Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
The Mines of France
Interesting tweet here on the lasting effects of WWI, particularly the former trench lines and the explosives buried there. A quote: "Today, French government démineurs still recover about 900 tons of ordnance every year, & in Belgium the amount is around 200 tons."
Friday, April 20, 2018
Irony Alert
Somewhere in my reading today I ran across a brief mention that Gens. Kelly and Mattis found themselves opposing Gen. McMaster on some issues--it seems the split was between those who tried to rein Trump in (Kelly-Mattis) versus McMaster who was more willing to go along.
I can't wait for McMaster's memoir. If I recall his dissertation, converted into a well-regarded history called Dereliction of Duty, was critical of LBJ's Joint Chiefs for not being straight with him, for going along with his policies rather than resisting the expansion of the war without being open with the public. So if today's item was correct, it might be that McMaster found it hard to play the role of adviser than he thought it was back in his academic and youthful days. Wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last, person to make the discovery.
[Update: it was a New Yorker piece: "On one side were Mattis, Tillerson, and Kelly, each of whom in varying degrees sought to push back against the President; on the other was McMaster, who made his natural allies furious for what they saw as his habit of trying to accommodate the President’s demands, even if they were far-fetched. “General McMaster was trying to find a way to try to execute, not to tell him no,” the former government official told me."
I can't wait for McMaster's memoir. If I recall his dissertation, converted into a well-regarded history called Dereliction of Duty, was critical of LBJ's Joint Chiefs for not being straight with him, for going along with his policies rather than resisting the expansion of the war without being open with the public. So if today's item was correct, it might be that McMaster found it hard to play the role of adviser than he thought it was back in his academic and youthful days. Wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last, person to make the discovery.
[Update: it was a New Yorker piece: "On one side were Mattis, Tillerson, and Kelly, each of whom in varying degrees sought to push back against the President; on the other was McMaster, who made his natural allies furious for what they saw as his habit of trying to accommodate the President’s demands, even if they were far-fetched. “General McMaster was trying to find a way to try to execute, not to tell him no,” the former government official told me."
Friday, November 17, 2017
On Nuclear War
Back in the day we were very concerned about nuclear war. First strike, second strike, security of deterrents, all were important subjects, to be explored by academics and movie makers. The concern then was that the Soviet Union would do a first strike, a strike sufficient to destroy our ability to retaliate.
Since 1989 we've lost the edge on that concern. But because our nuclear forces are getting obsolete, and because North Korea is developing the missile/Hbomb combination needed to attack the US, we're seeing a resumption of the discussion, including in the Post today.
Personally I'm supportive of the argument. I don't see Russia or China as the sort of power which aims for global dominance (based on what we've learned since 1989, it seems the USSR never really aimed for that dominance) and other powers, like North Korea, see nuclear warfare as a deterrent.
So yes, I'd cut our forces back.
Since 1989 we've lost the edge on that concern. But because our nuclear forces are getting obsolete, and because North Korea is developing the missile/Hbomb combination needed to attack the US, we're seeing a resumption of the discussion, including in the Post today.
Personally I'm supportive of the argument. I don't see Russia or China as the sort of power which aims for global dominance (based on what we've learned since 1989, it seems the USSR never really aimed for that dominance) and other powers, like North Korea, see nuclear warfare as a deterrent.
So yes, I'd cut our forces back.
Sunday, October 01, 2017
Vietnam on TV and in Iraq and Afghanistan
Have now watched most of the Burns/Novick Vietnam series (missing the first one but I'd just completed the Lagevall book) and the last minutes of the longer episodes. Had my memory refreshed but didn't learn a lot that was new, given that I'd lived through the period, following the media closely, and ended up in Vietnam for a shortened tour (11 months/11 days). That's my general take, but I did learn more about the divisions in the North's leadership, i.e, the role of Le Duan.
While I found the range of individual stories and responses on the American and South Vietnamese side to be familiar, the stories from the other side were newer, particularly when critical.
Came close to tears twice, once when an American recounted his first glimpse of women in ao dais
.jpg/250px-KOCIS_Korea_Hanbok-AoDai_FashionShow_03_(9766157012).jpg)
While I found the range of individual stories and responses on the American and South Vietnamese side to be familiar, the stories from the other side were newer, particularly when critical.
