How to go to War for Dummies Part I

Here is the bottom line reality, when in the last 50 years has the US started a war or an excursion or whatever else we want to label the use of weapons and civilians against another country WHEN has there been an exit that made things better or even that the war/XYZ made things better?  

The US enters situations not thinking of the long game result and impacts, it is always reactionary and reckless without proper planning and an evaluation of real cost and loss versus the stupid reason we go there in the first place.

So when since I have been on this earth has the US engaged and exited AND there was a net positive outcome from doing so? Every war is just another subsidy to defense contractors and weapons corporations, there is no return on any interaction we have made. Vietnam? No...Iraq, Afghanistan, Israels mob crew? No we are not starting these situations with the goal of a net gain or a positive outcome because if so the long game would have exponential costs. 

If we wanted to make Iraq better per Bush x2 then we would have to set up shop there and make generational change, same goes for Vietnam and all of our badly chosen interactions. We like to go and throw down our military and spend billions/trillions then walk away and be done with it. 

Outside of partisan high five lies what has been accomplished in reality from these actions? Of course the RNC side will proclaim that we stopped terrorists and nukes and whatever which is just partisan gold spinning and has no basis on truth as it is just conjecture to validate these awful choices.

A huge chunk of our national debt is due to our military excesses and waste, our wars and invasions and CIA activities to try and flippantly control foreign narratives but not really wanting to enact TRUE change as that would be a never ending investment and the US never wants such things.

To me this Iran stuff is one of the worst because not only was it based on lies and fraud like Iraq was this was done to the bidding of Israel 100%, Iran has no ability to send nukes to our soil and if the measure for engagement was nukes well what the crap are we chumming for when North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, India, Turkey etc HAVE weapons and none of the above are our true allies, any of them can and would use them against the US if they felt the situation was at the point of doing so. I find this Iran situation one of the worst and most despicable and it is fully on the flabby shoulders of Trump.

wow more maga bs.  And the republicans dont follow every single thing trump tells them to do. At least post honest stuff

For sure, Liberals and Conservatives both will complain about the costs of war being more expensive than initially expected.

That is a legitimate concern.

But a lot of that is due to folk’s impatience nowadays and yearning for instant gratification.  This attitude is just seen more in the USA it seems.

Even in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan the initial military objectives could be said to have been largely achieved.  But most will agree that the longer term political outcomes were not as successful.  

But it is historically too absolute to overstate that there has not been ‘net positive’ in any of the situations the USA has been involved with.

Examples would be:  Operation Inherent Resolve, it could be said it significantly curtailed ISIS and led to the territorial defeat of ISIS; Gulf War, absolutely succeeded in expelling the Iraqi forces from Kuwait; Kosovo War pretty much stopped the ethnic cleansing there; Bosnian War, the USA-led NATO intervention there also stopped the mass ethnic cleansing and violence.

You can argue about costs and side effects but it is too difficult to support a stance that says, ‘there have been zero positive outcomes.’

The word ‘always’ included in this acts recklessly and is too absolute.  You can argue that some interventions are poorly planned.  But, for sure, some had years of coalition-building and intelligence-gathering, diplomacy, and planning that led up to them.  You could argue that some of the complexities or nuances were underestimated.  But ‘always’ is dicey to defend.

‘Subsidies to defense contractors’ is certainly more idealogical than factual.  Just because they profit from war does not mean a government goes to war to simply enrich them.  Far more goes into a country deciding to actually go to war.

‘No return’ is, again, too absolute.  Of course, there have been protection of Persian Gulf lanes, preventing a Kuwaiti conquest, defense of ally treaties, degradation of terrorist organizations, etc.  You can argue whether the returns are justified or not but it is much harder to defend there was literally no returns.

Iraq, the point can be made the intelligence was substantially wrong.  The historians will continue to argue whether the officials were misleading the public on purpose or whether they simply were overly-reliant on flawed intelligence.

Iran, you would need proof that officials knowingly made false statements.  This would make the case much better than simply saying it was a ‘mistake’.

Proving '100% due to Israel' is impossible to prove and, as I have addressed multiple times, is not the correct prism to view the situation through.  Most of the critics of the USA/Israeli relations will acknowledge the fact that multiple motivations can exist simultaneously.  There were/are sincere regional security concerns, nuclear concerns, energy concerns, alliance concerns, and even domestic concerns.  ‘100%’ claim is a classic example of overstating causation. 

