Damned if we do and damned if we don't

[Gary Childress]

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/24/67981357 ... rawal-plan

Quote from a Syrian Kurd in the article:

"If they [US forces] will leave, we will curse them as traitors," he says. "The Kurds helped them to destroy ISIS. ... I have seven people from my family who were fighting ISIS and who were killed. And they were very young, not even in their 20s."

This is so weird. I thought ISIS was the one running around remorselessly killing people (like the Kurds) and that we were there helping the Kurds defend themselves from them. Now the story seems to be that we weren't defending the Kurds at all, they were fighting for us to help us get what we wanted or something?

It's so difficult to follow who is helping who anymore. This is why I really hate it when our leaders send our troops ANYWHERE for ANYTHING (unless it was to actually repel an invasion force that was about to land on US soil or something). We literally can't do ANYTYHING right. If we keep our troops there, we're just a bunch of militarists who are interfering in someone else's politics. If we withdraw, then we're betraying the people we were supposed to have been defending. It sounds like what happened with Vietnam when the "communists" finally won and people were fleeing in droves from all their reprisals. Or maybe that's what happened with OBL when the US stopped funding the rebels in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. OBL suddenly found himself surrounded by a bunch of poorly armed but angry malcontents who decided to turn around and take it out on the people who were at first aiding them. International politics is nothing but a shit show.

Had we just stayed out of all this to begin with, things would have been so much better. There wouldn't have been anything to have reprisals over. No one would be angry at us or feel like we betrayed them. Or maybe we should just stick it out and "finish what we started". Maybe the problem is that we're giving up when we should be fighting harder and fighting to the finish?

[henry quirk]

Mebbe, mebbe not. Not relevant, I think. We shoulda left them folks to their internal affairs (at best, we shoulda offered short-term, focused assistance, not troops).

But instead: we went, mucked about, made things worse.

Withdrawal leaves 'em hangin' but better that than a perpetual endeavor that nets none of us diddly.

[Impenitent]

we aren't nation building anymore...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

.

[Gary Childress]

we aren't nation building anymore...

-Imp

Unfortunately we seem to have retained our talent at wrecking the shit out of them, though. However, with that kind of ability, maybe it's best to keep a distance and just leave well enough alone? I don't know if that Kurdish man quoted in the article really understands what he's saying. He and his people will be much better off without the kind of sheer force and power he's wishing were standing behind him.

[Walker]

Then build a big wall at the southern border and be damned by the suddenly fiscal conscious resistance that can't see the way clear to sacrificing a few high priced implements of destruction to come up with the dough.

[Gary Childress]

Then build a big wall at the southern border and be damned by the suddenly fiscal conscious resistance that can't see the way clear to sacrificing a few high priced implements of destruction to come up with the dough.

True.

[Walker]

Then build a big wall at the southern border and be damned by the suddenly fiscal conscious resistance that can't see the way clear to sacrificing a few high priced implements of destruction to come up with the dough.

True.

Build the wall to protect the children.

“The family of the young boy who died in a New Mexico hospital days after they illegally crossed the border says they brought him based on rumors of easy entry with a child in tow. His son died after being treated twice at a hospital for flu-like symptoms.”

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2018/1 ... ys-family/

Who put this idea of easy access into their heads? (hint: B.O.)

It certainly was not POTUS Trump.

[commonsense]

Discussion about the wall deserves it’s own thread.

We certainly are damned if we escalate troop strength, and damned if we withdraw. Either way, there will be more casualties. It’s only a matter of whether the casualties are American or Syrian.

Whatever the reasons were for joining this multi-sided civil war, the goal of war is to win. If winning is not possible, as was the case in Vietnam, then a peace treaty must be sought through diplomatic channels.

In seeking a peace treaty, it is best to negotiate from a position of strength. To do this, the US troop level must be expanded exponentially.

Peace-keepers? Leave that to the Syrians.

[-1-]

Peace-keepers.

War-keepers.

The communist slogan after WWII was "Luptem Petru Pace", which is, "let's fight for peace".

This is one famous logical conundrum. If you want peace, you need to be strong militarily to frighten your would-be invaders to the degree that they will give up the idea of invading before the attack.

This gives rise to "negotiate from the position of strength". What strength do you have, if the enemy does not see you as strength? If you are getting your toosh kicked, so much so that you want to withdraw, who is going to see you as "strong"?
------------------------
In conclusion to my babbling: In a way, military victory is like sex. If you are getting your toosh kicked in action, you'd better practice early withdrawal.

[Walker]

Discussion about the wall deserves it’s own thread.

You are correct, Inspector.

However, such a thread would be erased.

Thus, a few cogent postings directed to the broader, philosophical topic as indicated by the thread title.

btw: Winning war is a quaint, un-PC anachronism. You should look at reality and not theory.


Nobel Peace Prize Double-think.
"While Obama came to office pledging to end George W Bush’s wars, he leaves the position as having been at war longer than any president in U.S. history."
https://www.unilad.co.uk/politics/shock ... 000-bombs/

The reality is, if the objective was to win war, the US could crush any country on the face of the earth, lickety-split.

[commonsense]

This is one famous logical conundrum. If you want peace, you need to be strong militarily to frighten your would-be invaders to the degree that they will give up the idea of invading before the attack.

This gives rise to "negotiate from the position of strength". What strength do you have, if the enemy does not see you as strength? If you are getting your toosh kicked, so much so that you want to withdraw, who is going to see you as "strong"?

I couldn’t agree more.

[commonsense]

btw: Winning war is a quaint, un-PC anachronism. You should look at reality and not theory.

The reality is, if the objective was to win war, the US could crush any country on the face of the earth, lickety-split.

The reality, as you pointed out, is that if the US had had as its objective to actually win a war, such as the one in Syria or the one in Vietnam, it could have done so easily.

This indicates that winning was not the US objective.

[-1-]

The reality, as you pointed out, is that if the US had had as its objective to actually win a war, such as the one in Syria or the one in Vietnam, it could have done so easily.

This indicates that winning was not the US objective.

Sadly, for the USA, they destroyed Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, which means they lost those wars. But losing those wars means the USA actually won... which means they lost. Which means they won. Which means they lost, which means they won, and the buck stops here, coz I'm tired of typing this same sentence over and over again.

[-1-]

"While Obama came to office pledging to end George W Bush’s wars, he leaves the position as having been at war longer than any president in U.S. history."

Actually, the USA has not been at war with any nations or factions since WWII.

To be at war, according the Vienna or Warsaw or whatever, maybe UN convention, which the USA has pledged to follow, first you have to declare war before you can attack.

But the USA has not declared war on any enemy since WWII.

Which makes USA soldiers each personally responsible to a potential trial as crime against humanity and extreme terrorism.

That will never happen, of course, because the USA has a lot of clout with its international allies and its own military readiness. Which national superpower is strong enough to court-marshal 5000000 US troops? Azerbaidjahn? Nepal? Bhutan? Or Nincompoopgonad?