5 ms·

Obama doubled down on Afghanistan from the get-go -- I consider that fiasco as much his as his predecessors. As an "anti-war leftist", I find myself cheering o

Obama doubled down on Afghanistan from the get-go -- I consider that fiasco as much his as his predecessors. As an "anti-war leftist", I find myself cheering on the assistance to Ukraine, as that is the first war in my memory that seemed worth fighting. Still no love for the Military Industrial Complex though...

graublau 3y ago
[flagged]
- digging 3y ago
  I'm a different anti-war leftist, but IMO it's a lose-lose. This is more about mitigation than doing what's good. The MIC wins whether or not we support Ukraine - if Russia conquered Kyiv, you think the MIC wouldn't be ramping everything up in preparation for further invasions of NATO allies? It's not like Ukraine is some socialist utopia I want preserved at all costs. But it's a free nation that's less fascist than Russia, and it deserves to exist, and more importantly the Ukrainian people deserve to exist. If Russia wins, we'll be looking at genocide on a huge scale (because we're actually currently dealing with genocide on a "small" scale). So, I'm more anti-genocide than I am anti-MIC, and I think it's a good thing we're helping Ukraine fight back against Russia.
glogla 3y ago
I would say, they are both complicated. Afghanistan shows that trying "nation building" on a place where they don't actually want any nation doesn't really work. But it did work for Japan and Germany after WW2, so maybe it was worth trying. I'm sure the women who are now forbidden to learn to read liked the Americans more than they like Taliban, but does that mean extending the war was worth it? As for Iraq, the WMDs were a complete lie and Bush and Cheney just wanted more war - some say Cheney was the mind behind and Bush was just idiot, some say Bush wanted to finish what his father started - but average Iraqi is now better off than with Saddam. That doesn't help those who died in the war, of the people who could have has better lives for the money the war had cost though. It was actually Ukraine that changed my opinion on Iraq, because the arguments "Iraq under Saddam's brutal dictatorship wasn't that bad, there was no reason to war" started resonate with "don't help Ukraine, their lives aren't going that bad under Putin's brutal dictatorship, tell the to surrender" little too much. Was Iraq different from Ukraine only because in one the dictator was status quo and in the other it wasn't? Yeah, complicated.
- pstuart 3y ago
  But they emphatically said they weren't nation-building, and armies are only good for fighting and destroying things, not building things (with an exception to the Corp of Engineers). There was never a plan, more so, never a formal declaration of what the hell victory was supposed to look like.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Neither Japan nor Germany needed "nation building", because the corresponding nations were already formed long before then. As far as Ukraine and Iraq, one big difference is that there Iraq under Saddam was not fighting a war on its territory when US invaded in 2003. So you have to consider the number of people who would have likely died due to political repressions vs the number of people who died from the war and the resulting instability - and I don't think that arithmetic is in favor of the war even today. OTOH in Ukraine it was Russia that invaded and forced the war on them, so from the perspective of outside assistance you have to compare the number of Ukrainians that would die resisting by themselves vs the number that will die resisting with Western aid. I don't think this comparison is a given either way - there's a lot of rhetoric in the West along the lines of, "if we didn't support them they'd fold quickly and then the war would be over", but given the determined resistance that we have seen and the sheer number of people who joined the volunteer territorial defense units and their willingness to engage early in the conflict (e.g. under Kyiv), I think it's more likely that even if Russia managed to occupy the entire country, it would still be dealing with large-scale guerilla warfare, with all the massive civilian casualties that entails. The other key difference is that Iraqis under Saddam weren't really given a choice whether they preferred to suffer Saddam or an invasion to remove him. Ukrainians, OTOH, are pretty open about their preferences.
CalChris 3y ago
I'm a huge Obama fan but Afghanistan was his biggest mistake. In fairness, he got sold a bill of goods by the Pentagon and with the economy in a shambles, he was somewhat distracted. The Republicans greeted anything he did with stubborn resistance with McConnell pledging to make him a one term President. McCain prevented him from closing Guantanamo. But he was still Commander in Chief.
- pstuart 3y ago
  Yes, he was sold a bill of goods, but in his 8 years never re-evaluated the situation. I'm going to guess that he was wary of the political attacks over doing so -- if all it took was french mustard or a tan suit, imagine the outrage of "cutting and running"

