4 ms·

What would happen if the US just invaded and wiped out the military? Would there be an insurgency? Would they be able to train a local and loyal military force

What would happen if the US just invaded and wiped out the military? Would there be an insurgency? Would they be able to train a local and loyal military force to protect democracy? I guess it would end up like Iraq all over again. Local military leaders would just become terrorist leaders. However because they are mostly Buddhist it feels like it would be harder for them to attract jihadists. And the Muslims are the ones being persecuted. After all the money we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems like it would have been better spent liberating a country like this once and for all. Funny to think how the reaction would be to a Biden government going to war with a tiny military dictatorship. Would people protest it and on what grounds? Could a modern day colonialism work? With modern liberal ideals of the US it seems like it would be dramatically different from times past. US would just setup and defend a constitution and ensure fair elections and provide military. Minus the exploitation this time. PS. Not seriously advocating for any of this, just interesting to think about. — Also, I think we take it so much for granted that the most powerful military in the world who could easily take control of the whole country overnight is 100% loyal to a civilian elected by the people. I wonder how much free choice people have in this scenario anyway. It would seem obvious to blame the military leaders and their soldiers who are the ones who enable all this. But how much does a regular soldier rely upon his salary to survive.

calavera99 6y ago
Honest question. You really still believe we're invading places to bring democracy?
- robin21 6y ago
  I know it’s easy to be cynical and that there will always be any number of reasons why it’s in the self interest of the US, but I do believe that the Bush doctrine of spreading freedom was something that many in the cabinet believed in their hearts. One has to admit that it is probably one of the most difficult things to do, many have tried throughout history and failed. Look at WW2 as a great example of the US’s inaction and disinterest in upholding its values causing huge amount of destruction and casualties. In terms of net benefit in the long run from the Iraq war, it doesn’t look great right now. But there are many things that were done wrong that led to the insurgency. I bought the line of it’s only for oil/power/stock-prices for a long time, but I don’t believe that is a great enough sole motivation for a bunch of men who were already rich and powerful. People care about legacy - and if you can say you ejected a life long dictator as president it’s a pretty great legacy - unless an unexpected insurgency cancelled that out.
chmod775 6y ago
Every single sentence where you are not speaking solely about your home country is somewhat puzzling. I don't even know where to begin and neither do I feel qualified to provide anything approaching a basic education on this long list of topics, considering my own ignorance. Not that it would fit in a single post. Here's a rough list anyways: - Insurgents aren't the same thing as terrorists. I don't think you want to suggest the Burmese military response to US military occupation will be to target their own civilian population. - Your use of the word jihad(-ism) doesn't make sense in either its arabic meaning or in how it is commonly used in the west. - Please don't try to define people by their religion, or ascribe a religion to them. The only ones who get to do that is the people themselves. - Especially since religion is at best tangential to this whole situation. - You seem to think Myanmar is some "tiny" country with an equally small military. It is not. Their current 'new' government is also not without potential allies. China doesn't appear to care who's at power in Myanmar, but they do depend on it being stable and probably won't just tolerate half a million US troops landing in their backyard to 'liberate' it. - Colonialism is diametrically opposed to the idea of liberation. - Neocolonialism (or "modern day colonialism") is also explicitly about everything but riding in with your military.
- robin21 6y ago
  > the Burmese military response to US military occupation will be to target their own civilian population. Everyone would have to pick a side. Look at Vietnam. > jihadism TBH, I have just read about what jihad means now and it was interesting. Jihadism is definitely a commonly understood term in the west meaning religiously motivated military movement. It looks like there are many types of Jihad - and one is "jihad of the sword" which is what is understood in the west. Non-violence is especially central to Buddhism. In practice is this the case...maybe not. But it certainly has that "image". If you send forces to a sovereign nation, some might think you are violating their sovereignty politically. But if your justification is religious - like it was with the Taliban - in a sense that it offends their deity - then this is going to have a much deeper and long-lasting resistance - as the US saw. This was my point. There seems more religious motivation to resist occupation in Islam than there is in Buddhism. But in terms of who is violent and non-violent - I don't think that is a good point. Thanks for the thoughts - I learned a few things.

calavera99 6y ago

Honest question. You really still believe we're invading places to bring democracy?

robin21 6y ago
I know it’s easy to be cynical and that there will always be any number of reasons why it’s in the self interest of the US, but I do believe that the Bush doctrine of spreading freedom was something that many in the cabinet believed in their hearts. One has to admit that it is probably one of the most difficult things to do, many have tried throughout history and failed. Look at WW2 as a great example of the US’s inaction and disinterest in upholding its values causing huge amount of destruction and casualties. In terms of net benefit in the long run from the Iraq war, it doesn’t look great right now. But there are many things that were done wrong that led to the insurgency. I bought the line of it’s only for oil/power/stock-prices for a long time, but I don’t believe that is a great enough sole motivation for a bunch of men who were already rich and powerful. People care about legacy - and if you can say you ejected a life long dictator as president it’s a pretty great legacy - unless an unexpected insurgency cancelled that out.

chmod775 6y ago

Every single sentence where you are not speaking solely about your home country is somewhat puzzling. I don't even know where to begin and neither do I feel qualified to provide anything approaching a basic education on this long list of topics, considering my own ignorance. Not that it would fit in a single post. Here's a rough list anyways: - Insurgents aren't the same thing as terrorists. I don't think you want to suggest the Burmese military response to US military occupation will be to target their own civilian population. - Your use of the word jihad(-ism) doesn't make sense in either its arabic meaning or in how it is commonly used in the west. - Please don't try to define people by their religion, or ascribe a religion to them. The only ones who get to do that is the people themselves. - Especially since religion is at best tangential to this whole situation. - You seem to think Myanmar is some "tiny" country with an equally small military. It is not. Their current 'new' government is also not without potential allies. China doesn't appear to care who's at power in Myanmar, but they do depend on it being stable and probably won't just tolerate half a million US troops landing in their backyard to 'liberate' it. - Colonialism is diametrically opposed to the idea of liberation. - Neocolonialism (or "modern day colonialism") is also explicitly about everything but riding in with your military.

robin21 6y ago
> the Burmese military response to US military occupation will be to target their own civilian population. Everyone would have to pick a side. Look at Vietnam. > jihadism TBH, I have just read about what jihad means now and it was interesting. Jihadism is definitely a commonly understood term in the west meaning religiously motivated military movement. It looks like there are many types of Jihad - and one is "jihad of the sword" which is what is understood in the west. Non-violence is especially central to Buddhism. In practice is this the case...maybe not. But it certainly has that "image". If you send forces to a sovereign nation, some might think you are violating their sovereignty politically. But if your justification is religious - like it was with the Taliban - in a sense that it offends their deity - then this is going to have a much deeper and long-lasting resistance - as the US saw. This was my point. There seems more religious motivation to resist occupation in Islam than there is in Buddhism. But in terms of who is violent and non-violent - I don't think that is a good point. Thanks for the thoughts - I learned a few things.