Is history repeating itself in Iraq and Afghanistan?
CharlasHistory: On learning from and writing history
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1Urquhart
Iraq and Afghanistan Have Officially Become Vietnam 2.0
http://billmoyers.com/2015/10/14/iraq-and-afghanistan-have-officially-become-vie...
2BruceCoulson
Or rather, it's becoming harder for officials to deny that the current policies have been a failure.
4BruceCoulson
>3 LamSon:
I'd argue with less efficiency. America has forgotten that fighting a war is expensive, in both money AND people; that successfully occupying a country to change its culture requires a lot of soldiers (and civilians) to be physically present and moving among the populace (with all the attendant risks that entails). The U.S. has been trying to fight wars like a business; keep costs down (or hidden) to maximize profit. That doesn't work in warfare, and we've been proving it a lot. (Another problem is that the tech gap that existed in the 19th Century that allowed conquests of vast swathes of territory has narrowed quite a bit, and the people who live in those lands have more incentive to keep them than the soldiers we send have to take them.)
I'd argue with less efficiency. America has forgotten that fighting a war is expensive, in both money AND people; that successfully occupying a country to change its culture requires a lot of soldiers (and civilians) to be physically present and moving among the populace (with all the attendant risks that entails). The U.S. has been trying to fight wars like a business; keep costs down (or hidden) to maximize profit. That doesn't work in warfare, and we've been proving it a lot. (Another problem is that the tech gap that existed in the 19th Century that allowed conquests of vast swathes of territory has narrowed quite a bit, and the people who live in those lands have more incentive to keep them than the soldiers we send have to take them.)
5LamSon
>4 BruceCoulson:
I see your point. I was thinking along the line that a few modern aircraft can do as much, or more, damage as hundreds of B-17 bombers in WWII.
I might be pessimistic, but one group fighting another has always existed and always will. Peace is an illusion.
I see your point. I was thinking along the line that a few modern aircraft can do as much, or more, damage as hundreds of B-17 bombers in WWII.
I might be pessimistic, but one group fighting another has always existed and always will. Peace is an illusion.
6BruceCoulson
Yes, in terms of sheer destructive capability we have advanced. In terms of conquering foreign powers and making them submissive to our will we've regressed.
7TLCrawford
Air power is great destruction. If it is all you have in your quiver you can destroy almost everything if you take your time. If you want to impose order and air power is all you have you have lost. You need boots on the ground in overwhelming numbers to restore order.
The US is not that invested in the Mideast to risk putting that many soldiers in harms way. It would involve a draft and voters might become disillusioned when their family members could be sent into harms way. Without a major change in strategy we, the USA, would be better off if we blew up all our equipment and brought all out people home.
The US is not that invested in the Mideast to risk putting that many soldiers in harms way. It would involve a draft and voters might become disillusioned when their family members could be sent into harms way. Without a major change in strategy we, the USA, would be better off if we blew up all our equipment and brought all out people home.
