Repercussions of U.S. military actions

Jan 2018
3
1
United States
#1
It is my understanding that much of the terrorism over the past couple of decades has been retaliation against the actions of the militaries of western governments like the U.S. Without the aggressive military action of these governments, especially the U.S., it seems likely to me that ordinary people living in the U.S. and Europe would have little reason to worry about terrorist attacks.

I get this impression from articles like this one from the Intercept, book chapters like this one from Michael Huemer's book The Problem of Political Authority, and various similar sources.

Do others here think this is a correct impression? What opinions do others have?

Also, I would like to see the U.S. government's military scaled down as much as is possible. (I want it abolished altogether, but I figure it might be easier to persuade others to at least want it scaled down.) Who else here wants to see it scaled down or abolished?
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2013
2,153
891
NM
#3
Governments don't function in terms of evil

Evil must be opposed. Imperfect it may be, but the US must be ready to do it.
Yah, there's a lot of rhetoric on the topic. But the US has policy aims, & combatting evil isn't one of them. For instance, we entered WWI & WWII late - partly because we weren't ready militarily - but also because we weren't certain we wanted to intercede, & in WWI, it wasn't immediately clear whose side we would favor.

If fighting evil were truly our policy, there were things we should have done & things we should not have done in the near 250 years we've existed. In the case of the troubles in the Middle East, I blame the Sykes-Picot agreement between UK & France, carving up the Middle East (after the Ottoman Empire's collapse) without any regard for the desires nor affinities of the peoples already living there.

By all rights, we should force UK & France to clean up their mess.
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2014
25,114
13,550
Memphis, Tn.
#4
Evil must be opposed. Imperfect it may be, but the US must be ready to do it.
Hmmm, we seem to prefer to confront "evil" primarily if it's happening in places with lots of oil or other natural resources we value or it's physical location is of stratigic/economic importance to us.

I'm sure that is just a coincidence.
 
Likes: 3 people
Mar 2013
8,714
9,391
Middle Tennessee
#5
Evil must be opposed. Imperfect it may be, but the US must be ready to do it.

WHY ???? Why must WE bear the major responsibility for it ?? Why must WE pay for being the world's policeman ??

$2 TRILLIONS DOLLARS pissed away in Iraq and Afghanistan and what do we have to show for it ??
 
Likes: 1 person
Mar 2013
8,714
9,391
Middle Tennessee
#6
Hmmm, we seem to prefer to confront "evil" primarily if it's happening in places with lots of oil or other natural resources we value or it's physical location is of stratigic/economic importance to us.

I'm sure that is just a coincidence.

Darfur ?? Darfur ?? Darfur anyone ?? We KNEW who was committing most of the atrocities. He was speaking openly on a sat phone from his compound. ONE Tomahawk missile could have changed the lives of millions. Yet we sat by and did nothing. WHY ??

Simple, Darfur is a dirt poor region with few natural resources, filled with dirty, poor and uneducated little brown people. NOTHING WE WANTED OR NEEDED from there.

Why didn't WE with all our technology hunt for, find and rescue the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram ??
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2014
25,114
13,550
Memphis, Tn.
#7
Darfur ?? Darfur ?? Darfur anyone ?? We KNEW who was committing most of the atrocities. He was speaking openly on a sat phone from his compound. ONE Tomahawk missile could have changed the lives of millions. Yet we sat by and did nothing. WHY ??

Simple, Darfur is a dirt poor region with few natural resources, filled with dirty, poor and uneducated little brown people. NOTHING WE WANTED OR NEEDED from there.

Why didn't WE with all our technology hunt for, find and rescue the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram ??
Guess it just wasn't EVIL enough for us to do something about it. *shrug*
 
Mar 2013
8,714
9,391
Middle Tennessee
#8
Guess it just wasn't EVIL enough for us to do something about it. *shrug*

We've spent $2 Trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama dropped 26,000 bombs on "terrorists" in 2016.

