Just to caveat, I had some thoughts, and was looking to not make this about "politics" as in, nothing to do with U.S. presidents, or anything of the sort... just focusing specifically on U.S. foreign policy and our involvement in wars from a general sense... perhaps, our strategy if you will... I find it (unfortunately) an interesting topic and just curious what other people think. I certainly have my own thoughts, many of which are probably wrong, but here goes...
The U.S. from modern times, perhaps since the conclusion of WW2, has viewed itself as the leader of the free world. To that point, we largely have been. We led the creation of the United Nations and NATO, and post-WW2, we seem to be the first ones to respond to what are often viewed as attacks on freedom of other nations. If we look at the last 50 years or so (and we include Vietnam, even tough that was over 50 years ago), we don't have a very good track record of saving countries who face incursion. I can think of a few:
- Grenada - Kuwait - Iraq (does that count? We have a base there, they have a democracy, I don't hear anything bad) - Panama
... I can't really think of any others?
But you look at our foreign policy, especially over the past 20 years. We have some really abject failures. The Arab Spring is now publicly known to have been led by the CIA. Specifically, at the interest of countries like Saudi Arabia, etc. This led to many countries falling into Islamic fundamentalist hands, like Egypt (formerly under Mubarack, who was a U.S. installed leader), Libya, etc. And again, we got involved in Syria's battle. Bashir Al-Asad was not a nice guy, same as Saddam, but he managed to keep the different interests at bay. We supported the Free Syrian Army (who are largely made up of Al Qaeda), believing that they could wipe out ISIS in that country. They didn't; however, they were able to topple Assad, but now with Assad out of the way, the Free Syrian Army have started slaughtering Christians and Alawites (who are best described as the Jehovah's Witnesses of Islam). This did happen after we pulled out earlier this year, but why did we get involved in there in the first place, and why are we taking intelligence advice and recommendations from Saudi Arabia?
Afghanistan seemed like a case where we lost interest in supporting it. I'd always heard the same about Vietnam growing up, but from what I understand, we were potentially under a more immediate threat since (if I remember reading it correctly), the North VC had full support from Russia and were even getting North Korean troops, and China (?). MJ, you'll have to correct me on that if I'm totally off. Afghanistan, the Taliban really don't put up much of a threat beyond the threat to constant destabilization of the populace. Realistically... I don't know if another 2 decades could have changed things, but the population of Afghanistan today now knows the difference between freedom and oppression. Though if I'm being honest, many of the men in Afghanistan prefer it the way it is now, which is sad.
Anyway, I see, unfortunately, a long-list of failures, either because we lose interest in continuing to support a war, or because we get into it for all the wrong reasons in the first place. I'm not sure really where I'm going with this, but we seem so far off from how things were 20+ years ago. Unless I'm just not educated enough in this... prior to 20 years ago, it seemed like most of our involvements were at least based on maintaining free democracy and trade around the world... or AT the very least, fighting Communism. The last 20 years, it almost feels like foreign governments are directing where we intervene. Thoughts? Anyway, haha... I really do hope that we can try to keep politics / party nonsense out of this... most of the other forums I'm on, they're either nerds (Atari forums) or young people who are likely too jaded. Not a lot of places for me to pose questions like this.
It seems like, from your post - and I don't disagree - that "we" are of the opinion that "the enemy of our enemy is our friend". Which I believe is short-sighted at best. But it keeps us busy bankrolling wars and disputes. (There's also the thought of the "military industrial complex" feeding itself.)
Also, in war, it strikes me as completely silly to have "rules of engagement". War is freaking war. Get in there. Get it done, and GTFO.
All of this is probably overly simplistic, but there it is. You asked.
Originally posted by Raydar: Also, in war, it strikes me as completely silly to have "rules of engagement". War is freaking war. Get in there. Get it done, and GTFO.
All of this is probably overly simplistic, but there it is. You asked.
