Do Politicians Lie to us about war?
In his book “War is a Lie,” second edition (April 2016), David Swanson claims he presents a thorough refutation of every major argument used to justify wars, drawing on evidence from numerous past wars, with a focus on those that have been most widely defended as just and good. In essence, in his well-documented book, he says the people in power lie to us about why we should go to war, then change the lie during the war, and change it yet again after the war, all to justify the war in question. He illustrates how politicians provoke wars and why.
The United States now has a military presence in more than 140 countries, with more than 900 bases, and has had its military involved in military operations in 174 countries within the last few years.
Assuming all this to be true for the purposes of discussion, what should the Objectivist response be when questioned about the presence of the United States military in foreign lands (for example, in the South China Sea, in the Baltic Sea, and off the coast of Iran where two of our vessels went more than 20 miles inside Iranian waters) which appear to act as a provocation to other countries to go to war with the US?
The United States now has a military presence in more than 140 countries, with more than 900 bases, and has had its military involved in military operations in 174 countries within the last few years.
Assuming all this to be true for the purposes of discussion, what should the Objectivist response be when questioned about the presence of the United States military in foreign lands (for example, in the South China Sea, in the Baltic Sea, and off the coast of Iran where two of our vessels went more than 20 miles inside Iranian waters) which appear to act as a provocation to other countries to go to war with the US?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
But that is the way it was back in the old plural days when it took more than a day to gain bragging rights.
Between 1988 and 2005, through 5 subsequent rounds of a base selection process, 350 military bases, depots, and installations were selected and subsequently closed through what can sometimes be a lengthy redeployment process. We lost 2 Air Force Bases and at least 1 Army Depot here in Sacramento alone.
Closing a base is not an easy decision, the government is 'on the hook' in many different directions, it's not as simple as just appeasing a bunch of leftist doves. It decimated the Sacramento economy of 1.5 million people for over a decade. The same entity (the federal government) is suddenly paying extended unemployment benefits and retraining costs for the elimination of the workforce, so its not an immediate or linear savings.
Buying military supplies and weapons equals jobs & taxes paid by US citizens, is it a 100% trade off? No, of course not, but it's not 0 either... it's probably 50 or 60 cents on the dollar coming back in taxation at some level.
Military veterans are also some of the most productive members of society after their service. Education, training, and income are all markedly higher for veterans versus the general population, so the investment in that service turns into a lifetime of higher productivity and subsequent taxes collected.
Arguing the basing strategy overseas is just a Millennial generational thing. They were only a glimmer in their daddy's eye when we were faced-off against the Soviets in literally every corner of the world. We didn't 'twist arms' to acquire those bases, the hosting countries normally begged us to, and to base a strong nuclear deterrent within their borders to dissuade further Soviet expansion. Within a few years after WWII, the Soviets had pretty much conquered and ruled almost 50% of the earth.
Film footage if you prefer.
Although, there is some debate over whether it was Iraqi or Iranian mustard agents that actually attacked Halabja, they were already swapping chemical artillery barrages nearby in the preceding days. The Kurds were trying to break away from Saddam's rule though, so he is the most-likely suspect. http://www.informationclearinghouse.i...
I was in Desert Storm, we were trained that it was better to be in the carbon-lined 30 lb chemical suit all day in 135 degree Saudi Arabian heat, than to die a horrible death from mustard, blister, neural, or blood agents.
The "lie" was that Saddam posed any kind of a material threat against the US after the Persian Gulf War, we had pounded them literally into the stone age. To think that only 10 years later he was able to mount any kind of a military force was ludicrous. The actual cause we had (and not much of one at that) was the continued combat engagement we had on a daily basis enforcing the no-fly zone in Southern Iraq. On any typical day, our patrols would fly over the Southern half of the country, Iraqi air defenses would lock on and normally fire at the jets, they would miss, and we would destroy the radar site. A day or two later it would happen again and had been for years. Kind of a very low-intensity skirmish war, but nonetheless he was well-contained at low cost. We should have just starved them out with sanctions.
Embassy detachments are not counted, if they were all countries would be in all other recognized countries and they are far from "bases" as that term is commony used.
U wish I had more time regarding the other two paragraphs, but I commend Swanson's book "War is a Lie" for a lot of detail on the very subjects you name.
That being said, there are probably a few not in that count... Groom Lake Weapons Range, CIA Black Sites, etc., but not enough to come up with an extra 250.
Additionally, those may not represent what you think of as a military base, some may just be depots, an embassy marine detachment, etc.
The shelf-life of that stuff isn't great though, so the argument was needed that he was 'manufacturing chemical weapons', of which we never found any real evidence to my knowledge. That being said, a noble military leader may actually fall on their sword in front of the media in order to rendition that stuff out before a bad-actor could snatch it.
For example, if they had 50 sites in an area the size of Texas, we might act dumb & stupid until we managed to get it all out of there.
Has the U.S. stumbled into conflicts that could have been avoided? Unquestionably. The 1846 war with Mexico is a prime example of deliberate aggressive land acquisition. The American Civil War could have been avoided with a buyout of slaveowners that would have cost a small fraction of the cost of the war. The Vietnam conflict was inherited from our wartime ally, France, out of Eisenhower's misguided loyalty.
Most wars are the result of the failure of diplomacy (read The Guns of August) or greed, and are continued out of an overblown sense of national pride. Even the first Gulf conflict, brought on by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, can be attributed to a slip by a U.S. diplomat that gave Hussein the idea we would not oppose his invasion.
Thanks for sharing it.
Load more comments...