3 ms·

The idea that countries always make rational and economical decisions is false. The Iraq war wasn't 4D chess it was much worse: Americans really believed in it

The idea that countries always make rational and economical decisions is false. The Iraq war wasn't 4D chess it was much worse: Americans really believed in it. Which is ultimately also why they got their ass kicked: free elections were held and the Iraqis wanted the Americans out. Instead of installing a puppet government what they got was Iraqi politicians with agency.

hackerlight 4y ago
This is the constructivist school of IR, which says that nationalism can cause war. We should not get wedded to a particular prism. They're all partly true. Trade and treaties deter war to an extent (liberalism). Nationalism can sometimes be a major factor as in Iraq 2003 (constructivism). And sometimes it's actually about defense concerns, e.g. the Soviet-Finnish Winter War (realism). These are all partly true theories.
- mantas 4y ago
  Soviet-Finnish war was an imperialist annexation attempt with defense concerns as an excuse. Just like Baltic states few months later.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Popular support was imperialistic and nationalistic, but Stalin's personal motivations were probably defense. Stalin invested huge amounts of time in the negotiations before the war, attending many of the sessions personally, where they discussed land swaps. That shows an earnest concern. He was also paranoid and tended to act cautiously and opportunistically. So the defense explanation fits. Of course, we're reading his mind here, so it's hard to say for sure.
    - mantas 4y ago
      Stalin's personal motivation was world domination. Just Lenin before him and other USSR leaders later. Ribentrop-Molotov pact secret protocols wasn't „self defence“. Even though both parties knew they'll eventually go to war against each other. I didn't study Stalin's proposal to Finland that much, but essentially it was same deal as for other Baltic states. Take our military bases for „defence“ and we may sweeten the deal a little bit with a gift. Because who cares if we're going to annex you next summer one way or another :) Couldn't do that in 1920, but USSR thought it's strong enough in 1939. For example Lithuania and Vilnius case. Well, so nice of him to give back historical capital, isn't it :) Just to use sweeten the deal of installing army bases in Lithuania-proper and then using them to annex the whole country next summer.
torstenvl 4y ago
> free elections were held and the Iraqis wanted the Americans out Until they wanted us back to fight Daesh. In any case, the GoJ is keen for us to leave as well, and we probably will soon, but that doesn't make Japan our enemy or mean that we "got our asses kicked" in WWII.
ameister14 4y ago
>The Iraq war wasn't 4D chess it was much worse: Americans really believed in it. Which is ultimately also why they got their ass kicked: free elections were held and the Iraqis wanted the Americans out. Instead of installing a puppet government what they got was Iraqi politicians with agency. This is an interesting take - I don't think the goal at the start of the war was to install a puppet government; it was to dismantle the government in power and prevent whatever took its place from having any real ability to project power against vital US interests. Both of these goals were accomplished.

hackerlight 4y ago

This is the constructivist school of IR, which says that nationalism can cause war. We should not get wedded to a particular prism. They're all partly true. Trade and treaties deter war to an extent (liberalism). Nationalism can sometimes be a major factor as in Iraq 2003 (constructivism). And sometimes it's actually about defense concerns, e.g. the Soviet-Finnish Winter War (realism). These are all partly true theories.

mantas 4y ago
Soviet-Finnish war was an imperialist annexation attempt with defense concerns as an excuse. Just like Baltic states few months later.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Popular support was imperialistic and nationalistic, but Stalin's personal motivations were probably defense. Stalin invested huge amounts of time in the negotiations before the war, attending many of the sessions personally, where they discussed land swaps. That shows an earnest concern. He was also paranoid and tended to act cautiously and opportunistically. So the defense explanation fits. Of course, we're reading his mind here, so it's hard to say for sure.
  - mantas 4y ago
    Stalin's personal motivation was world domination. Just Lenin before him and other USSR leaders later. Ribentrop-Molotov pact secret protocols wasn't „self defence“. Even though both parties knew they'll eventually go to war against each other. I didn't study Stalin's proposal to Finland that much, but essentially it was same deal as for other Baltic states. Take our military bases for „defence“ and we may sweeten the deal a little bit with a gift. Because who cares if we're going to annex you next summer one way or another :) Couldn't do that in 1920, but USSR thought it's strong enough in 1939. For example Lithuania and Vilnius case. Well, so nice of him to give back historical capital, isn't it :) Just to use sweeten the deal of installing army bases in Lithuania-proper and then using them to annex the whole country next summer.

torstenvl 4y ago

> free elections were held and the Iraqis wanted the Americans out Until they wanted us back to fight Daesh. In any case, the GoJ is keen for us to leave as well, and we probably will soon, but that doesn't make Japan our enemy or mean that we "got our asses kicked" in WWII.

ameister14 4y ago

>The Iraq war wasn't 4D chess it was much worse: Americans really believed in it. Which is ultimately also why they got their ass kicked: free elections were held and the Iraqis wanted the Americans out. Instead of installing a puppet government what they got was Iraqi politicians with agency. This is an interesting take - I don't think the goal at the start of the war was to install a puppet government; it was to dismantle the government in power and prevent whatever took its place from having any real ability to project power against vital US interests. Both of these goals were accomplished.