(September 16, 2017 at 1:49 am)Khemikal Wrote: OFC it's the kind of hellhole where people trying to help get shot at, if it weren't..they wouldn't need help in the first place.  Getting shot at is just a reality on the ground in these situations.  There were reports of people (presumably looters or people who thought they were confronted with looters) shooting at boats working Texas, too.  It's a thing that people with guns do, even when it seems like they wouldn't.  Let;s call it a universal truth.  No matter how good your intentions are, and how much you;ve helped some group x...somebody there wants to punch you right in your face for reasons™.

Well, I figure they're shooting at us in two of those countries because we were the ones who broke the place, and many of them seem to wish that we'd just go home. No matter the good points of your argument, help delivered at gunpoint makes as many enemies as it mollifies. Starve defeat.

The world is too intertwined with alliances, trading partners, international agreements and the like. What affects one affects all to the good or to the bad. We can hardly stay out of anything without breaking alliances and agreements. Isolation from the world around us wouldn't work to our benefit.

(September 16, 2017 at 8:13 am)A Theist Wrote: The world is too intertwined with alliances, trading partners, international agreements and the like. What affects one affects all to the good or to the bad. We can hardly stay out of anything without breaking alliances and agreements. Isolation from the world around us wouldn't work to our benefit.

We do not have any alliance which compels our intervention in Syria. We do have one with Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, but absent those agreements, there's little of interest for us.

(September 16, 2017 at 8:10 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 16, 2017 at 1:49 am)Khemikal Wrote: OFC it's the kind of hellhole where people trying to help get shot at, if it weren't..they wouldn't need help in the first place.  Getting shot at is just a reality on the ground in these situations.  There were reports of people (presumably looters or people who thought they were confronted with looters) shooting at boats working Texas, too.  It's a thing that people with guns do, even when it seems like they wouldn't.  Let;s call it a universal truth.  No matter how good your intentions are, and how much you;ve helped some group x...somebody there wants to punch you right in your face for reasons™.

Well, I figure they're shooting at us in two of those countries because we were the ones who broke the place, and many of them seem to wish that we'd just go home. No matter the good points of your argument, help delivered at gunpoint makes as many enemies as it mollifies. Starve defeat.

Yeah, it was us, we broke the place.  The middle east was all lollipops and cotton candy before we showed up.

Let's recall for a moment that the reason we are feeling this malaise, is that we botched the removal of two regimes who were both guilty of crimes against humanity............

There's no need to deliver help at gunpoint.  I've certainly never handed anyone an MRE while pointing a rifle at them. There is, however, a need for a gun in places where help is needed most. It is difficult, it does make enemies. -That's the reality on the ground, again...not ideal at all, just a practical necessity of a conflict zone and a consequence of the predictable ways that people respond to outside intervention, whether it's armed or not. Unarmed rescue workers in syria get shot at with regularity, as well. In places like those, due to elements of their own populace..the simple act of repairing a four way stop sign requires a security detail. Having functioning roads would be of objective benefit to everyone involved, and particularly to the very people who might shoot at the posthole diggers or concrete mixers...and shooting back at them (if you get the authorization to return fire in the first place) -will- make some portion of the locals more sympathetic..even though the guy being shot at is a terrible dick to the locals too, using them as bait and blowing the shit out of them in their attempt to blow the shit out of us.

The comment above, about our interests, isn't strictly true. We have a compelling interest in preventing the mass execution of citizens by government. We've made statement after statement and commitment after commitment to that effect. It;s very much an interest of ours...hell, you could even say that it's part of our brand. This is why rebels are so giddy to get us on their side, and why they get so shitty when we abandon them. The global humanitarian crisis it caused effected us through our allies, and directly. The phrase "one global village" springs to mind. It's simply no longer the case that others peoples problems can be expected to remain their problems if we pursue some form of detachment or isolationism as a solution.

(September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am)Khemikal Wrote: Yeah, it was us, we broke the place.  The middle east was all lollipops and cotton candy before we showed up.  

Yeah, that's totally what I said.

(September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am)Khemikal Wrote: Let's recall for a moment that the reason we are feeling this malaise, is that we botched the removal of two regimes who were both guilty of crimes against humanity............

There's no need to deliver help at gunpoint.  I've certainly never handed anyone an MRE while pointing a rifle at them.  There is, however, a need for a gun in places where help is needed most.  It is difficult, it does make enemies.  -That's the reality on the ground, again...not ideal at all, just a practical necessity of a conflict zone and a consequence of the predictable ways that people respond to outside intervention, whether it's armed or not.

