Re:Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them
by SiempreViernes on Monday November 12, 2018 @05:22AM
(#18431680)
Yes, I think this is because despite simply recounting the justifications for levelling a city that US forces put forth, it gives the misleading impression of having some suggestion on how to improve things.
I do think that the US military is reporting their objectives honestly. Armies are very much task focused organisations, and it really doesn't work if you are unclear about the task.
What does tend to be questionable is the metrics reported towards completion of the task: a military tends to solve tasks given to it no matter how it must misreport things on the ground. Ground reports are usually unreliable anyway.
Re:Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them
by coldtea on Monday November 12, 2018 @04:21AM
(#18431472)
>The US has no honorable reason for being in the Middle East - if it did, it would also have invaded large chunks of Africa, probably North Korea, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be a US ally and maybe send some troops into a few well chosen South American countries for good measure. The world is horrible, and it is highly suspicious that the Middle East was the first mob in need of 'saving'.
Not only that -- for this assumes that it's ok that the world should have some "savior" state, and even more so, a self-proclaimed one -- as opposed to sovereign countries solving their own problems.
Re:Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them
by Jedi72 on Monday November 12, 2018 @06:04AM
(#18431840)
This is a tough one. If Nazi's hadnt tried to expand their borders, but still kept killing all the jews in Germany, is that a sovereign country solving its own problems?
Re:Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them
by rawTruthHurts on Monday November 12, 2018 @06:41AM
(#18432009)
Well, yes it is. Ask the cambodians or the chinese.
Re:Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them
by fit2rule on Thursday November 15, 2018 @05:41PM
(#18464158)
.. or the Australians.
Re:Why Militaries Destroy Cities to Save Them
by dahdum on Monday November 12, 2018 @10:26AM
(#18433120)
It’s not suspicious, it’s oil. The US government has been pretty transparent about that for decades. Africa can’t precipitate global instability the way the Middle East can, they just don’t tick the boxes for military intervention.
The US has no honorable reason for being in the Middle East - if it did, it would also have invaded large chunks of Africa, probably North Korea, Saudi Arabia wouldn't be a US ally and maybe send some troops into a few well chosen South American countries for good measure. The world is horrible, and it is highly suspicious that the Middle East was the first mob in need of 'saving'.
With that observation as a premise, it is questionable that the US military is reporting their objectives honestly. I think I can keep track of who the current bad guys are, but I can't keep track of which ones were US allies or created by US adventures over the past 20 years.
If the take-away is the US military would be more effective with flamethrowers then that makes sense to me. If the argument is that they are struggling to achieve their objectives in the Middle East then I assume they are lying about what they are trying to achieve.