Came close to tears twice, once when an American recounted his first glimpse of women in ao dais
which tracked my reactions when arriving in the early morning at Tan San Nhut airport, once in reaction to the piece on the Vietnam War Memorial.
I'd say the series missed a couple areas which seem important to me, but which aren't the focus.
One is the ways in which Vietnamese and American societies started to intermix and separate. The usual way in which this gets covered is prostitution, with the real blend of the offspring of Americans and Vietnamese. That got mentioned in the series. But the blending, the intermixture was more than that. As soon as Americans arrived, we started hiring help, slowly at first but then more and more. For example by the time I left in May 67 we had barbers, laundry workers, hootch girls, generator helpers (don't know their exact title, but they helped with the generators), and others which time has erased. Also mentioned briefly in the series was the black market. I remember buying my jungle boots (with canvas uppers instead of leather as in the standard issue boots) through the black market--more comfortable than the regular boots but at that time restricted only to combat troops. In both cases, as in our Afghanistan war, the influx of American money had a great impact on the Vietnamese economy and on the people--some good, some bad. (Not a new phenomenon--recall the complaints of the Brits in WWII--Yanks were overpaid, over-sexed, and over here.)
The blending, the intermixture, was accompanied by increasing separation. When I arrived we were operating generators in compounds in Saigon. I was then stationed at Long Binh, the main logistical base outside Saigon where we did our best to separate from Vietnamese society--we ended up with aluminum hootches on concrete pads, not the tents we started with. Think of the "Green Zone"
in Baghdad. The logic is understandable: we don't want our soldiers killed so the best way to do that is to isolate them.
The other point not covered was standard in accounts of the war: the fact that most troops were REMF's, as I was. Lots to be said about that, but not today.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Blast from the Past: Guadalcanal Diary
Guadalcanal Diary was one of the books on my family's shelves,
Mention it because the invasion occurred this month, as noted at the AmericanStudies blog.
Mention it because the invasion occurred this month, as noted at the AmericanStudies blog.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Make Love, Not War?
Kottke has a post with this timeline map of the global median age from 1960 to 2060. It's interesting to see the various countries aging at different rates, until many of the OECD countries are median age of 50+.
But what's also striking is the correlation of young countries with unrest and war. For example, today the media age of Iraq, Afghanistan and a country in Central America (likely Guatemala) is in the teens. The other such countries are in central Africa.
So maybe the slogan of the 60's should have read: "make love and war", or "make love amidst war"?
But what's also striking is the correlation of young countries with unrest and war. For example, today the media age of Iraq, Afghanistan and a country in Central America (likely Guatemala) is in the teens. The other such countries are in central Africa.
So maybe the slogan of the 60's should have read: "make love and war", or "make love amidst war"?
Monday, November 07, 2016
You Don't Get It Right the First Time: China's Carriers
If there are any long-term readers out there, you'll recognize the title as one of my rules from early on.
Robert Farley has an interesting take on the new Chinese carrier. (Full disclosure: I was a long timer naval war addict. Ballantine paperbacks had a series of WWII books back in the 1950's.
Robert Farley has an interesting take on the new Chinese carrier. (Full disclosure: I was a long timer naval war addict. Ballantine paperbacks had a series of WWII books back in the 1950's.
Saturday, October 01, 2016
Book Recommendation: Rosa Brooks
The book is "How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon", the author is Rosa Brooks, the daughter of Barbara Ehrenreich, the leftish foodie and writer. Interestingly, Brooks is now married to a colonel in the Special Forces, having spent time in the bureaucracies of the State Department (Bill Clinton admin) and Pentagon (Obama admin) as a human rights/law of war lawyer.
The book is a little diffuse, but it gets blurbs from Gen. McChrystal and Anne-Marie Slaughter, former policy wonk in the State Department. Brooks acknowledges her experiences have changed and undermined her inherited preconceptions, though you still get the idealism of the former human rights activist. To me, of course, the most interesting bits reflected the bureaucracies of DOD and State, and the tension between them, but Brooks' thesis is that the old paradigms of war and peace no longer work, we need to pay attention to the in-between, particularly as impacted by technology, and fashion new rules of law and social structures to deal with social conflict. I was struck by her thoughts about the individualization of war--we can track and kill individuals now--what does that do to "war", which used to be anonymous mass versus anonymous mass?