‘Sending nukes to our soil inability’ is a very narrow sense of the direct capability.  You have allies that easily can be reached, USA forces in the region that can be reached, along with the obvious future capabilities quandary.   It is easy to disagree with those claims.  However, supporters are not necessarily claiming an immediate threat to the USA mainland.  The critics are making that claim for them.

It can very easily be argued that it is best to get out in front of what might destabilize the area further and avoid the possibility of the one State that has expressed constant threats to enhance their ability to continue those threats.

Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons.  Turkey is not really recognized as having their own nuclear arsenal. Israel is believed to have them.

But to say ‘none are allies’ is factually incorrect.

Turkey is allied through NATO.  Israel has strategic partnerships for sure with the USA.  Even India has made great strides in that area, especially on the trade front.  You can argue how reliable all of these are, but saying they are not allies is inaccurate.

Folks tend to assume a false dilemma here.  They assume you occupy a county for generations or the intervention was pointless.

But the above mentioned examples of Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, some anti-terrorist situations and even some anti-piracy situations show that you can achieve limited objectives without permanent occupation. 

The last issue, I would say, is that everyone assumes a non-stated goal of regime change.  That would be nice but it is certainly not incumbent.  The ideology and culture simply may not warrant that happening.  You can also argue that the vast majority of potential rebels that might step up have already been killed by the State and even the remaining ones might not be as emboldened now.  But that might not even matter.  A great point can be made that the goal(s) have mostly been achieved already with the possible exception of trying to get rid of the enriched uranium — so now leave.

So, yes, costs being underestimated has been an issue with a lot of wars, interventions, and excursions.  But that cannot be an excuse to never defend the country or allies or worthwhile world causes as the world’s only super-power.  Even isolationists do not just use this reason.

But to use too many absolute descriptors makes it more rhetorically powerful but analytically weaker just because a single counterexample can undermine the whole argument — let alone a few of them.

But the historians and economists will always argue over ‘outcomes relative to their costs’.  

For some ideologues no cost matters; for others any cost is too much.

@Raiders22

 You are looking at things from your partisan perspective to try and find a WIN when the total outcome is a loss. I never said there were no positive aspects rather that the overall outcome that considers ALL aspects, costs, timelines and impacts. I know 100% you understand but are playing the deflect game you like to when the context I laid out is clear and understood yet it makes your party look bad so you have to try and rationalize SOMETHING out of a massive net negative outcome.

I would refute most all of your positive lipstick comments and especially when you factor in REAL costs, impacts and outcomes...ISIS is just a nickname for a group of extremists which have several other names before and will have names after, the term ISIS means nothing really and the existence OF extremists still is real now and the cost to which we spent and lives lost was not worth whatever correlative gains you feel were made. 

ISIS and WMDs are sucker terms that Bush(s) used to sell their war motivations, none were fully truthful none were to the degree of lies and fraud spread to forward their narrative. Iraq was one of the worst but so was Vietnam and so IS Iran...Afghanistan was a Russia play even though they have extremists there and still do, that has not changed.

Trump has and was played with this Iran nonsense and I do give credit to Bush/Obama/Biden for not falling for Israels lies and deception because if any of them would have been so stupid as Trump is we would be in a worse situation IMO. This war will not stop the divide that Israel has with most all other groups there, Iran now has more reasons to retaliate towards Israel and others in the region now are probably more motivated to stop their Zionist agendas, this war was for zero purpose and zero US gain.

No return’ is, again, too absolute.  Of course, there have been protection of Persian Gulf lanes, preventing a Kuwaiti conquest, defense of ally treaties, degradation of terrorist organizations, etc.  You can argue whether the returns are justified or not but it is much harder to defend there was literally no returns.

You didnt really say this did you? Are you actually falling for the Bush lies with this opinion? Do you really even know what started this situation? Kuwait started this problem and we bailed them out. Spend even 5 minutes of time looking at more than just your partisan protection sources and realize that Kuwait was horizontal fracking into Iraqi oil fields, they were warned and given opportunity to stop and did not. Kuwait has no military abilities and the Saudis own the Bush clan and now Trump so the Saudis were concerned with a domino effect so in the US goes with the lies and fraud that it took to make it happen. Maybe you are younger than I am but as Ive stated my friends actually served there and as Ive stated the Kuwaitis and Saudis treated our troops like hired goons to discard when the risk was removed...they are not our allies. The entire reason for both Iraqi invasions was to protect financial interests not to stop any terrorism or nukes or any US risk.