Yet with a military budget of $700 BILLION dollars, we couldn't find our way to spare a single $1.4 million dollar missile ?? A missile that would have changed the lives of millions of people, while placing NOT a single one of our personnel in danger ??
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2013
2,153
891
NM
#9
One possibiity - there are others

We've spent $2 Trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama dropped 26,000 bombs on "terrorists" in 2016.

Yet with a military budget of $700 BILLION dollars, we couldn't find our way to spare a single $1.4 million dollar missile ?? A missile that would have changed the lives of millions of people, while placing NOT a single one of our personnel in danger ??
On Darfur - or Sudan (I'm not sure who was directing things in Darfur)? From the US point of view, it probably depended on who was buying the oil/natgas from Sudan - lately China has been moving in on the Third World - especially Africa - on building infrastructure, refineries, pipelines, networks, comms, etc. - or financing them (& design, build, providing materials & workforce & equipment & operators - practically vertical integration of the whole package, from proposal to finance/insurance & implementation, to a turn-key solution). If China wasn't buying nor building, we might have been happy to keep China out & just let Sudan go on their merry way.

It should be possible to see who was buying output @ the time, & who the refineries & etc. belonged to & who was operating all that. Offhand, that's all I can think of, in terms of why we would have let the deals stand as they were. Especially if the end buyers were Western European - thereby putting a thumb in the CIS' oil/natgas market, depriving them of some hard currency. & giving the Western European countries some leverage to negotiate better oil/natgas deals with the CIS. A kinda Realpolitik win-win for the US & Western Europe - but hard on the people in Darfur.
 
Mar 2018
32
6
Colorado Springs
#10
Darfur ?? Darfur ?? Darfur anyone ?? We KNEW who was committing most of the atrocities. He was speaking openly on a sat phone from his compound. ONE Tomahawk missile could have changed the lives of millions. Yet we sat by and did nothing. WHY ??
Have you ever heard of Executive Order 12333--United States intelligence activities, Part 2.11, "Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

Our only involvement in assassination is that of counterintelligence, which "means information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted for or on behalf of foreign powers, organizations or persons, or international terrorist activities, but not including personnel, physical, document or communications security programs."

Source.

Simple, Darfur is a dirt poor region with few natural resources, filled with dirty, poor and uneducated little brown people. NOTHING WE WANTED OR NEEDED from there.

Why didn't WE with all our technology hunt for, find and rescue the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram ??
"The Islamic State in West Africa (abbreviated as ISWA or ISWAP), formerly known as Jamā'at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-Da'wah wa'l-Jihād (Arabic: جماعة أهل السنة للدعوة والجهاد‎, "Group of the People of Sunnah for Preaching and Jihad") and commonly known as Boko Haram until March 2015, is a Jihadist militant organization based in northeastern Nigeria, also active in Chad, Niger and northern Cameroon." - Sources, below

The fallout of us interdicting with an Islamic jihadi organization would have resulted in many times that amount of slaughter the world over.

As it is, the U.S. had many responses, most of which supported forces already in the area and already fighting them.

Sources:

"Islamic State recognizes oath of allegiance from jihadists in Mali". Long War Journal. 31 October 2017.
"Islamic State West Africa (ISWA / ISWAP)". Terrorism Research Analysis Consortium.
"Boko Haram renames itself Islamic State's West Africa Province (Iswap) as militants launch new offensive against government forces". the Independent. 25 April 2015.
"Islamic State West African province (ISWAP)/Boko Haram". Globalsecurity.org.
"Is Islamic State shaping Boko Haram media?". bbc. 4 March 2015. Retrieved 24 September 2015.
"Nigeria's Boko Haram pledges allegiance to Islamic State". BBC news. BBC. 7 March 2015. Retrieved 7 March 2015.
Adam Chandler (9 March 2015). "The Islamic State of Boko Haram? :The terrorist group has pledged its allegiance to ISIS. But what does that really mean?". The Atlantic.
 

Similar Discussions