The book is a little diffuse, but it gets blurbs from Gen. McChrystal and Anne-Marie Slaughter, former policy wonk in the State Department. Brooks acknowledges her experiences have changed and undermined her inherited preconceptions, though you still get the idealism of the former human rights activist. To me, of course, the most interesting bits reflected the bureaucracies of DOD and State, and the tension between them, but Brooks' thesis is that the old paradigms of war and peace no longer work, we need to pay attention to the in-between, particularly as impacted by technology, and fashion new rules of law and social structures to deal with social conflict. I was struck by her thoughts about the individualization of war--we can track and kill individuals now--what does that do to "war", which used to be anonymous mass versus anonymous mass?
Friday, July 15, 2016
The Culture Which Is British (not USSR or USA)
With apologies to Marginal Revolution where Tyler Cowen has posts beginning: "The Culture Which Is...", here's a link to a Politico piece on how the UK handles Doomsday: if it's Armageddon and the government is decapitated, what does the prime minister want the commanders of its nuclear deterrent to do? Very interesting, as well as the quick comparison with the USSR and USA's plans for the same contingency.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Fourteen Differences Between Pigs and Dogs
Walt Jeffries has a long interesting post on the differences between pigs and dogs, the differences meaning dogs can go to war with us and pigs can't.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Monday, June 22, 2015
Mike Morell: The Great War of Our Time
Morell had a long career in the CIA, ending as deputy director, but also serving as the briefer to GWBush during 2001-2 and at high levels in the intelligence side thereafter.
I'm in the midst of the book, which is well-written and reads quickly.
I want to note his apology in the book to Sec Powell for the CIA's failure to supply accurate information when Powell wrote his speech to the UN. Apologies for error should always be encouraged, and Morell's is good. He notes a number of failures of analysis on the WMD issue.
I'm in the midst of the book, which is well-written and reads quickly.
I want to note his apology in the book to Sec Powell for the CIA's failure to supply accurate information when Powell wrote his speech to the UN. Apologies for error should always be encouraged, and Morell's is good. He notes a number of failures of analysis on the WMD issue.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Forgetting Emotion: David Brooks
David Brooks has a column today reflecting on the decisions to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and drawing some lessons.
IMHO he misses two basic issues: confirmation bias, which led us to select data which fed into our preconceptions (i.e., because Afghanistan went well in 2001, it would go well for decades into the future and Iraq would go as well); and emotion, which clouded our judgment after 9/11 in many ways.
IMHO he misses two basic issues: confirmation bias, which led us to select data which fed into our preconceptions (i.e., because Afghanistan went well in 2001, it would go well for decades into the future and Iraq would go as well); and emotion, which clouded our judgment after 9/11 in many ways.
Monday, May 04, 2015
Horatio Hornblower Never Thought of This:
I read C.S.Foresters Hornblower series, and reread them, and reread them, and reread them...
The appeal was the Hornblower character, an early nerd who is introduced to us as having navigated by dead reckoning from Britain, around Cape Horn and up to Central America, reaching his precise destination (supporting a rebellion against Spain). He's a nerd but also an action figure, heroic but inept with women, as witnessed in his marriage.
Anyway, I don't recall that Hornblower ever used the clever stratagem of the young American captain Barney, as depicted in Boston1775's two posts, when he commanded the Hyder Ally, a ship named after the sultan of Mysore.
The setup
The outcome
The appeal was the Hornblower character, an early nerd who is introduced to us as having navigated by dead reckoning from Britain, around Cape Horn and up to Central America, reaching his precise destination (supporting a rebellion against Spain). He's a nerd but also an action figure, heroic but inept with women, as witnessed in his marriage.
Anyway, I don't recall that Hornblower ever used the clever stratagem of the young American captain Barney, as depicted in Boston1775's two posts, when he commanded the Hyder Ally, a ship named after the sultan of Mysore.
The setup
The outcome
Friday, January 30, 2015
Gloom and Doom
"Gloom and doom" was a popular term in the '50s--if I remember Republicans accused the Dems of embracing gloom and doom when Dems pointed with alarm at all the shortcomings of Ike's administration and the general state of the world.
