What is the name for the fallacy of thinking that wars are always meant to be won? Throughout history wars have been fought without any intention of "winning". Sometimes a war can serve a religious or ceremonial purpose, one that doesn't require a clear winner. Other wars have been fought for completely economic reasons. Others are proxy contests whereby greater powers can demonstrate their abilities without directly engaging each other. The false thinking is the assumption that participants always want or even care about winning.
The question is about what "winning" means for the people who start wars and keep fighting them. It might not be the same as for you.
To quote Julian Assange, "The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war".
I just don't buy that line of thinking at all. If that is truly their goal, there are way easier and subtle ways to do it without causing a collapse in political capital for the parties and politicians involved, which the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars did.
Such as? What other mechanism makes it possible to pay 700 billions per year to the private sector for something that the taxpayer can't see, because it's secret?
Medicare for All would cost well over $4 trillion per year according to the Lancet. That would be going to privatized hospitals, doctors, big pharma, medical consultants, supplies, equipment, diagnostics, lab companies etc...
But I would point out to you that the military's budget is $700B regardless of whether the US is engaged in foreign armed conflict or not, and half of that is personnel costs like salary and housing allowance. Only about $300B goes to procurement of all types (weapons, clothing, food, cleaning supplies, fuel, paint, etc...)
I would assume the expectation came about after WW2 where losing meant devastating ramifications for the losing party.
On the other hand in a situation where warfare is considered with less weight and investment feels like it’ll embolden states to return to a state of frequent warfare.