My point is that the folks there are pissed-off at us because we're responsible for the crummy state of affairs they're living through.

(September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am)Khemikal Wrote: The comment above, about our interests, isn't strictly true.  We have a compelling interest in preventing the mass execution of citizens by government.  We've made statement after statement and commitment after commitment to that effect.  It;s very much an interest of ours...hell, you could even say that it's part of our brand.  This is why rebels are so giddy to get us on their side, and why they get so shitty when we abandon them.  The global humanitarian crisis it caused effected us through our allies, and directly.  The phrase "one global village" springs to mind.  It's simply no longer the case that others peoples problems can be expected to remain their problems if we pursue some form of detachment or isolationism as a solution.

Either that, or we've stuck our hands into a Chinese finger-trap ... except that this one doesn't loosen the deeper you dig in.

Quote: I'd be more inclined to pin our recent failures on that then on a fundamental incompetence of the US to help or do any good.

I'm wracking my brain... and it is far too early in the morning for brain wracking... trying to come up with an example where we've had an unqualified "success."  Perhaps later, with a couple of more cups of coffee, one will occur to me.

(September 16, 2017 at 10:33 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yeah, that's totally what I said.

 I know, lol, that's why I put the winky face.....but, on a serious note.. we do have to curb blanket statements about how we fucked this or that up.  They can't be made and left unqualified.

Quote:My point is that the folks there are pissed-off at us because we're responsible for the crummy state of affairs they're living through.

-and there's that blanket, unqualified statement just thrusting out again even though, in gentle ridicule, we distance ourselves from it.  They;re pissed off at us because of the perception as-such, but it's not a strictly accurate perception..and even if it were wholly inaccurate (which it isn't, granted) then there would still be people who thought so..and coincidentally those people are the same people who shoot at us in the first place.   I can only say this so many ways and so many times. Committing to help people in these sorts of situation means being willing to take repeated blows to the face and body.

Quote:Either that, or we've stuck our hands into a Chinese finger-trap ... except that this one doesn't loosen the deeper you dig in.

To some extent, all military conflict or intervention is a finger trap if we commit to holding ourselves accountable for the results and to continue until we see the job through.  

(September 16, 2017 at 11:23 am)Minimalist Wrote: I'm wracking my brain... and it is far too early in the morning for brain wracking... trying to come up with an example where we've had an unqualified "success."  Perhaps later, with a couple of more cups of coffee, one will occur to me.

I;m not sure what point there is in discussing unqualified successes.  I Can;t think of any either, but the perfect is the enemy of the good...or some-such, right?

-It;s probably useful to note that on this issue I have a -strong- bias. My unit didn't come from the big hooah recruiting push to bomb the browns. We had been peacekeepers for years in Kosovo directly prior, and would go on to operate in theater coalition training exercises based upon that experience. I don't want anyone to operate under the assumption that, when I defend interventionism, I'm defending our past failures or poor intervention doctrine. I come from the perspective of a MOUT unit that had been leveraging and assessing novel strategies prior to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We were accutely aware of the problems involved in trying to help people, not all of which wanted help, while holding an assualt rifle. The IED issue was a thing for us before it ever became news. We spent coniderable time..passing the time, trying to hide training ords in the cars we found just to see how somebody else might, so we'd know what to look for at a checkpoint. Managing not to kill everyone in town when some fuel bomb went off was a job requirement. Taking potshots from randos in the mountains we would never find was a boring tuesday detail, not an existential dilemma.

It -can- be done. I've seen it done. I've done it. I've seen it done so well that it becomes -boring-, and I've watched public opposition to intervention fade and be replaced by broad public support that starves violent elements. Imagining that it's impossible really isn't anything other than letting some asshole off the hook for their poor leadership, right down to the unit and individual level.

Is it ironic that Von Clausewitz said that in relation to war plans?

All down to the sub-optimal nature of conflict, I suppose.  I find that it helps me to keep in mind that the starting position of any assessment of some intervention is already at an inherently low point.

I can't argue with your experience, and you're right that my statement was overly broad. However there's a fair amount of blame we own, especially regarding Iraq, where we deployed insufficient forces to support the transition to democracy.

And yes, that makes helping them an obligation on our part. But at what cost? In blood and treasure?