I've been trying to find an instance where the threat of US military intervention actually changed the course of events, and had to go back to the Israeli operation Kadesh. That particular event, where Israel colluded with the UK and France to seize the Suez canal, found the United States and ( yes it really happened ) the Soviet Union colluding to stop it. That got me to thinking; why do we still try to use the military "stick", knowing it doesn't work?
Since 1945, the US has had a dismal record of military successes. There have been near constant military expeditions since WWII, with the Serb/Bosnia conflict and the Invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, the only notable successes. There is this persistent theory, that if we pound the hell out of a country not acting like we want them to, they'll come running to the diplomats begging for relief. This process has NEVER worked, just as "bomber" Harris discovered in WWII, and again when we tried it in Vietnam with "linebacker" I and II. It failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, hell it failed everywhere....................but we still insist on using it as though it DOES work.
If the only strategic aim is to punish a country enough to bring them to the bargaining table, then we're wasting trillions of dollars. No one in the world is as enamored with our military greatness as we are. We are still in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and damn near every country on the African Continent - to what end? The t***sparent rationale of "National Security" doesn't hold water, or we'd be in - then out, mission accomplished. Is our ultimate goal the provisioning of occupation troops everywhere in the world?
No one fears the American stick, and our continued use of it in place of diplomacy, makes us seem weak and small, in other words - makes us bullies. How would the average American react, if another country told us " you will do thus and so, or we'll bomb you into the stone age"? That's right, they'd say "bomb away then", while we planned our counter attack. We should not expect anyone else to react any differently than we would our own selves. There is a time for the stick...................when diplomacy fails. When we opt for the stick as the first choice.......................we've already failed before we started. That's why we are STILL involved in Americas longest running wars, with no end in sight.
lpnmajor wrote:
I've been trying to find an instance where the threat of US military intervention actually changed the course of events, and had to go back to the Israeli operation Kadesh. That particular event, where Israel colluded with the UK and France to seize the Suez canal, found the United States and ( yes it really happened ) the Soviet Union colluding to stop it. That got me to thinking; why do we still try to use the military "stick", knowing it doesn't work?
Since 1945, the US has had a dismal record of military successes. There have been near constant military expeditions since WWII, with the Serb/Bosnia conflict and the Invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, the only notable successes. There is this persistent theory, that if we pound the hell out of a country not acting like we want them to, they'll come running to the diplomats begging for relief. This process has NEVER worked, just as "bomber" Harris discovered in WWII, and again when we tried it in Vietnam with "linebacker" I and II. It failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, hell it failed everywhere....................but we still insist on using it as though it DOES work.
If the only strategic aim is to punish a country enough to bring them to the bargaining table, then we're wasting trillions of dollars. No one in the world is as enamored with our military greatness as we are. We are still in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and damn near every country on the African Continent - to what end? The t***sparent rationale of "National Security" doesn't hold water, or we'd be in - then out, mission accomplished. Is our ultimate goal the provisioning of occupation troops everywhere in the world?
No one fears the American stick, and our continued use of it in place of diplomacy, makes us seem weak and small, in other words - makes us bullies. How would the average American react, if another country told us " you will do thus and so, or we'll bomb you into the stone age"? That's right, they'd say "bomb away then", while we planned our counter attack. We should not expect anyone else to react any differently than we would our own selves. There is a time for the stick...................when diplomacy fails. When we opt for the stick as the first choice.......................we've already failed before we started. That's why we are STILL involved in Americas longest running wars, with no end in sight.
I've been trying to find an instance where the thr... (
show quote)
The policy worked with Qadaffi until the Obama gang screwed it up with Hellary's, "We came, we saw, he died!" routine. (Veni, vidi, mortuus es.)
lpnmajor wrote:
I've been trying to find an instance where the threat of US military intervention actually changed the course of events, and had to go back to the Israeli operation Kadesh. That particular event, where Israel colluded with the UK and France to seize the Suez canal, found the United States and ( yes it really happened ) the Soviet Union colluding to stop it. That got me to thinking; why do we still try to use the military "stick", knowing it doesn't work?
Since 1945, the US has had a dismal record of military successes. There have been near constant military expeditions since WWII, with the Serb/Bosnia conflict and the Invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, the only notable successes. There is this persistent theory, that if we pound the hell out of a country not acting like we want them to, they'll come running to the diplomats begging for relief. This process has NEVER worked, just as "bomber" Harris discovered in WWII, and again when we tried it in Vietnam with "linebacker" I and II. It failed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, hell it failed everywhere....................but we still insist on using it as though it DOES work.
If the only strategic aim is to punish a country enough to bring them to the bargaining table, then we're wasting trillions of dollars. No one in the world is as enamored with our military greatness as we are. We are still in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and damn near every country on the African Continent - to what end? The t***sparent rationale of "National Security" doesn't hold water, or we'd be in - then out, mission accomplished. Is our ultimate goal the provisioning of occupation troops everywhere in the world?
No one fears the American stick, and our continued use of it in place of diplomacy, makes us seem weak and small, in other words - makes us bullies. How would the average American react, if another country told us " you will do thus and so, or we'll bomb you into the stone age"? That's right, they'd say "bomb away then", while we planned our counter attack. We should not expect anyone else to react any differently than we would our own selves. There is a time for the stick...................when diplomacy fails. When we opt for the stick as the first choice.......................we've already failed before we started. That's why we are STILL involved in Americas longest running wars, with no end in sight.
I've been trying to find an instance where the thr... (
show quote)
Once bullets are in the air, the only strategy should be the unconditional surrender of our enemies, or their total destruction.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.