I know you will not even spend 30 seconds looking past your narrative but you should...Kuwaiti horizontal fracking into Iraqi oil fields...its right there its a known public fact.

What you said about looking up things outside of right wing media is the reason that magas dont actually see what trump is doing. I would bet mone of them have actually seen a picture of the White House and all the construction going. Its disgusting to look at how 1 man has crapped on our whole history and republicans let him do it. Could you imagine if Obama tore the ball room down and put up a stadium for UFC fights(still trying to figure out how that helps a rancher in Montana or any of us)

@wallstreetcappers

 You are looking at things from your partisan perspective to try and find a WIN when the total outcome is a loss.

How do you mean?  

@wallstreetcappers

 ISIS is just a nickname for a group of extremists which have several other names before and will have names after, the term ISIS means nothing

Huh? This refers to a specific organization at a specific time.

It had an organizational structure and financing, etc.  It differed from Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups in important ways.

That is akin to saying the Soviet Union does not matter because Russia existed before and after it.

There may be continuity, but the specific organization still matters.

@wallstreetcappers

 You didnt really say this did you? Are you actually falling for the Bush lies with this opinion?

This is not really opinion at all.  Pretty much factual.  The point is still that some will argue that the costs may outweigh the benefits.  But the results are/were evident.

@wallstreetcappers

 my friends actually served there and as Ive stated the Kuwaitis and Saudis treated our troops like hired goons to discard when the risk was removed...they are not our allies.

And...?  Who said they would or should.  Or that they all did.  That was never a goal to make them friends.

@wallstreetcappers

 The entire reason for both Iraqi invasions was to protect financial interests not to stop any terrorism or nukes or any US risk.

For example?

@wallstreetcappers

 I know you will not even spend 30 seconds looking past your narrative but you should...Kuwaiti horizontal fracking into Iraqi oil fields...its right there its a known public fact.

Off course they were.  And...?

Several things can be true at the same time.

I do not have a narrative in that one or this one.  It is just clear analysis that the costs and the benefits and goals all need to be looked at.

I am not sure that there even needs to be a narrative to see this.

I am not even sure multiple narratives have to be diametrically opposite.

There will always be folks that never see a reason for anything outside their own direct invasion.  

Even that is not enough for some folks.

Never forget some folks voted against WWi and WWII -- including th lady that voted against both.

I can respect that stance as long as it is not couched around bad 'narrative' but just personal ideology.

@wallstreetcappers 

 You are looking at things from your partisan perspective to try and find a WIN when the total outcome is a loss.

I really am confused at a blanket statement like this.

As I said, this is just too absolute.  

Have you seen the damage done to their military and infrastructure.  No way is 'the total outcome a loss'.

@Raiders22

So lots of bluster saying nothing, do I have to spell out the truth for you or is that pointless given you are so protective of your partisan agenda it is useless?

I used to be like you back during the Bush CIA lie days, I used to lean GOP and then I started using my brain and I evolved to where what I initially thought of DS is completely different now than back then.

The entire reason for DS happening was based on lies and fraud from Bush and his Carlisle group cronies, the public was sold a total pack of lies about Iraq and the reason why we invaded. Same goes for round 2 via Bush Lite, lies galore there and fraud galore there, same with Iran its the exact same. 

If we invaded countries based on the country protecting their resources from being stolen that makes no sense. The Saudis rang the red phone and CIA Bush complied, there was no reason why we went to Iraq, they were doing nothing but escalating the theft from Kuwait and forcing them to take the situation seriously. What would the US do if Mexico or Canada horizontally fracked our oil fields? Would we send them chocolates and a thank you card? Would we ask nicely and then if they continued would we escalate? YES we would and that is what Iraq did.

The Iraq under Saddam was far superior for the rights and freedoms of the majority of citizens and especially for women and religious minorities, their currency after the invasion is STILL pegged and worthless where before it was dramatically stronger, their economy is worse and the religious domination post Saddam has been abhorrent and it is not going to improve.

