Except that the US are the main cause for those bad guys being there in the first pace, as they waged war (with justifications that later proved worthless) against the dictator that was able to keep the area under control.
So, what the US should do now in Iraq? I have no idea. What should they do in general and in the future? Stop messing with foreign countries, destabilizing governments and waging wars with the silly idea of making the world a safer and more peaceful place. It doesn't work.
It might be a surprise to you, but it is the military who learned the most from Vietnam. It is the American public and our politicians who seem to have learned the least. The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task, whether it was spawned out of noble intentions or kneejerk reactionism.
They know that they must be careful in pursuing anything that looks vaguely like a target, because the sentiment of the population is far more important than a small victory like that. Hence the multi-billion-dollar communications and failsafes chain described in this article. This is a key concept that seems to be going over people's heads in this thread. Yes, it failed in this case and in many others. But the very fact that it exists at all and is sophisticated as it is should be a clue as to the lessons learned. The military is achieving far more value with far less collateral damage. Contrast this with the Soviet's preferred method of waging war against the Afghani Mujahideen, which was to kill every living thing and totally and utterly raze every structure in the direction from which they were shot at from.
So again, can you conceive a better alternative for dealing with reality as it is now? Time travel is not possible, answers like "don't invade other countries" are pretty worthless. Nobody wants this war(well, nobody with a soul and a modicum of compassion), but it is what it is, and as far I know, it's the best solution to minimize civilian deaths.
The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task
That was presented as a defense of My Lai and was a not successful argument.
The military is achieving far more value
You're going to need to quantify this statement, because from this distance it doesn't look like much is being achieved at all. Yemen has fallen to the rebels and ISIS still hold much of northern Iraq.
answers like "don't invade other countries" are pretty worthless.
Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.
> That was presented as a defense of My Lai and was a not successful argument.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. The "job" here being of far larger scope along the lines of "prevent future terrorist attacks". If you're the military presented with that task, you will go down generally the same route that US has, though perhaps without the same level of consideration for innocents.
The real "solution"(which is only in retrospect) is to identify the factors leading to extremism in the first place(American foreign policy) and change them. But that wasn't done, so here we are. Are you to argue that we simply stop trying to fight them on their soil? Instead we hope they don't retaliate?
> Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.
I totally agree, but it's not applicable to the current situation. I'm not sure why people think this is a "solution" rather than a "yeah, we should have done that instead".
I'm trying to avoid Godwin territory here, but widespread ignoring of the Geneva conventions is not an excuse. It's not just a consideration, it's international law.
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities ... [prohibited] violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds"
"the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"
It is convenient for the US to deem anyone in the same building as a combatant to be "involved in hostilities". That does not make it true, and indeed it's a serious erosion of the concept of "civilian".
simply stop trying to fight them on their soil? Instead we hope they don't retaliate?
Are people more or less likely to retaliate if you murder their relatives and countrymen? This seems to be a fundamental point of disagreement.
In the end, coalition forces have withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. Drone strikes are ongoing in Yemen and Pakistan; I believe NATO airstrikes have been carried out against ISIS positions in Iraq but not Syria. Turkey are holding at the border with occasional sorties. Coalition forces should resist the idea of getting involved in Nigeria, Syria, etc. and withdraw from the internal conflicts in Pakistan and Yemen. Supply defensive assistance to places that request it (Kurdistan and the Yazidis), but no further.
> Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
This quote seems very fitting here. It is indeed a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule - just one that doesn't bring in profits.
So again, can you conceive a better alternative for dealing with reality as it is now?
Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint. The military has no business in Iraq and needs to leave. Iraqis have said so countless times.
You're assuming this is a military task. But I said "learn diplomacy." If your "reply" to a "learn diplomacy" comment assumes that this situation remains a military responsibility, then your reply is not a reply at all.
"Learn diplomacy" means "use diplomats." And it also means talk to some countries who know how to do so successfully, and follow their lead.
"Learn humility" means "stop assuming that this is America's problem to solve." It's not our business and all we're doing is fucking it up.
> Of course I can. Learn some humility, diplomacy, and restraint.
Huh. The fact that there is a chain of command that this decision must pass sounds like the idea of restraint is not lost on these people. In fact it seems quite the opposite, that there is a directive for restraint. It's not up to the pilots and spotters, no matter how gung-ho they may be(many aren't at all, unlike what is portrayed in the article).
