-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-22s vs Syrian Fencers
- Thread starter Uncle Fester
- Start date
So the good Colonel never heard of Vietnam or Korea and the massive expenditure of resources we spent in both? We expended far more 'blood and treasure' in both of those individually than we have in the last 15 years of war.
While I think that invading Iraq was a mistake (in hindsight) the others were necessary, and Afghanistan in particular demonstrates the exact reason why we should be involved in many places. We ignored the country while it slipped into anarchy and chaos that in turn enabled the rise of the Taliban and their support of numerous terrorist groups that found shelter under their rule, including Al Qaeda. We paid a dear price for that ignorance, we would be wise not let it happen again.
Last edited:
Korea and Vietnam have to be viewed in the context of Kennan's containment strategy which is a completely different animal than inserting ourselves into the internal workings of irrelevant foreign states.
I agree that Iraq was a huge mistake (in hindsight as well), but other than giving a hunting license to the CIA, SEALS or Green Berets (or the occasional Tomahawk strike), I think it is mistake to waste time, money and lives on nation building in either areas ruled by a strongman (Libya, Syria) or failed states (Afghanistan, Somalia). If they can't sort themselves out, that is their problem. I see no reason to send our sons and daughters on missions that are not of utmost importance. Likewise, we can maintain a Cold War size Army and Navy to deter Russia in Europe and China in the Pacific - or we can spend trillions trying to bring Wal-Mart and the Kardashians to Kabul. We can not afford to do both.
They still cost us far more than the current conflicts, and it is debatable that our involvement in Vietnam did anything to forward the cause.
The only place we are 'nation building' is in Afghanistan, our involvement is the other places remains limited to military action and engagement with local allies.
We let the Afghans 'sort themselves out' after the Russians pulled out and we ended up with the Taliban and Al Qaeda becoming a threat to the homeland, it would be a grave mistake to do that again.
[Citation Needed]
The 600 ship navy wasn't sustainable, ever.
It lasted all of 6 years as a concept and 4 years in practice before falling prey to budget cuts.
Hate to nit pick but NSC68 vice Kennan's "Long telegram" put us into Korea and Vietnam.
Kennan had the foresight to realize not every place was worth expending blood and treasure and to pick the important fights.
If it's IAW the ROE, then it's good.
danpass
Well-Known Member
I'm ok with "because we say so, therefore you're covered" but I was thinking more along the lines of the international community.
Some fancy lawyer comes around with the argument that the US has not declared war so why is it shooting down planes, basing troops on the ground to train groups to fight the 'legitimate peace loving soldiers of the light defending the democratically elected government by the people of the society of the republic' lol, and so on.
And then what...we get arrested by the UN Police?
I'm sure if we popped a couple of Syrian planes absolutely fuck-all would happen, except the Syrians would back way the fuck off. The Syrians (and the Russians) have zero interest in turning this into a fight between the US and the Assad government. Quite the contrary. It's actually to the regime's benefit that we're out bombing Daesh - less work for them to do while they go after the other anti-Assad elements. However, we are on the ground supporting some of the Kurdish forces, which the Syrians would also like to knock off. CENTCOM sent a pretty clear message to that effect.
Contrary to what some presidential candidates seem to believe, the Syrians and Russians aren't 'fighting ISIS'. The Syrians are fighting a multi-super-lateral civil war, and Daesh just happens to be one of the factions. The Russians are bombing all the non-regime forces, including several - like the Kurds - that we're allied with or directly supporting. This is one of those 'the enemy of my enemy might also be my enemy' things.
For better and worse, the law of international relations is basically still the law of the jungle.
What is the "law of international relations?" Is that the same as the body of treaties which comprises international law, and which is binding upon signatories (including the U.S.)?