Those Unwinnable Wars

Some of have asked for many years just how this country is so terrible at winning wars after such a success in WW2.

Think not?

What was the last won by the US in the last 80 years?

….Pause here for further thought….

Can’t think of one?

Why is that?

Washington’s attempts to back pro-U.S. foreign movements against incumbent regimes have amassed a similar dismal track record. Under the so-called Reagan Doctrine in the 1980s, the United States funded and equipped a number of anti-communist rebel organizations that were trying to oust left-wing regimes in the Third World. The most prominent cases included the Contras in Nicaragua and Jonas Savimbi’s UNITA faction in Angola. Both of those insurgencies ultimately failed to take power. In only one case was Washington’s support for an insurgency successful during that era – backing the mujahidin against the Soviet Union’s occupation forces in Afghanistan. However, that outcome was especially ironic, since many of the mujahidin alumni later showed up in the Taliban. Moreover, the collapse of Moscow’s client regime in Afghanistan foreshadowed what would happen to America’s client in that country. In both cases, a government that a foreign power helped install and prop-up eventually collapsed because of a lack of meaningful domestic roots.

Why US Foreign Clients Collapse – and Collapse Fast

Further thoughts on this is an article from 2018 that tries to explain the reasoning…….

“When I was young, in high school and college, everybody used to say we never lost a war,” Trump told a group of US governors last February. “Now, we never win a war.”

Dominic Tierney, a professor at Swarthmore College and the author of multiple books about how America wages war, may know the reason why.

He believes the US can still successfully fight the wars of yesteryear — World War-style conflicts — but hasn’t yet mastered how to win wars against insurgents, which are smaller fights against groups within countries. The problem is the US continues to involve itself in those kinds of fights.

“We’re still stuck in this view that war is like the Super Bowl: We meet on the field, both sides have uniforms, we score points, someone wins, and when the game ends you go home,” he told me. “That’s not what war is like now.”

The US military is currently mired in conflicts in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. It’s hard to see any end in sight — especially an end where the United States is the victor, however that’s defined.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/15/17007678/syria-trump-war-win-interview

Let’s be honest wars of today are not really about saving the world, the rhetoric is but reality is that it is more about making cash out of destruction and death……the plans maybe about the end game but when since 1954 has it ever worked out?

Disappointing experiences should create an indelible lesson for future US policymakers. The United States usually cannot successfully identify and install capable governments in foreign countries. That point is especially true in societies that are vastly different from American culture in nearly every aspect. We can’t fully comprehend such key factors as their unique histories, religions, economics, and politics. In short, we don’t understand such alien cultures and cannot even begin to shape them effectively to serve Washington’s foreign policy objectives. US leaders keep choosing clients who make statements that echo American values. Even in the rare cases when such clients are sincere, they typically have little domestic support and even less ability to organize their faction effectively. The Afghanistan fiasco is just the latest confirmation of that reality.

War has become an extension to the term “business as usual”…..that needs to change and change NOW!

But as long as the corporations can own a representative then they are guaranteed a steady income for generations.

The people no longer have a vote in war….corporate owned media sees to that and in doing so mutes the voice and the will of the people.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You KNow

“lego ergo scribo”

20 thoughts on “Those Unwinnable Wars

  1. We can’t fight a politically correct war and expect to win or even get respect. We have a soft heart and they take advantage of that.

    1. Desert Storm, the first Iraqi war in 1991, was a win because George H.W. Bush and a coalition of several countries had a specific objective: remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and restore the legitimate government to power. Once done, with considerable success, the US stopped at the Iraq border.

      His son took it to Baghdad, with less (none) justification it turned out, and look where that got us! That war was a loss, though it didn’t hurt that Saddam Hussein was executed and his sick, sadist sons were found and killed.

      Too bad it all happened because of the lie about weapons of mass destruction. Yeah, I believed it because of a British blue paper and Colin Powell saying it was true. Pisses me off, especially that Colin Powell lied.

      1. Maybe they were just misinformed. Government intelligence isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be.

      2. I’m Dutch, I knew that it was a lie. And yes, that Powell played a part in it. It was disappointing that a man like him was part of it.
        Some British newspapers aren’t a supporter of critical thinking.

        The reaction of the US after 9/11 was predictable. Go for revenge. Even a lie to start a war was enough. Give the people an enemy, true or not, and it was clearly a lue.

