4 ms·

> I'm not interested in intervening with infantry and all the necessary materiel unless it's to defend ourselves from grave danger. Especially avoid stupid the

> I'm not interested in intervening with infantry and all the necessary materiel unless it's to defend ourselves from grave danger. Especially avoid stupid the boondoggle of "nation-building". Not everyone wants democracy right now. It may come later. This short sightedness might cost more in lives globally and money loss from trade and resources being restricted.

mc32 5y ago
While it seems crude, the way we used to do it, the way the Soviets used to do it, the way China does it now, seems to work best for this kind of interest. You invest in a despot let them have their little fiefdom and you let them run what's theirs and you get to take what you think is yours. Nation-building is hubris. Work with someone local who fits hand-in-glove. Is the unstable "stability" worth 6T and thousands of soldiers' lives and many tens of thousands traumatized? Not to mention the losses from the locals. What was the human cost of Saddam in power vs the cost after toppling him?
- spoonjim 5y ago
  It’s smart because the despot has already found product-market fit.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  Bringing Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq into the discussion is a distraction, as this is most clearly regarded as a separate conflict launched under the cover of an invasion of Afghanistan which was, unlike that in Iraq, a response to an actual attack and continuing threat. In addition, and per my previous comment, the acquiescence of Congress further demonstrated the limitations of its nominal power to veto such actions.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > While it seems crude, the way we used to do it, the way the Soviets used to do it, the way China does it now, seems to work best for this kind of interest. While it seems crude, the way we used to do it, the way the Soviets used to do it, the way China does it now, seems to work best for this kind of interest. Aside from ethical issues, the inevitable case is what they think is theirs and what you think is yours end up conflicting, which is how that strategy fell apart with the Soviets in Afghanistan. And with the US and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Among other places.

mc32 5y ago

While it seems crude, the way we used to do it, the way the Soviets used to do it, the way China does it now, seems to work best for this kind of interest. You invest in a despot let them have their little fiefdom and you let them run what's theirs and you get to take what you think is yours. Nation-building is hubris. Work with someone local who fits hand-in-glove. Is the unstable "stability" worth 6T and thousands of soldiers' lives and many tens of thousands traumatized? Not to mention the losses from the locals. What was the human cost of Saddam in power vs the cost after toppling him?

spoonjim 5y ago
It’s smart because the despot has already found product-market fit.
mannykannot 5y ago
Bringing Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq into the discussion is a distraction, as this is most clearly regarded as a separate conflict launched under the cover of an invasion of Afghanistan which was, unlike that in Iraq, a response to an actual attack and continuing threat. In addition, and per my previous comment, the acquiescence of Congress further demonstrated the limitations of its nominal power to veto such actions.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> While it seems crude, the way we used to do it, the way the Soviets used to do it, the way China does it now, seems to work best for this kind of interest. While it seems crude, the way we used to do it, the way the Soviets used to do it, the way China does it now, seems to work best for this kind of interest. Aside from ethical issues, the inevitable case is what they think is theirs and what you think is yours end up conflicting, which is how that strategy fell apart with the Soviets in Afghanistan. And with the US and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Among other places.