5 ms·

Alternatively. The USAF are a bargain for a more stable world with less regional conflicts. While the Middle East is a disaster, and there are many easy to poin

by codyb 5y ago

Alternatively. The USAF are a bargain for a more stable world with less regional conflicts. While the Middle East is a disaster, and there are many easy to point out missteps on its record that truly are awful and horrific. It's also currently the world's pre-eminent power in a history dominated by strong militaries and during its tenure as such the world has unequivocally been more stable and peaceful than it's ever been statistically. The access to free trade over more porous borders has lifted billions of people out of poverty. Europe hasn't been this peaceful ever as far as I can tell. Every major democracy in the world exists under America's umbrella. Certainly it's not all roses, Iraq was probably just a decade of war crimes, but we can see what happens as soon as we leave places like Afghanistan (wasn't perfect, but was certainly a lot better a year ago than today), Syria (Kurds abandoned have to re-align with Russia, Turkish troops move in), Philippines (never even left after Duterte quickly reconsidered given China's encroachments in the S China Sea). Pulling the US military into a more isolationist or more equal to others stance would almost certainly result in more regional conflicts around the world as the stakes go from "hey we definitely won't win this thing" to "hey, we've got a fighting shot here".

gnramires 5y ago
I would support a more pro-active humanistic military, but many humanitarian causes have been left to the United Nations. The US knows its legitimacy (as well as political support) will come into question in those scenarios. How about we strengthen UN instead?
- codyb 5y ago
  I'm certainly very pro working cooperatively with other Democratic nations to secure a more just and peaceful future less dominated by a singe nation state. The problem is, alliances fray (Turkey, Belarus, Britain, the United States... we've all had our issues with current alliances and treaties in recent history alone). And that gets problematic and very hairy. The other issue is, a single state dominance is prone to being coopted by less than benign actors and we've certainly seen that in the US I believe, especially given our invasion of Iraq. So there's no cure alls on these things unfortunately. As a general practice I believe brining more members under our umbrella and strengthening the organizations like NATO and the UN which can act as a cooperative unit and not as a unilateral actor is a positive.
AlexandrB 5y ago
I think that's a very rosy view of US intervention. In particular, the US has helped overthrow numerous democratic governments because they were not ideologically aligned with the kind of free trade maximalism the US favours. Indonesia and Chile are particularly notable examples here. It's unclear if US actions have created a more stable world, but they have certainly created one more aligned with the US ideologically, often at the cost of lives, local economies, and continued instability. Edit: Also, RE Afghanistan. Forget a year ago, the argument could be made that it would have been better off if the US had never invaded in the first place.
- metabagel 5y ago
  Wasn’t the military which overthrew democratic governments though. It was the CIA.
  - monetus 5y ago
    This is a pretty important delineation.
    - not1ofU 5y ago
      They dont also fall under the DOD? (I am not a US citizen, genuine question) Also want to echo sentiments about roaming profiles and how annoying they can be.
      - monetus 5y ago
        You would hope so, but they report to the director of national intelligence (a member of the president's cabinet) and are not a subdivision of the DOD. They infamously have their own budget, funded by their own means, and have somewhat of a rivalry with other parts of the government. The Department of National intelligence is the DOD's version of the CIA.
- codyb 5y ago
  Yea, I generally am a bigger fan of what the US does just by being there than I am of our actual interventions in places which can frequently be seen as short sighted, bloody, and against our own principles at times. But from a world composed of far more people that those in Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, and South America. I think we've done a decent job overall from a historical perspective of promoting a fairly stable world during Pax Americana. With quite a few missteps along the way. My point isn't that it's perfect, my point is that... all things considered, for a really large amount of the world's population, things aren't _that bad_ given historical context. Sure, the child laboring to make phones in China isn't going to wax poetic about the wonders of Pax Americana. But my point is more... child labor was only more frequent in histories past. Sure the murdered wedding goers in Afghanistan won't be happy about the state of affairs but civilians dying erroneously during combat operations has been a near constant in world history and at this point you're less likely to die in that manner than ever before. You could argue that it's a result of larger populations but I'm not certain about that given Kazakhstan; Syria; China in Xianjiang, Hong Kong, the S China Sea, and Taiwan; Russia in Georgia, Crimea, and the rest of Ukraine; Myanmar; basically the entire Middle East. It's easy to talk about how bad the USAF is, they've done a lot of bad shit over the years, my impression is it's still better than the alternative.
krono 5y ago
Beware of personal bias.

by codyb 5y ago

gnramires 5y ago

I would support a more pro-active humanistic military, but many humanitarian causes have been left to the United Nations. The US knows its legitimacy (as well as political support) will come into question in those scenarios. How about we strengthen UN instead?

codyb 5y ago
I'm certainly very pro working cooperatively with other Democratic nations to secure a more just and peaceful future less dominated by a singe nation state. The problem is, alliances fray (Turkey, Belarus, Britain, the United States... we've all had our issues with current alliances and treaties in recent history alone). And that gets problematic and very hairy. The other issue is, a single state dominance is prone to being coopted by less than benign actors and we've certainly seen that in the US I believe, especially given our invasion of Iraq. So there's no cure alls on these things unfortunately. As a general practice I believe brining more members under our umbrella and strengthening the organizations like NATO and the UN which can act as a cooperative unit and not as a unilateral actor is a positive.

AlexandrB 5y ago

I think that's a very rosy view of US intervention. In particular, the US has helped overthrow numerous democratic governments because they were not ideologically aligned with the kind of free trade maximalism the US favours. Indonesia and Chile are particularly notable examples here. It's unclear if US actions have created a more stable world, but they have certainly created one more aligned with the US ideologically, often at the cost of lives, local economies, and continued instability. Edit: Also, RE Afghanistan. Forget a year ago, the argument could be made that it would have been better off if the US had never invaded in the first place.

metabagel 5y ago
Wasn’t the military which overthrew democratic governments though. It was the CIA.
- monetus 5y ago
  This is a pretty important delineation.
  - not1ofU 5y ago
    They dont also fall under the DOD? (I am not a US citizen, genuine question) Also want to echo sentiments about roaming profiles and how annoying they can be.
    - monetus 5y ago
      You would hope so, but they report to the director of national intelligence (a member of the president's cabinet) and are not a subdivision of the DOD. They infamously have their own budget, funded by their own means, and have somewhat of a rivalry with other parts of the government. The Department of National intelligence is the DOD's version of the CIA.
codyb 5y ago
Yea, I generally am a bigger fan of what the US does just by being there than I am of our actual interventions in places which can frequently be seen as short sighted, bloody, and against our own principles at times. But from a world composed of far more people that those in Chile, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, and South America. I think we've done a decent job overall from a historical perspective of promoting a fairly stable world during Pax Americana. With quite a few missteps along the way. My point isn't that it's perfect, my point is that... all things considered, for a really large amount of the world's population, things aren't _that bad_ given historical context. Sure, the child laboring to make phones in China isn't going to wax poetic about the wonders of Pax Americana. But my point is more... child labor was only more frequent in histories past. Sure the murdered wedding goers in Afghanistan won't be happy about the state of affairs but civilians dying erroneously during combat operations has been a near constant in world history and at this point you're less likely to die in that manner than ever before. You could argue that it's a result of larger populations but I'm not certain about that given Kazakhstan; Syria; China in Xianjiang, Hong Kong, the S China Sea, and Taiwan; Russia in Georgia, Crimea, and the rest of Ukraine; Myanmar; basically the entire Middle East. It's easy to talk about how bad the USAF is, they've done a lot of bad shit over the years, my impression is it's still better than the alternative.

krono 5y ago

Beware of personal bias.