The billions the US is pumping into their communities in the form of assistance seems like some form of diplomacy to me, or at least due diligence for the massive social disturbance. I could be wrong. You'll have to explain to the people receiving said aid that it's either misguided or not enough, though.
> The military has no business in Iraq and needs to leave. Iraqis have said so countless times.
We're talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq. The US involvement in Iraq was totally illegal, but it's worth noting that many Iraqis definitely wanted us there after the invasion. They certainly want us there now.
> Learn diplomacy" means "use diplomats." And it also means talk to some countries who know how to do so successfully, and follow their lead.
This statement sounds buried within ideology rather than facts. The US has a massive diplomat corps and engages in some form of diplomacy every day with every country on the planet, save a few. Even moreso in Afghanistan and Iraq. You'll recall that diplomacy did not work shortly after 9/11 when Afghanistan was identified as a host country to Al Queda.
Again, the situation is as it is today. We cannot go back and alter the past. So what better way is there to proceed? The US spends billions on aid and reconstruction efforts in both countries, are they simply supposed to ignore threats?
You are hopelessly mired by incorrect facts and perceived motivations.
Many posts above have alluded to this fact, but I'll repeat it since it may help you in the long run.
Neither of the two American wars being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq are for traditional reasons. There was no threat to the US. This has everything to do with the Military Industrial Complex, and its iron grip on American foreign policy.
The MIC requires war because that's how they sell their products. I would have expected that on a site like HN, this would be obvious. President Eisenhower prophetically warned [1] against the MIC, as he clearly saw how a positive feedback loop would form between private military contractors and US foreign policy, inciting conflict after conflict in order to keep customer demand high for their products.
Although you have obviously been thoroughly steeped in the propaganda offered by these two organizations, who could never acknowledge the truth of their actions, to any rational observer there can be no other justification. The US as a whole has everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by slaughtering defenseless civilians in an impoverished developing country.
Big defense contractors and the politicians they bribe, however, have everything to gain. And they are winning. This is one of the many failures of democracy, one that requires extreme oversight and prosecution. Sadly, we are primates, and we will succumb to our natures sooner or later.
No, I am simply approaching this from a balanced point of view. The situation is far more nuanced than the "good guys" are really the "bad guys", and that it's all about the money. That's the plot of a movie, not real life. There are many people at all levels and on all sides who have altruistic intent, just as I'm sure there are those who really are perpetuating further conflict for the money.
I am in no way questioning the existence or influence of the MIC, but to say that across-the-board this is all about blood money is just as narrow minded as blindly defending the US as if what they're doing is morally right. You'll notice that nowhere in my posts do I go about doing such a thing, by the way. Far from it. I could understand you might have preconceived notions about my position though, it's hard to see the nuance in people's opinions when we reduce things to simply "for" or "against". I subscribe to a Sagan-esque view of mankind as I'm sure many do here. But, again, that has to be tempered by reality or we reach solutions only useful in retrospect like "don't invade in the first place".
Anyways, I was originally responding to the commentary that the military had "learned nothing from Vietnam" while "everyone else" did, which is patently false.
nobody wants this war? are you kidding sir?
there is a lot to earn on every single war, these one being no exception. All companies manufacturing weapons, ammunition, subcontractors etc. Stop wars, they are out of job.
Is it utterly immoral? But yes of course.
Is it clear to most people outside of US? Not much doubt there.
Is this going to happen again? You bet it will. Why? Just because US can.
There was not so long ago perception that US is the world police, the good guys. Well, these days, you guys are working hard to convince all the rest that China might be more suitable for this task.
Is it really hard to see how much evil is US creating in our tiny world? Did it at least once to people like you occurred, that you really, REALLY cannot well justify waging war half across the world, for laughable reasons?
Did you stop reading immediately after the word "war" or something? I'm really shocked by the level of hivemindism on HN these days. I'm all for idealism but it really needs to be tempered with reality for any real progress to be made towards a better future with less war, more equality, etc.
The beginning of the 21st century shall always be remembered as the moment humanity became really sophisticated at killing poor people who live in mud houses from far far away.