Just my opinion but, as it applies to rules of engagement, there are reasons but, if those reasons are not supporting our opportunities to win then we have no business being involved in the conflict. Our elected leaders send our military to win wars, not to participate. If, it's anything other than that, we need different leadership.
Originally posted by blackrams: Just my opinion but, as it applies to rules of engagement, there are reasons but, if those reasons are not supporting our opportunities to win then we have no business being involved in the conflict. Our elected leaders send our military to win wars, not to participate. If, it's anything other than that, we need different leadership. Rams
Have you ever read the book "Flight Of The Intruder" ? It was also a movie.
It helped make me into I am.
Todd, I would rather you had posted this in P/R. Then I could say what I really wanted to. Snow Flakes melt.
Raydar, I definitely agree with you... I think there is absolutely something to the military industrial complex that encourages some of it... I definitely think there's a global push from individuals that perhaps do not have our best interest in mind, or even that of the world, rather... their own interests.
Cliff, I agree, but put it here specifically because if I look back at the last 20 years... or maybe 24 years to include GW... it's really a bi-party issue.
82T/A..during the Vietnam years, China was not the industrial and military giant it is today The arms for North Vietnam did come thru China but it was mostly a pass thru. The Migs, the SAMS, the Artillery rounds, the T72s, the AKs and SKS rifles and ammo were all Soviet Union design and mostly built. North Vietnam, just like North Korea a decade and 1/2 earlier, did nothing without Chinese permission and China gave or withheld that permission only after checking with Moscow first. Both in the case of the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Now, the tables are turned, with Moscow being the weaker of the 2 communist nations. The only thing that makes Russia strong is their nukes. (Remember, USSR had their 1st nuke test in 1949 but China didn't get nukes until 1964. Russia helped China up until 1959 but pulled out in that year over differences in opinion in Communist thinking. China was still embracing Stalinism while Khrushchev was ready to split with Stalin's manifestos in the mid-late 50s.)
So anyway, while China exported huge amounts of weapons to both N Vietnam and to n. korea, most actually came from Russia, just as the 'technicians' did.
War? the face of war has changed but more importantly, the face and feelings of the world has. The 11 Marines and 1 Navy Corpsman that were killed in Kabul in 2021made headlines around the world, but during the Vietnam War, that death toll would have hardly raised an eyebrow. 19,000 Americans died in the Battle of the Bulge in WW2. Those kinds of casualty rates will no longer be accepted by the American . Not even close to them. Walk down any crowded street and you can see it. Ask yourself " how many of the people that you look in the eye would support a serious type war to guarantee their freedom?"
It won't be many. There are WAY more RayBs in this country today than there are Raydars.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Cliff, I agree, but put it here specifically because if I look back at the last 20 years... or maybe 24 years to include GW... it's really a bi-party issue.
My biggest worry about the next war is the domestic threat we will face. That and I will be too old to do anything about it. People have no idea what they would be giving up because they have never gave up anything.
They complain about how poor they are on a phone that cost more than my first, second and third car. Openly say they do not support the US and its culture but would immediately be in trouble in the country they are "supporting" Doomed? Depends, do you think the internet influencers and drum bangers is a good sampling of our nation? Or do we have the quiet people that are more aligned with our nation and would step up if needed?
I'm thinking the Houthi's are being introduced to American foreign policy.......
Go ahead and have your civil war, just don't mess with international shipping lanes.
The Biden/Harris Administration put on a show of force for the world against the Houthis but didn't have the balls to actually stop the attacks other than a weak defensive measure. I absolutely agree with the Trump Administration to get aggressive with the Houthis and their sponsor. Although, I would like to see more from other nations to end this crap. Either get serious of get out.
While there are other nations involved in protecting this area and shipping from Houthi attacks, it appears that again we are carrying the majority of the load. Our allies in this need to step up and get serious about stopping these attacks. Military force seems to be the only thing the Houthis and it's sponsor understand. If, all the nations currently involved were to get offensive on this, there is no doubt in my mind the Houthi agenda would be ended/eliminated.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 03-16-2025).]
