I work for a defense contractor (IBM, Lockheed, etc) and it's weird thinking that these useless wars are what's paying my mortgage. Luckily for me both political parties have no interest in getting off the military industry teat.
>military failures >billions of dollars in profit generated for defense contractors
Looks like a success to me. What exactly do you think the point of a modern US military engagement is? It's a jobs program. The poor get sent overseas to get shot at, the rich get that sweet raytheon haliburton academi locheed money as defense contractors achieve fantabulous profits.
Everybody wins. Well really just the ultra wealthy capitalists, but in america nobody else really counts.
It's a mischaracterisation to call them military failures, because they were in fact, military successes.
However, there in lies the problem -- Iraq and Afghanistan were not military problems. After the defeat of Saddam's armed forces and the Taliban being scattered to mountains they became political ones. Both almost impossible to resolve in a timescale that Americans voters can appreciate. 'Are we winning?' Voters want a yes or no answer. The policy wonks couldn't find a way to argue the necessity to continue sustaining forces, even if the cost was comparatively minimal (Afghan). It was less so for Vietnam and more so for Lebanon.
This problem though is not exclusive for America, but for all democratic systems. As their politicians need to be more responsive than their autocratic alternatives.
Blunt force only take you so far. Foreign policy is rarely definitive and voters struggle with nuance.
The way you win wars is by occupying countries, America has succeeded at this nearly everytime. The issue is that the situation then evolves in to a political issue which can never be solved as they're an invader. For example Afghanistan was never going to be turned in to a liberal state, it's not even a real country, it's a bunch of tribes arbitrarily shoved together for political convenience, the people didn't care as evidenced by the tribes sending all the "useless men" to be trained by the US, the best all stayed to keep the tribes strength, which is why the Afghan army got rolled over in a week and only the special forces put up a fight.
Invading a country, changing the government, then gesturing to the native population and saying "you guys are in charge again...not really...but yes!" is doesn't really achieve what it says on the label. It may achieve other things for certain interested parties, but it fails to deliver on the grand old narrative that was used to sell the war to the people.
For most of history invading a country included displacement of the native population, often some form of ethnic cleansing, rulership by the conquers, and the establishment of colonies that created obvious cultural shifts.
Modern wars instead opt for leveling a nation into dirt with air superiority then saying "okay guys, please do a liberal democracy now, thanks!" then acting shocked when it doesn't work out. But again, like I said, interested parties don't really need it to work out to make a buck and further their geopolitical interests.
Wars are sustained for the profit that's in them. No one really cares too much about the outcome as long as they can still do business. There is not much more to it. One rare thing Chomsky doesnt lie about.
Hi, "CIA" here!
"belted antipluralist with the nirvana fallacy"
I work for a defense contractor (IBM, Lockheed, etc) and it's weird thinking that these useless wars are what's paying my mortgage. Luckily for me both political parties have no interest in getting off the military industry teat.
what are they doing in that israeliteelry shop
Buying wedding rings for their Okinawan (japanese) brides.
getting wifed up with their dependas
Ah. Welcome, welcome
Gottfried's books and articles on neocons
>military failures
>billions of dollars in profit generated for defense contractors
Looks like a success to me. What exactly do you think the point of a modern US military engagement is? It's a jobs program. The poor get sent overseas to get shot at, the rich get that sweet raytheon haliburton academi locheed money as defense contractors achieve fantabulous profits.
Everybody wins. Well really just the ultra wealthy capitalists, but in america nobody else really counts.
It's a mischaracterisation to call them military failures, because they were in fact, military successes.
However, there in lies the problem -- Iraq and Afghanistan were not military problems. After the defeat of Saddam's armed forces and the Taliban being scattered to mountains they became political ones. Both almost impossible to resolve in a timescale that Americans voters can appreciate. 'Are we winning?' Voters want a yes or no answer. The policy wonks couldn't find a way to argue the necessity to continue sustaining forces, even if the cost was comparatively minimal (Afghan). It was less so for Vietnam and more so for Lebanon.
This problem though is not exclusive for America, but for all democratic systems. As their politicians need to be more responsive than their autocratic alternatives.
Blunt force only take you so far. Foreign policy is rarely definitive and voters struggle with nuance.
im reading thru Ghost Wars right now, I'd recommended it. It's about the CIA in Afghanistan from about 1980 to 2001
Why are airports so often named after people?
Why are insects so easy to do magic with?
What is an auditory hallucination?
Mearsheimer
Oh God.
Ah, the midwits geopolitical researcher.
Making people look things up.
Controlling what they can see.
Interfering privileges revoked.
The way you win wars is by occupying countries, America has succeeded at this nearly everytime. The issue is that the situation then evolves in to a political issue which can never be solved as they're an invader. For example Afghanistan was never going to be turned in to a liberal state, it's not even a real country, it's a bunch of tribes arbitrarily shoved together for political convenience, the people didn't care as evidenced by the tribes sending all the "useless men" to be trained by the US, the best all stayed to keep the tribes strength, which is why the Afghan army got rolled over in a week and only the special forces put up a fight.
>America has succeeded at this nearly everytime
Lol
One day all Americans will be shot in the head
But this time not by each other
in my opinion the most thrilling military stuff of these days comes out of Africa.
Invading a country, changing the government, then gesturing to the native population and saying "you guys are in charge again...not really...but yes!" is doesn't really achieve what it says on the label. It may achieve other things for certain interested parties, but it fails to deliver on the grand old narrative that was used to sell the war to the people.
For most of history invading a country included displacement of the native population, often some form of ethnic cleansing, rulership by the conquers, and the establishment of colonies that created obvious cultural shifts.
Modern wars instead opt for leveling a nation into dirt with air superiority then saying "okay guys, please do a liberal democracy now, thanks!" then acting shocked when it doesn't work out. But again, like I said, interested parties don't really need it to work out to make a buck and further their geopolitical interests.
>What are some good books that explain America’s recent military failures?
Gottfried's books and articles on neocons
Wars are sustained for the profit that's in them. No one really cares too much about the outcome as long as they can still do business. There is not much more to it. One rare thing Chomsky doesnt lie about.
ask Scholars-stage