There is NO WIN for the US, Iran was not a risk to the US their military and infra was not a risk to the US. The WIN is Israel, not the US. The WIN is defense contractors and weapons manuf corps...the US taxpayer and citizens are the total losers as we spent HUNDREDS of BILLIONS, we have massive inflation and gain absolutely nothing.

So sell this WIN story to Israel there is no WIN for the US.

Guess raiders didnt see trumps latest interview on the lara trump show. He admitted that we didnt hurt their military. We did alot of damegae to the infrastructure but the military is intact.

So should we believe a maga who gets his new from the clown jesse watters or the president himself. "DIDNT HURT THE MILITARY"

Lots of taxpayer money wasted for nothing.  Oh wait the trump crime family especially don jr is aligned with defense contractors who have big contracts with our govt.

All i can say to magas is, turn the channel once and awhile and actually see what the orange guy is really doing everyday

America is so stupid . Why are you spending one trillion dollars on your military every year, buying expensive equipment that you would only ever need if you went to war with Russia or China? Then you let them have free rein while you go to war with pretty much the entire Middle East. If that's your plan, why don't you spend money on being able to fight them efficiently? They don't use missiles, big tanks or a navy fleet; they use guerrilla tactics and drones. From the outside, watching your military is like witnessing a man trying to impregnate his girlfriend by repeatedly putting his penis in her ear. And when you are well-behaved like me, you don't want to burst his bubble when he proudly tells you he made it bleed.

@wallstreetcappers

 So lots of bluster saying nothing, do I have to spell out the truth for you

Yes, you do.

You always have lots of bluster and do not concentrate on one thing at a time, so you stay unfocused.

So, spell it out.

@wallstreetcappers 

 You are looking at things from your partisan perspective to try and find a WIN when the total outcome is a loss.

For example, start here.

It is always best to clear up terms and find where the discussion diverges to begin the discussion.

So, what do you think my 'partisan narrative' is when I broke down the analysis for you.

Because I have never stated my view of this before or after it started.  

I have only written tangentially on it after the fact a bit on Substack and a couple of other places.  Even on podcasts and shows I have been somewhat circumspect about it when asked.  I usually have only addressed it in the area of my thoughts on strategic regional influences and, mainly, the effects on the energy sector.

So, I am not sure what you think my 'partisan narrative' is.  The only partisan thing I wrote about it above was that both Liberals and Conservatives acknowledge that costs often exceed early expected war costs.

All I did was point out some of the inconsistencies and absolutes that were not supported.  That is not being 'partisan' because all of that is things anyone can see and verify.

@wallstreetcappers

For example:

 There is NO WIN for the US

@cd329

 No sir I did not see it.  I rarely watch TV.

That is overstating what he said, apparently.  

From what I looked up he said: "We've actually left their military alone" and described parts of Iran's military as "somewhat moderate." At the same time, he claimed Iran's navy and air force were effectively destroyed.

So if someone summarizes this as: "Trump admitted we didn't hurt their military."

That's not exactly what he said.

His position appears internally inconsistent, but he did not simply say "we didn't hurt their military." He simultaneously claimed:

1) Iran's navy was gone.

2) Iran's air force was gone.

3) Parts of the military were left alone.

"The military is intact" is an inference, not a quote.

The statement jumps from:

"We left their military alone"

to:

"The military is intact."

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

A country's military can be heavily degraded even if portions are deliberately spared.

For example: 

If the air force and navy are destroyed, but the army remains largely intact, then neither "the military is intact" nor "the military is destroyed" is fully accurate.

So, for sure, it may have seemed inconsistent.  But I think he overarching point was that the ground forces were left largely alone.  

However, it is plane to see what happened with the naval and air forces.

But you are correct that Trump sometimes certainly is off script and partially gives out information.

At least that is what it seemed like to me at a cursory glance.

@Calde13

 Iran has hypersonic missiles. Educate yourself.

@cd329

 Wonder what Biden did?

lmfaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo you guys will defend trump over everything, am sure you would take a bullet for trump instead of your own family. How all of you can still keep bending over yourselves to defend don the con boggles the mind, but hey its a free country and if defending a career criminal is your thing, congrats you all good an award. Will call it the don the con suck hole award