(January 2, 2015 at 10:41 am)Faith No More Wrote: Getting into a war that does not have an exit strategy is a stupid move. You may see it as an improvement over the last situation, but as we can see now in Iraq, the U.S. has a terrible history when it comes to destabalizing regions and putting someone of their choosing in power. In fact, if by some miracle this whole thing turns out to be a success(how replacing a corrupt power structure with another corrupt one could ever be considered a success, I don't know), it will be out of luck as opposed to careful planning and proper execution, and any war entered into so recklessly with such callous disregard for the nuances of the culture and regional power structure is by very definition unjust.
Let's face it. We may have weakened the Taliban, but what we really did is create a power vacuum. And as much as we try to put in a functioning government, the true power still lies with the Afghani drug lords and their tribes. We've just continued the tried and true American tradition of replacing one corrupt organization with another that makes us feel a little bit better about ourselves. That's complete selfishness under the guise of helping the people that really just creates other problems for them. "Just" is nowhere to be found.
Well, the situation in Iraq is still ongoing, and it looks like the book hasn't closed there just yet, as far as governance goes. Maliki is gone, and in his place, someone who seems much more, dare I say, liberal is in his place. Also someone who is much more amenable to doing what the US wants.
To be frank, at this point, it's elementary to comment on whether the reasons for going to war were just, or good, or bad, or what have you. It was all of those things and none of those things all at once; such is the nature of war. We all know Bush botched both wars, and we know why he launched the invasion of Iraq. The sad fact of it is is that our military is powerful enough and our nation resources extensive enough that we actually could succeed at nation-building if that was actually what our politicians wanted to do, but they don't. I would rather that we not half-ass it with what we've done and what we do.
I would rather we add another few trillion dollars to our debt and be SURE that the Iraqis and Afghanis can know peace and prosperity. We've already undertaken the responsibility whether we wanted to or not. At least then history could look back and say "it was violent, bloody, expensive, and grueling, but despite the corrupt and disgusting reasons for the starting the wars, the end result made it all worth it," instead of what it looks like it's going to end up saying, which is "it was violent, bloody, expensive, and grueling, and we half-assed it the entire way and then our political ADHD took over and we left the job unfinished, thus breeding another set of nightmares and problems and orgies of death, bloodshed, and carnage to wash over the world in the not-far-future, because that is what Americans do."
That is the part about the hellstorm in the middle east that saddens me so much; we have it in our power to put the fires out. It wouldn't be easy. But if it was actually our goal to do so, we could do it. But our politicians will consign tens of millions of innocents to more strife and conflict and oppression because their goals were reflective of the whole of this miserable misbegotten society we have in the US: Selfish, apathetic, sociopathic, willfully irresponsible, and completely devoid of any form of human compassion. :/
It doesn't matter if the wars were just or unjust. The only thing that matters now is how they end, and as is typical of this "great nation" of ours, they're going to end badly, and thus ensure that even the ends didn't justify the means.
Fuck. Now I'm depressed again...
