Today i was reading about an sad incident wherin a taliban member who infiltrated afghani security forces shot and killed 2 U.S. Soldiers before being gunned down himself by U.S. and afghan soldiers.
A similiar incident occured later in the day but no one was killed (except for perhaps the perpetrator)
Taliban forces took credit saying they had people infiltrating security forces and that the planned withdrawel for 2014 was the U.S. “covering up it’s defeat”.
While reading this I noticed a “post a comment” section under the article and to my dismay is was basically a bunch of people either falling into one or three catagories of how we should respond to this.
Defeatism
“Oh shit Time to pull out our troops!”
Apathy
“Fuck those animals let em all kill each other (i.e. Fuck 'em)”
Excessive brutality
“Lets pull our troops out an make that place a parking lot (this actual phraise I saw used several times)”
Now though I personally support the U.S. soldiers and their mission there this doesn’t mean im not willing to hear people who are against it, but these comments were just so braindead uninformed and kneejerk bunch of nonsense, it really is a shame.
The Taliban, probably, will make a return. There was a reason that the US entretained dictators before. Even a victory, paid in blood, which left a democratic govt, could soon turn into a defeat. The vacuum left by dictators will soon be filled, through democratic elections, by members of organizations we at some point or another have called “terrorist”.
And it’s yet another ‘christ, aren’t ordinary people stupid’ thread from Stoic Guardian, in which he says something even more stupid than those he is criticising, to whit:
Frankly Stoic, if you believe in militarism that much then sign your ass up and go and get killed somewhere so we don’t have to read anymore of your threads criticising what are in reality more intelligent beliefs than your own.
Perhaps, I don’t claim to know what my fate will be. But also why am I so stupid huh? Because i don’t share your world view?
You’ve always seemed to have some sort or disdain for me, can’t say i know why.
But also this thread is in mundane babble because i’m just sighting an instance, yes i think these people were stupid , but it was more in the way they presented it rather than the position itself.
Also along with opposing the defeatist sentiment I also opposed the “lets just fucking kill em all” sentiment, I guess i’m an elitist dick for criticising this?
I hate to disagree with pundits of social ignorance. The Vietnam war was one instance where the unpopularity of that war brought on a complete change of war-policy, and a defeat of a president’s second term: Lyndon Johnson.
This organised political party, “the New Left”, along with other loosely affiliated groups, Black Panthers, Weather Underground, SDL (students for a democratic society) , were able to change the course of history. But it’s also right to assert, these groups, for the most part, were not the average person on the street, they consisted of young intellectuals who deferred their military service ( a legitimate way by staying in school). The legitimacy was beyond reproach, as were the intent, motives, and objectives of the Vietnam war, were not.
No, I would guess that you’re a deluded dick for thinking that your position is any smarter or more lucidly expressed than theirs. Your basic position, that people are stupid and therefore it’s a good thing that the decision to start wars lies in the hands of a fascistic elite cartel, is a pessimistic abomination, and a hypocritical position to hold given your own suicidal beliefs on the subject.
No shit. You think the US media seen overseas ever makes the US government look bad?
Not exactly true but i’ll try to post some pictures when I do.
Everybody does, so far as I can tell.
Everybody thinks their opinions are better unless the’re completely devoid of confidence or self worth, otherwise why would they hold differant opinions?
But I don’t quite understand, what exactly do you think I represent or propose?
Hell I dunno, logic, evidence, plausibility? Rather than just thinking of something they’ve been told to think, then identifying with it personally as though it is ‘their opinion’ and therefore deriving a sense of self worth from their belief in… whatever.
Cowardly fascism. Sucking up to authority. Fetishising military power. Seeing yourself as above the ‘herd’ but below the psychopaths who do have an influence on war strategy. The true power comes in being able to determine whether someone pulls a trigger through controlling their mind, rather than because they’ve got a gun pressed to their head. Do you think Derren Brown ever gets mugged? Yet look at him, wears expensive suits, is small and puny. He should, by rights, get mugged frequently.
Well is there a differance in terms of whether someones taught by someone else or if they devise it all by themselves with no other influences (somehow…)? Isn’t it still their opinion?
Also perhaps i’m misreading this but are you implying that I didn’t formulate my own opinion? That i’m just doing what i’m told? I laugh at the notion. Sure there are cultural standards that believe what i believe but there’s also massive internal conflict and in fact i’ve received far more grief or apathy of my own path then I have ever had support and it wa s also not drilled into me
Now are you saying i’m a cowardly Fascist, that my brand of Fascism is cowardly, or that Fascism itself is cowardly?
When do I do this? I don’t baselessly criticize authority when it’s fashionable, and i don’t demonize it even though it’s popular. But I don’t belief I “suck up” to it, I’ll criticize it and have when I believe it’s done wrong but I don’t have to give into hate and hysteria.
