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.
Topic Closed