On a day when spring seem far away, I thought I'd highlight a contemporary gloom and doomster, Leslie Gelb, writing as part of a Politico survey of learned people forecasting 15 years ahead:
On a day when spring seem far away, I thought I'd highlight a contemporary gloom and doomster, Leslie Gelb, writing as part of a Politico survey of learned people forecasting 15 years ahead:
The world of 2030 will be an ugly place, littered with rebellion and repression. Societies will be deeply fragmented and overwhelmed by irreconcilable religious and political groups, by disparities in wealth, by ignorant citizenry and by states’ impotence to fix problems. This world will resemble today’s, only almost everything will be more difficult to manage and solve.
Advances in technology and science won’t save us. Technology will both decentralize power and increase the power of central authorities. Social media will be able to prompt mass demonstrations in public squares, even occasionally overturning governments as in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt, but oligarchs and dictators will have the force and power to prevail as they did in Cairo. Almost certainly, science and politics won’t be up to checking global warming, which will soon overwhelm us.
Muslims will be the principal disruptive factor, whether in the Islamic world, where repression, bad governance and economic underperformance have sparked revolt, or abroad, where they are increasingly unhappy and distained by rulers and peoples. In America, blacks will become less tolerant of their marginalization, as will other persecuted minorities around the world. These groups will challenge authority, and authority will slam back with enough force to deeply wound, but not destroy, these rebellions.
A long period of worldwide economic stagnation and even decline will reinforce these trends. There will be sustained economic gulfs between rich and poor. And the rich will be increasingly willing to use government power to maintain their advantages.
Unfortunately, the next years will see a reversal of the hopes for better government and for effective democracies that loomed so large at the end of the Cold War.
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Weird Fact of the Day: B-52s Versus Cruisers
The B-52 goes back to my childhood, and is still around. From an article arguing that the Air Force should have replaced its engines with more fuel-efficient modern ones, comes this fact:
Since today’s B-52s rolled off the Wichita production line, the Navy has launched and scrapped two classes of destroyer and four cruiser classes, and that comparison makes a $550 million Long Range Strike Bomber look a little more digestible.Back in WWII the cost relationship and the longevity comparison between a bomber and a destroyer or cruiser would be one-sided in favor of the ship. I suppose that's an indirect measure of the cost of electronics versus the cost of people.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
A Myth of Vietnam
The process of creating history about events in which I've been a (small) part is somewhat disorienting and rather disturbing. It makes you wonder about the accuracy of history generally.
For example, Vietnam.
In season 3, episode 7 of Mad Men, which is set in 1963 Don Draper picks up a hitchhiking couple who are trying to evade the draft for fear the man will be sent to Vietnam. Baloney. We didn't have many troops in Vietnam then. As advisors, very few draftees would have been included. Through 1964 only 1 percent of the troops who were killed were draftees. There were 200 deaths in 1955-63, and another 216 in 1964.
The first draft cards were burned in the summer of 1964, and Joan Baez leading an anti-war demonstration of 600 people in San Francisco is the earliest noted in Wikipedia.
While Vietnam attracted a lot of press attention in the early 60's, I don't remember it as having much impact on the general public. Apparently Gallup didn't start polling until August 65, when 61 percent of the public said Vietnam troops wasn't a mistake.
Now comes the Coen Brothers with a new film: Inside Llewin Davies, in which they create a funny song: Please Mr. Kennedy from the kernel of a real song, which supposedly in 1961 asked JFK not to draft the singer and send him to Vietnam. Hitflix has a piece on it, including links to relevant songs. The 1962 song does not refer at all to Vietnam; it's just a potential draftee asking not to be drafted because Peggy Sue loves him, he hopes.
Because the 60's ended with Vietnam being a seemingly all-absorbing topic, people today are assuming it was a big deal all the way through the decade. It wasn't.
I write the above as someone who had a student deferment while in college, but who was drafted in 1965 and did some time in Vietnam (REMF).
For example, Vietnam.
In season 3, episode 7 of Mad Men, which is set in 1963 Don Draper picks up a hitchhiking couple who are trying to evade the draft for fear the man will be sent to Vietnam. Baloney. We didn't have many troops in Vietnam then. As advisors, very few draftees would have been included. Through 1964 only 1 percent of the troops who were killed were draftees. There were 200 deaths in 1955-63, and another 216 in 1964.