        American distrust of the UN did the rest.

        I had a history teacher in secondary school. For the final exams the subject was the US and China since WWIi.

        He starting to teach this perticular history starting about 5 decades before the fi acquired time-period. This method gave the background to interprate the policies later on.

        I already loved history but by the way the teacher explained, I loved history even more. We learned that critical thinking is part of interprating/learning history.

      3. Yes, there needs to be a more in depth understanding of history. There tends to be a reactive approach to events in this country that shows a lack of that critical thinking you mention.

      1. The answer to your first question is always open to discussion, but it basically follows the ideas of the “Woke” and that includes not being able to do the things that win a war.
        The second part – I have always asked this question myself. It seems the government would rather going around the world to ensure everyone else’s freedoms while they ignore the needs of it’s own citizens. Our current President seems to be trying to do both, but is making the country bankrupt. Where we’ll wind up when this is over – is anyone’s guess.

      2. Woke, I never heard of it and its meaning.
        I did some research but it’s so diverse that I’m not able to get the grasp of it.
        English being a second language makes understanding the core meaning difficult.

        What I do know that the US has a tendency to impose their views what democracy is on others
        Only American made democracy is true democracy.

        The disregard the culture, local traditions, historical background of a country.

        Even more so when the US hears words like social justice, in fact everything with the word social in it.

        Without the understanding of the concept of social justice, equality they only see the Red Danger, as they did in the fifties.

        At this point the US see itself justified to interfere in another’s country politics, in the background or direct invading, or start even a war. Justified by their politicians.

        Often these countries are more in the line of variations of social- democracies. The US often makes matters worse to enforce indirect dictators leading the country. With all the suffering that brings

        In my personal opinion the US isn’t what I consider a democracy.
        In effect a two-party system, fueled, at this point, by almost unlimited money. Money that comes from people’s asking a certain policy in return.
        A voting system that isn’t made to make voting more accessible.
        To the contrary.
        Electing the President, is so time absorbing, costs such an amount of money, so much bickering, so much division, lack of knowledge of the issues that need serious, adequate actions for all, not the happy few.

        Diplomacy is a concept that isn’t a concept that is the first thin the US is prepared to use as a first action..

        American Exceptionalism and what it stands for, still a general believed concept, is seen as arrogance, fueling irritation and anger abroad.

        To say that the Netherlands, being (still) a social democracy, multi-party political system, has all the answers, isn’t true of course,

        The accessability to cast your vote is made easy.
        A multi-party system.
        More choice in political views.
        (However a disadvantage is the time-consuming coalition formation period)

        However being a small country, diplomacy was still is very important.

        We try to learn of that what other countries do more constructive.
        We are very good in a few things, like water management.
        We have issues we really could/should improve.
        And some at least trying to improve.

      3. I wish we did have more than 2 major parties. But besides that – Americans dish out foreign-aid, I have yet to see it used wisely. We help to keep citizens of the world free, yet people still hate us. Frankly – I don’t know why we bother, but the Woke generation, and liberals insist on it.

  2. There comes a time when we have to leave other countries to decide their own futures, if they are not directly thretening us or our allies. Maybe that time is now?
    Best wishes, Pete.

    1. What if the US threatens an ally?
      That is what the US did with the nicknamed: The Hague Invasion Law.

      The law allowed to free, at all costs, US military being trialled for war crimes.
      Which in effect, if push comes to shove, allowed them to invade the Netherlands, go to the Hague (were our Government) and the ICC also located, They would free those American military, if needed by force.

      While we, the Dutch, didn’t expect the US to do that.
      According to Nato, if one of the members is attacked, the other members come to support the attacked nation.

      In this case you get the attacker is also a member of the defence.

      Still, even only on paper, threatening an ally in this fashion, let’s say:
      We were not amused.

      This law is still in effect after more than 15 years.
      Several Dutch politicians have tried to get this law of the table in the waste bucket, but to no avail!

  3. Reblogged this on It Is What It Is and commented:
    WORD!! … “Let’s be honest wars of today are not really about saving the world, the rhetoric is but reality is that it is more about making cash out of destruction and death … the plans maybe about the end game but when since 1954 has it ever worked out?

    Disappointing experiences should create an indelible lesson for future US policymakers. The United States usually cannot successfully identify and install capable governments in foreign countries.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.