...poor people with incredibly wealthy friends who fund their misdeeds. So yeah, relatively speaking they (the foot soldiers) may be poor but those controlling all sides are not.
And I'd say the 90's was the beginning of the "cruise missile" guided bomb era of warfare.
Realistically, I think that will be a footnote to the explosion of computers and the Internet - and not because the "winner writes history"(which is rapidly becoming moot as time goes on) but because in the grand scheme of things it's nearly inconsequential compared to developments in doing the exact opposite of killing. Your notion also ignores the fact that the reason this exists in the first place is partially the desire to eliminate collateral damage, not perpetuate more of it.
> Realistically, I think that will be a footnote to the explosion of computers and the Internet.
> Your notion also ignores the fact that the reason this exists in the first place is partially the desire to eliminate collateral damage, not perpetuate more of it.
Well we'll see, human lives do seem like they're not worth much, especially those in the 3rd world, out of sight out of mind like another poster said. I mean you could probably kill a lot more of those people with the world standing idly by as long as you have some kind of justification, they can be invaded, bombed, displaced, held indefinitely and tortured with impunity, but now they are trying really hard to only kill as many of them as they really want to, are they not merciful ...
But what is the end goal here, what do they hope to accomplish, when will the killing end?
I think that the US government is in somewhat of a pickle, the war on terror is now being fought for more than a decade, has cost trillions of dollars and thousands of soldiers lives, and for what? There's no end in sight, no easy way out, heck we may be even worse off than before, we have an Al Qaeda offshoot building a state of their own as we speak. You can't just pull out completely and cut your losses because this might come back to haunt us all. The only thing they seem to be able to come up with right now is to further streamline killing to prolong the status quo as long as possible, and even that doesn't seem to be going well.
How the hell are we going to resolve this?
Or maybe I'm just crazy and this will all just blow over after a couple more years of targeted killings, all those islamists may just give up and go home to live peaceful lives, who knows.
That's what we tend to do in fact. We support whatever dictator is in power because it's better for business.
With Iraq we believed that they were still hoarding WMD's that they had from the 1980's. As we now know, that turned out to not be the case, and they actually did destroy them. Before the war, it was reported by most media outlets that WMD's were still in Iraq. Then you had the UN weapons inspectors who kept being thrown out of Iraq. If the weapons inspectors had been allowed to remain and do their job, there wouldn't have been a second Iraq war.
Your narrative is broken. What actually happened was a bunch of ideologues came to power, saw an opportunity to remake the middle east in aid of a "new american century", then lied about wmds to convince the public there were WMDs.
The weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq because they were spying for the CIA. They were desperately invited back by Iraq to try and stop the war, to no avail, because WMDs were never the issue: war was.
You'd think that if they outright lied, many people would step forward to verify your claim. If not because it's the right thing to do, then for the money; book deals, etc. Especially in politics where they love to stick it to each other. CNN can run with the Hillary email server for days, and everyone will weigh in. Imagine what they could do with anyone who could verify that "Bush lied!"
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism
and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
'C' would be Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 at the time.
> With Iraq we believed that they were still hoarding WMD's that they had from the 1980's
That doesn't explain the necessity of the attack. If he'd had WMDs he'd had them since the 1980s and it's not clear why it was important at that point to remove a capability that had not caused us trouble in twenty years.
I suppose if someone has a weapon, isn't afraid to use it, and actually has used it and many occasions, you'd be a bit foolish to argue that point, "well, he hasn't used them in 20 years..."
And? He didn't use them against us. To do so would have been suicide. From a strategic perspective, why was it necessary to our interests in the world to remove him from power in Iraq - as it was not during the Gulf War?
"Then you had the UN weapons inspectors who kept being thrown out of Iraq."
One of the reasons Iraq didn't co-operate with weapons inspectors was because they were infiltrated by US and UK intelligence. As far as I know they were never actually "thrown out". The other big reason is that the weapons inspections was the only bargaining chip they had left.
"If the weapons inspectors had been allowed to remain and do their job, there wouldn't have been a second Iraq war."
So, what the US should do now in Iraq? I have no idea. What should they do in general and in the future? Stop messing with foreign countries, destabilizing governments and waging wars with the silly idea of making the world a safer and more peaceful place. It doesn't work.