Festishising? I suppose in this current setting where Militarism is often derided then i’m not allowed to be one. I Embrace it, always have sense I was a kid, little has interested me more than War but that doesn’t mean i’m blind to it’s evils and unpleasentries, it just means that I can have a balanced view of it. Seeing both it’s positives and negatives, without having to side my opinion on being either completely for or against it as a general rule.
I support military power because that more than anything else can secure the prosperity and survival of a nation.
Stoic, the average person doesn’t understand the reasons for war. Do you? I don’t. But I do understand a bit about strategy. Because of that, I think I can comment on your OP without getting personal.
Get rid of war strategy–that depends on the generals in charge of the ‘boots on the ground’ troops. Instead, think about overall military strategy. Over 10 yrs. ago, the strategy, as dictated by the CiC, was to expand US military ‘presence’ in the ME in order to do a number of things–the main reason was to preserve crude oil supplies while preserving the US dollar as the Petrol dollar. A secondary reason was to protect US security in the region–i.e., to build a wall around Israel. Lastly, was the idea of spreading ‘democracy’ and ridding the world of ‘terrorism.’
Have any of those goals been realized?
In the meantime, you’re doing something positive–getting an education.
Keep it up–and keep that middle finger up against any detractors.
Seeing the inability of the US Congress, and the rise of the Tea Party and their pledge to prevent compromise…well, let’s just say that the fate of our men are women in combat is NOT left to the hope of SOME action by Congress.
Our presence was already established in the most important of places, the faucets of oil in Saudi Arabia.
I agree with the speculation about preserving the dominance of the dollar, but this would only have mattered if Iraq’s fields were up and running, then or now. When they talk about “US security” or the “security of US interests” it is to talk about the interests of business. Israel is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Yet, for at least a decade, once has to wonder if the cost-benefit of such an ally is worth it. When the oil dries up in about 50-75 years, I bet that the foreign policy and the stance on Israel by the US will have changed dramatically. As more preserved lands are opened to “development” in North America, changes in policy might also follow. Maybe then, as before WW1, the only real wall will be the one around the US itself.
Our military presence didn’t include Saudi Arabia, omar, until the Saudi government allowed combat troops into the country in 1990 during the beginnings of the first Gulf War. They were withdrawn in 2003(?). All that remains now is one AF ‘training’ squadron that can be deactivated at any time. The threat of the Iraq invasion was a bit of saber-rattling for the benefit of the Saudi’s who were, in fact, thinking of selling oil to Europe for Euros which would have meant a tremendous threat to the USD as the PetroDollar. Israel is strategically important in that it’s the only non-Muslim country in the ME. But this isn’t what I think the point of the OP is.
Civilians, i.e., the public shouldn’t have influence on war strategy because the public doesn’t understand military strategy. It’s as simple as that.
True, but the Sauds are a target of Al-Qaeda, so just as before, they probably will allow US forces to operate from their lands. The little force that remains there can be grown in months time. Not that it matters much, as the US maintains, almost constantly, a battle group, with aircraft carries, operating in the gulf, meaning that it has the capacity to wage war at a moments notice to preserve US interests.
Kevin Phillips has argued as much about the use of Iraq’s oil resources as a way of slipping away from the Saudi dependency, but what I can’t see is how. You still have pretty much the same population and culture, almost thoroughly anti-american, which certainly was not given reason to change that stance by the destruction of their country by an occupying force. It might have been the illusion of the administration that they would be welcomed as liberators.
The threat of exchanging petro in euros is based on the ability of the euro to remain stronger than the dollar. Frankly, given the acrobatics that Germany has had to face to maintain Spain, Italy and Greece afloat, I don’t see the European economy dominating the US economy. China on the other hand…and it might still happen.
Israel’s not being muslim is not necessarily a strenght. At times, it behaves as immoderately as it’s foes, causing damage to the US appeal in the rest of the region. Technology has made Israel obsolete, strategically. It requires constant upkeep, protection; is a diplomatic black-eye; and military strike range no longer requires a base of operations as close as Israel. For little risk, you can do the same and more out of Sigonella in Sicily.
The public is not an expert on strategy. That said, in our democracy, it is held as the “expert” in policy, in Law, and so it would be relevant to check the pulse of public opinion on a given course of action. The folks in washington didn’t need a vote from congress, but they do have to “sell” war for it to stick, because four years past quick when things don’t go your way and the people, while perhaps idiots about strategy, will fire the experts on strategy through a vote.
One thing:
If the Iraq war was about oil, and if, as Phillips argues, it was about cheap oil, I believe that the Democrats might very well lose the WH, if not now then in 4 years, if they do not cash in on the Pipeline and are seen as active in opening more oil fields in protected lands, because, like in war, the public might not be energy experts or enviromental experts but they can fire the so-called experts until they get what is good and most convenient, even if detrimental overall.