The first draft cards were burned in the summer of 1964, and Joan Baez leading an anti-war demonstration of 600 people in San Francisco is the earliest noted in Wikipedia.
While Vietnam attracted a lot of press attention in the early 60's, I don't remember it as having much impact on the general public. Apparently Gallup didn't start polling until August 65, when 61 percent of the public said Vietnam troops wasn't a mistake.
Now comes the Coen Brothers with a new film: Inside Llewin Davies, in which they create a funny song: Please Mr. Kennedy from the kernel of a real song, which supposedly in 1961 asked JFK not to draft the singer and send him to Vietnam. Hitflix has a piece on it, including links to relevant songs. The 1962 song does not refer at all to Vietnam; it's just a potential draftee asking not to be drafted because Peggy Sue loves him, he hopes.
Because the 60's ended with Vietnam being a seemingly all-absorbing topic, people today are assuming it was a big deal all the way through the decade. It wasn't.
I write the above as someone who had a student deferment while in college, but who was drafted in 1965 and did some time in Vietnam (REMF).
"Mr. Custer"
was a 1960 Larry Verne ditty written by Al DeLory about a soldier's
plea to General George Armstrong Custer in the Battle of Little Big Horn
not to send him off into battle. It was parodied one year later by Jim Nesbitt with "Please Mr. Kennedy," about blue collar America reaching out to the President for a helping hand. Then there was Mickey Woods' 1962 Motown track, also called "Please Mr. Kennedy"
about a Vietnam draftee pleading with the President not to ship him
away until his girlfriend marries him (because he's convinced she'll run
off with another man while he's away).
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-please-mr-kennedy-was-born-and-why-its-not-eligible-for-oscar-consideration#eOsbjo8XKUFF0cZp.99
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-please-mr-kennedy-was-born-and-why-its-not-eligible-for-oscar-consideration#eOsbjo8XKUFF0cZp.99
"Mr. Custer"
was a 1960 Larry Verne ditty written by Al DeLory about a soldier's
plea to General George Armstrong Custer in the Battle of Little Big Horn
not to send him off into battle. It was parodied one year later by Jim Nesbitt with "Please Mr. Kennedy," about blue collar America reaching out to the President for a helping hand. Then there was Mickey Woods' 1962 Motown track, also called "Please Mr. Kennedy"
about a Vietnam draftee pleading with the President not to ship him
away until his girlfriend marries him (because he's convinced she'll run
off with another man while he's away).
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-please-mr-kennedy-was-born-and-why-its-not-eligible-for-oscar-consideration#eOsbjo8XKUFF0cZp.99
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-please-mr-kennedy-was-born-and-why-its-not-eligible-for-oscar-consideration#eOsbjo8XKUFF0cZp.99
"Mr. Custer"
was a 1960 Larry Verne ditty written by Al DeLory about a soldier's
plea to General George Armstrong Custer in the Battle of Little Big Horn
not to send him off into battle. It was parodied one year later by Jim Nesbitt with "Please Mr. Kennedy," about blue collar America reaching out to the President for a helping hand. Then there was Mickey Woods' 1962 Motown track, also called "Please Mr. Kennedy"
about a Vietnam draftee pleading with the President not to ship him
away until his girlfriend marries him (because he's convinced she'll run
off with another man while he's away).
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-please-mr-kennedy-was-born-and-why-its-not-eligible-for-oscar-consideration#eOsbjo8XKUFF0cZp.99
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-please-mr-kennedy-was-born-and-why-its-not-eligible-for-oscar-consideration#eOsbjo8XKUFF0cZp.99
"Mr. Custer"
was a 1960 Larry Verne ditty written by Al DeLory about a soldier's
plea to General George Armstrong Custer in the Battle of Little Big Horn
not to send him off into battle. It was parodied one year later by Jim Nesbitt with "Please Mr. Kennedy," about blue collar America reaching out to the President for a helping hand. Then there was Mickey Woods' 1962 Motown track, also called "Please Mr. Kennedy"
about a Vietnam draftee pleading with the President not to ship him
away until his girlfriend marries him (because he's convinced she'll run
off with another man while he's away).
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-please-mr-kennedy-was-born-and-why-its-not-eligible-for-oscar-consideration#eOsbjo8XKUFF0cZp.99
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/how-please-mr-kennedy-was-born-and-why-its-not-eligible-for-oscar-consideration#eOsbjo8XKUFF0cZp.99
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Funny Sentence About WWII Photo
"Landing, from what I’ve read, was considered one of the more important qualifications for a pilot."
