4 ms·
I have this sad, but likely true, theory that the U.S. needs to always be involved in a war to stay in practice and iron out the kinks for bigger wars. I say t
by demadog 5y ago
I have this sad, but likely true, theory that the U.S. needs to always be involved in a war to stay in practice and iron out the kinks for bigger wars.
I say this as a medium-big supporter of the US military.
- vl 5y agoThe reason US army is always fighting is economic. US dollar is reserve currency of the world and thus US has almost unlimited credit. But one important element of dollar stability is that carrier group shows up on the doorstep of those getting out of line and shows them errors of their ways. Thus there is a constant need for some pretext to deploy military somewhere.
- demadog 5y agoDo you mean purely for economic reasons or a whole array of reasons and the economics are a part of it? Securing oil fields and the Persian Gulf is more than money and oil, it’s about securing trade via maritime traffic in the gulf for liberal capitalist democracies worldwide. And keeping oil access secure is about pure security but also keeping prices low to not disrupt economies. At least that’s how I understand it.
- xeromal 5y agoI think this too. We're really the only big power in the world that has battlehardened soldiers.
- demadog 5y agoIn addition, how much were the Iraq and Afghanistan wars about projecting power to Iran? Look on the map and they’re being contained on both sides. Projects the power that the military will show up.