Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff
I know that comes off as snarky but my perspective is that government solutions to other peoples problems put us in a position to be fighting a religious war balancing extremist against extremist playing one against the other continuously in that greater region.
|
It was never snarky to discuss three facts ALWAYS necessary to justify war. A strategic objective is one. Going to war only to solve someone else's problems is Tea Party stupid. No valid strategic objective exists.
In history are perfect examples of how to use military power to greatest victory. Clinton did it in Haiti. Notice how much money and soldier's lives were spent removing Baby Doc. Clinton did it again in the Balkins. How many years, treasure, and lives did we waste there to obtain a massive victory (when Europe failed to take responsibility)? Clinton also stopped what could have been a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Did anyone learn from that history? Britian did same with only a battalion of Marines in Liberia. So again, how many here (probably a majority) forgot that lesson?
We have no vested interest in a Syrian war. First and foremost, it is a problem to be solved by the nations of that region. However Obama did demonstrate one condition that is a world standard taboo. He even got Putin to cooperate. By simply threatening military conflict, he got Assad to completely surrender and stop using chemical weapons. A major military victory. Another perfect example of how smarter leaders use military force combined with the entire purpose of the military. Every great victory is won at the negotiation table.
How did one get Milošević to literally negotiate himself out of power? Simple. Richard Holbrooke kidnapped him in Dayton Ohio. Milosevic surrendered without America deploying any divisions. The world's greatest military victories occur that way. As even demonstrated by Alexander the Great long before anyone here learned what a military is.
Its not snarky to state the obvious. America has no strategic objectives in Syria (except Assad's chemical weapons that he surrendered due to the best use of American military power). But we have a strategic interest in doing police actions or actions no different than covert actions during the cold war. Those actions were done in America's strategic interest.
As are attacks on people who would perform cirminal acts in upon US citizens and vested interests. Kaddafi learned that the hard way after foolishly bombing some American servicemen in Germany. In every case, military victories because action (or successful threats) were only justified by a strategic objective.
Drones are only a tactical weapon. A trivial tool no different from helicopters, cruise missiles, special forces, aircraft carriers cruising nearby, CIA spies, destroyers hunting for pirates, or armored divisions. These tools are completely irrelevant to the relevant question. What is the strategic objective? What, exactly, do we intend to achieve?