7 replies to this topic

[Zimbochick]

Should the US/coalition get involved in Syria?

[PERM BANNED]

No

[artcinco]

The response to Iraq guarantees we will not.


#iThing #word

[TAP]

What about Libya?

[artcinco]

We owed our NATO peeps for that since they helped us out with our wars.


#iThing #word

[PERM BANNED]

I don't even like the notion of saying "should the US " have any involvement. The "US" won't do a fucking thing. A bunch of lazy state department employees who will exempt themselves from any food and beverage limitations will setup shop somewhere nice, and then a bunch of Soldiers will be shot at and killed while people too craven to ever face real danger debate from their armchairs if some General is making the right call. There isn't anything "US" about it, because the American people won't get off their ass or sacrifice one fucking thing to make it happen. Maybe lonely housewives and widows will send a care package filled with sugar free gum or decaff coffee. But outside of that, I can't recall the average American doing dick for me while I was being shot at and mortared by angry Iraqis. And that exact same environment will exist in Syria. And we'll give the jihadist a brand new playing field to play in and recruit from. Syria has no bearing on our lives. If alleged human rights advocators are worried, they can go to Syria and bang on buckets, blow on their didgeridoos and march for peace. I'm sure that will have a profound effect. But let's try to stop sending young kids to die in a country that hates them, just so chickenhawks and their naïve, liberal counterparts can feel better about their own inaction.

[wedjat]

Chickenhawks & naive liberal counterparts.....conservative counterparts too Flagg, don't forget that. I know you like to forget that.

[freedom78]

There's plenty to be said about chickenhawks, the electoral calculus of representatives not willing to stand against a popular president in a national security climate, and the naivete of an American public too long removed from the mistake of Vietnam, not to mention the larger question of America's role in world order and how that ties in to (1) whether the world wants that order and (2) whether the world is willing to contribute to creating that order.

I can appreciate what Flagg said because most of us do watch wars on TV and, in all honesty, we don't know how to contribute. This isn't the WWII era where an entire nation was behind the war effort (this is due to the so called military industrial complex, but that's another story). It isn't even Vietnam where an unpopular war still filled its ranks through the draft. It's the era of the modern, standing, offensive military. As they say, "use it or lose it". We could choose to not fight wars that aren't important to national security. This means avoiding Iraq I and II, Yugoslavia, etc. (but not Afghanistan). But in that scenario the public would not see military spending as important, it would be cut or we would slowly elect those who would cut it. But, rather, we choose to "use it"...often. Without debating the relative merits of the various wars of choice we've fought since WWII, they've been a combination of truly international efforts (Korea and Iraq I), NATO efforts, or non-NATO but with obliging friends efforts. Given the position of the US, it's hard to truly argue that any state threatens its national security, so very few of our wars can be construed as wars of necessity or defense. We choose to fight, I think we often like to fight...Hell, we may be fucking addicted to fighting. And that's a problem exacerbated by the fact that few of us do the fighting and most of us can fully alienate ourselves from the fighting.

This may be a strange thing to hear from someone often thought of (at least here) as a liberal (I still shudder at that term...probably my Hoosier roots), but I actually support having a military draft. As a young man, I received my selective service card (and, no, I didn't tear it or burn it, etc.). As most young men, I gave it very little thought. And the reason I gave it no thought is because we have suspended the draft, have a fully volunteer military, and I KNEW I was not really accountable for the martial choices of my country. I have many friends who are in the various branches of the military (come to think of it, I can name at least one for each service, excepting Coast Guard) and I see many students who are ROTC, National Guard, or fully enlisted. They are so young and bear so much. And I can appreciate that they choose to serve, but we should not rely on that alone. I cannot guarantee that government will always use our military wisely, but I do believe that when we fight we should be behind it as much as possible and the best way to ensure that is by drafting from all races, sexes, economic classes, etc. So long as we elect our government through democratic means, we should be able to accept a draft in defense of our country. When government abuses this privilege, we have the power to remove them peaceably. The obvious problem with this is the term of office. Iraq II had not become unpopular enough to unseat Bush, giving him another four years before someone else could begin to end that war.

EDIT: It occurs to me that I haven't mentioned Syria...