is actually having a constant percieved threat, and thus a war to act on said threat. From someone not from the US, american politics is dominated with who is right and who is wrong. The entire political spectrum seems to be divided between "winners and losers" and the politics seem very black and white compared to my experience with politics from other countries. What if the wars the US have started are merely a political tool to rally the population for party support?
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  The thing you're observing is the stubbornness and arrogance derived from the rugged individualism that defines the American identity. It's not that politics is about who is right and who is wrong, but the notion that any individual always believes they are right. It's not about being a winner or a loser, but being the good guy in your own narrative - others be damned. There's this very deep divide between that mindset that we respect as Americans and the utility of those that exemplify it being in positions of leadership in a representative democracy. The problem is that those that get elected or rise through the ranks of military and our government tend to be the exact people that shouldn't. That's not necessarily just an American thing, since selfish and proud people exist everywhere. What it leads to is not some conspiracy to keep endless wars going to stay in power. To the contrary, the endless wars are a product of the continuous flux of people who believe they are right and arrogantly refuse to believe they can be wrong at all. If you speak with those in the civil service or those educated by our thought leaders in foreign policy, a consistent notion in why we continue these pointless wars is not because we have some absolute objective. It's because we believe that if we aren't there, someone else will be, and better us than them. That is the deep arrogance and stubbornness of America at work, that we are always right, even in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Sorry for the rambling. It's just that some of this deeply upsets me and I've had this debate many times with family members and friends who have more direct influence and experience.

throwaway22920 7y ago

Not just the middle east, but the world over. We can't have normal relations with Cuba because they're repressive, yet we'll sell weapons to Vietnam? Politicians get maligned for simply meeting with Bashar al-Assad, but selling weapons to Saudi Arabia gets met with a shrug? The political establishment in the U.S., usually backed by the media, pushes a nonsensical foreign policy that's often against U.S. interests. Turning Iraq, Libya, and Syria into failed states runs contrary to just about any goal you can imagine for the U.S., but the political and media establishment decided to go at it full bore for whatever reason.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
I think you missed my point, which was that the wars in the Middle East failed because we didn't have clear political objectives. That's not true in the other examples you listed, we have pretty clear goals as it relates to the Saudis and Cubans. With respect to Libya and Syria we're more sideline players but the goals are still fairly clear. If you try and apply a consistent morality onto geopolitics you're going to see everyone is hypocritical. But geopolitics is not a debate between philosophers on morality and political theory. It's applied game theory closer to what Sun Tzu wrote than Hobbes or Locke.
pjc50 7y ago
The US can't have normal relations with Cuba because the families of those who fled are swing voters in Florida. Whereas nobody cares about Vietnam and they're now a fairly normal far east state (effectively one-party, but so is Singapore) and communist in name only like China. > Turning Iraq, Libya, and Syria into failed states runs contrary to just about any goal you can imagine for the U.S All of them had publicly defied the US at some point. It's the insult that matters to the establishment.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  How much profit did some major USA companies make out of Iraq? Are you sure it's "for honor"?
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
I think if you say "often against the non-ruling population of USA's interests", then you might find a reason why the elite still sell arms to both sides.
nradov 7y ago
Vietnam is now seen as an essential military ally to encircle and contain China.

kazen44 7y ago

> Well that's the reason the War on Terror is such a stupid concept. There was no win condition. What if the win condition is actually having a constant percieved threat, and thus a war to act on said threat. From someone not from the US, american politics is dominated with who is right and who is wrong. The entire political spectrum seems to be divided between "winners and losers" and the politics seem very black and white compared to my experience with politics from other countries. What if the wars the US have started are merely a political tool to rally the population for party support?

unlinked_dll 7y ago
The thing you're observing is the stubbornness and arrogance derived from the rugged individualism that defines the American identity. It's not that politics is about who is right and who is wrong, but the notion that any individual always believes they are right. It's not about being a winner or a loser, but being the good guy in your own narrative - others be damned. There's this very deep divide between that mindset that we respect as Americans and the utility of those that exemplify it being in positions of leadership in a representative democracy. The problem is that those that get elected or rise through the ranks of military and our government tend to be the exact people that shouldn't. That's not necessarily just an American thing, since selfish and proud people exist everywhere. What it leads to is not some conspiracy to keep endless wars going to stay in power. To the contrary, the endless wars are a product of the continuous flux of people who believe they are right and arrogantly refuse to believe they can be wrong at all. If you speak with those in the civil service or those educated by our thought leaders in foreign policy, a consistent notion in why we continue these pointless wars is not because we have some absolute objective. It's because we believe that if we aren't there, someone else will be, and better us than them. That is the deep arrogance and stubbornness of America at work, that we are always right, even in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Sorry for the rambling. It's just that some of this deeply upsets me and I've had this debate many times with family members and friends who have more direct influence and experience.