Via Kottke, this sentence is from a piece on the "most honored [US]photograph" of WWII, taken by a "nutty crew".
Anyone who has the slightest interest in military history and/or heroism should read it.
Via Kottke, this sentence is from a piece on the "most honored [US]photograph" of WWII, taken by a "nutty crew".
Anyone who has the slightest interest in military history and/or heroism should read it.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Iraq: Were We Lied To?
The trigger for this is a recent discussion over on Ta-Nehesi Coates blog looking back at the decision to invade Iraq. Most of the comments trend liberal, which is usually okay because that's what I am. But some of them assert the administration lied us into the war, which troubles me.
Yes, there was exaggeration and probably the occasional lie, but I don't believe there were many conscious lies. What was going on was people believed what they wanted to believe was true; they deluded themselves and then they deluded the rest of us.
I won't support my position by rehashing the events in 2002/3; that's tedious. I would point to a parallel I see in more recent events:
It seems apparent that the Romney campaign and many media figures on the right fully believed that Romney was going to win the election. They told us so repeatedly. In my surfing I'd hit Fox News and see Pat Caddell et. al. confidently predicting victory. After election day I don't recall anyone saying: "I knew all along Romney was doomed to defeat, but I lied to our audience just to keep spirits up." Now there's no reason for a pundit to make a prediction he knows to be false and which will be proved to be false within a week or a month. That wouldn't be rational. [ed.--who says people are rational?]
So I can only conclude they were self-deluded, just as I think GWB and Cheney et.al. were back in 2003.
Yes, there was exaggeration and probably the occasional lie, but I don't believe there were many conscious lies. What was going on was people believed what they wanted to believe was true; they deluded themselves and then they deluded the rest of us.
I won't support my position by rehashing the events in 2002/3; that's tedious. I would point to a parallel I see in more recent events:
It seems apparent that the Romney campaign and many media figures on the right fully believed that Romney was going to win the election. They told us so repeatedly. In my surfing I'd hit Fox News and see Pat Caddell et. al. confidently predicting victory. After election day I don't recall anyone saying: "I knew all along Romney was doomed to defeat, but I lied to our audience just to keep spirits up." Now there's no reason for a pundit to make a prediction he knows to be false and which will be proved to be false within a week or a month. That wouldn't be rational. [ed.--who says people are rational?]
So I can only conclude they were self-deluded, just as I think GWB and Cheney et.al. were back in 2003.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Justifying War: Rationale Versus Results
Ta-Nehisi Coates blogged yesterday on the Iraq war, triggered by this James Fallows post, which Kevin Drum also commented on here. Fallows' original point was that we Americans have usually inflated the threat we face, whether in Iraq or elsewhere on the international scene.
The general thrust of the three posts, plus the commentary on the TNC post, is that we've been lied into war (a big oversimplification because the commentary was more thoughtful and various) in the past and wars/military interventions were not worthwhile from America's viewpoint.
I took the contrarian position, as you might expect, and pushed back, citing Kosovo and Korea as examples, which I'm not going to repeat here. But thinking about Truman and Korea last night I believe there's often a big gap between the rationale for an intervention and what the results actually are, some years down the road. :
The general thrust of the three posts, plus the commentary on the TNC post, is that we've been lied into war (a big oversimplification because the commentary was more thoughtful and various) in the past and wars/military interventions were not worthwhile from America's viewpoint.
I took the contrarian position, as you might expect, and pushed back, citing Kosovo and Korea as examples, which I'm not going to repeat here. But thinking about Truman and Korea last night I believe there's often a big gap between the rationale for an intervention and what the results actually are, some years down the road. :
- In the case of our intervention in Iran, overthrowing Mossadegh and reinstating the shah, the rationale was defeating a leftist, pinko leader and supporting someone we could work with. The result we've seen after 60 years is our actions led to a religious dictatorship.
- In the case of our intervention in Korea, we thought we were keeping the communists from taking over the whole peninsula. The result we've seen after 62 years is our actions led to the development of the 15th biggest economy in the world.
- In the case of our intervention in Iraq II, the result hasn't matched the rationale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)