graublau 3y ago

[flagged]

digging 3y ago
I'm a different anti-war leftist, but IMO it's a lose-lose. This is more about mitigation than doing what's good. The MIC wins whether or not we support Ukraine - if Russia conquered Kyiv, you think the MIC wouldn't be ramping everything up in preparation for further invasions of NATO allies? It's not like Ukraine is some socialist utopia I want preserved at all costs. But it's a free nation that's less fascist than Russia, and it deserves to exist, and more importantly the Ukrainian people deserve to exist. If Russia wins, we'll be looking at genocide on a huge scale (because we're actually currently dealing with genocide on a "small" scale). So, I'm more anti-genocide than I am anti-MIC, and I think it's a good thing we're helping Ukraine fight back against Russia.

glogla 3y ago

I would say, they are both complicated. Afghanistan shows that trying "nation building" on a place where they don't actually want any nation doesn't really work. But it did work for Japan and Germany after WW2, so maybe it was worth trying. I'm sure the women who are now forbidden to learn to read liked the Americans more than they like Taliban, but does that mean extending the war was worth it? As for Iraq, the WMDs were a complete lie and Bush and Cheney just wanted more war - some say Cheney was the mind behind and Bush was just idiot, some say Bush wanted to finish what his father started - but average Iraqi is now better off than with Saddam. That doesn't help those who died in the war, of the people who could have has better lives for the money the war had cost though. It was actually Ukraine that changed my opinion on Iraq, because the arguments "Iraq under Saddam's brutal dictatorship wasn't that bad, there was no reason to war" started resonate with "don't help Ukraine, their lives aren't going that bad under Putin's brutal dictatorship, tell the to surrender" little too much. Was Iraq different from Ukraine only because in one the dictator was status quo and in the other it wasn't? Yeah, complicated.

pstuart 3y ago
But they emphatically said they weren't nation-building, and armies are only good for fighting and destroying things, not building things (with an exception to the Corp of Engineers). There was never a plan, more so, never a formal declaration of what the hell victory was supposed to look like.
int_19h 3y ago
Neither Japan nor Germany needed "nation building", because the corresponding nations were already formed long before then. As far as Ukraine and Iraq, one big difference is that there Iraq under Saddam was not fighting a war on its territory when US invaded in 2003. So you have to consider the number of people who would have likely died due to political repressions vs the number of people who died from the war and the resulting instability - and I don't think that arithmetic is in favor of the war even today. OTOH in Ukraine it was Russia that invaded and forced the war on them, so from the perspective of outside assistance you have to compare the number of Ukrainians that would die resisting by themselves vs the number that will die resisting with Western aid. I don't think this comparison is a given either way - there's a lot of rhetoric in the West along the lines of, "if we didn't support them they'd fold quickly and then the war would be over", but given the determined resistance that we have seen and the sheer number of people who joined the volunteer territorial defense units and their willingness to engage early in the conflict (e.g. under Kyiv), I think it's more likely that even if Russia managed to occupy the entire country, it would still be dealing with large-scale guerilla warfare, with all the massive civilian casualties that entails. The other key difference is that Iraqis under Saddam weren't really given a choice whether they preferred to suffer Saddam or an invasion to remove him. Ukrainians, OTOH, are pretty open about their preferences.

CalChris 3y ago

I'm a huge Obama fan but Afghanistan was his biggest mistake. In fairness, he got sold a bill of goods by the Pentagon and with the economy in a shambles, he was somewhat distracted. The Republicans greeted anything he did with stubborn resistance with McConnell pledging to make him a one term President. McCain prevented him from closing Guantanamo. But he was still Commander in Chief.

pstuart 3y ago
Yes, he was sold a bill of goods, but in his 8 years never re-evaluated the situation. I'm going to guess that he was wary of the political attacks over doing so -- if all it took was french mustard or a tan suit, imagine the outrage of "cutting and running"