The vast majority of soldiers I know, whom have been blooded in war, do not wish military conflict to occur.

"War is politics by other means", paraphrasing von Clausewitz. Its fundamentally backing up one's political positions by force of arms, to impose upon one's adversary.

While there are some jingoistic people who relish conflict, they tend not to be the ones making decisions. This isn't always the case, but militaries know what happens when adventurism runs amok.

That is, wise generals would prefer (imperfect) political solutions to problems, as compared to imposition of will by force. But simultaneously, they know they may be called upon to impose that force.

>No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd.

It may be absurd but it's not unrealistic; there is historical precedent.

Don't underestimate the power of ideology to override rationality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Operation Northwoods...didn't happen.

I'd agree, although I don't think the author is being deliberately misleading, it's probably more an issue of public perception due to Hollywood and anecdotal conversations. DoD members swear to "support and defend the constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Sometimes that means brandishing a stick, sometimes that means swinging it, but we're pretty agnostic about the means to achieve that defense.

With respect, that amount to much of the same with different words.

Not that I disagree with you or him, just pointing out that to me you two differ in you points of view, not in substance.

> With respect, that amount to much of the same with different words.

They are describing two different intents; one is to seek to settle conflict through the use of violence, and the other is to accomplish the same end through the ability to inflict violence. The latter does not presume an innate desire to use the instruments of violence, only the will and ability to do so if so instructed.

Deterrence is a real thing and not the same thing as being bloodthirsty.

They are definitely not “much the same”. One implies that violence is the goal, the other that the capacity to be violent is necessary even when actual violence is undesirable. These are absolutely different in meaning.

To settle international conflict through violence and the threat of violence.

Well, regardless of what it wants, it’s primary means of achieving those ends is through violence or the threat of violence.

The military is not particularly well suited to nation building and other peaceful tasks, as we’ve repeatedly seen.

> No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd.

I think your general point is good, but there are people, including people in government, who see war as a low-cost, acceptable means of achieving ends, including rallying domestic political support.

For example, at one point I noticed that over a short time hawkish Republican leaders in the U.S., including John McCain, favored increasing involvement in Afghanistan, attacking Iran (rather than negotiating), increasing involvement in Iraq, intervening in Syria, intervening in Egypt (IIRC), intervening in Sudan (in Darfur, though that might not have been contemporaneous), and intervening in Libya. If you look at a map, that's war in most countries from central Asia to near the middle of Africa's Mediterranean coast.

The GOP, starting before Trump, often vocally disdains the alternative to war, diplomacy. The Trump administration has taken it to a policy level worked to undermine the United States' relations with other countries and openly advocated, including in written op-eds from administration members, 'a return to geopolitical competition' - i.e., the state of things before WWII, which led to centuries of wars. They've abandoned treaty after treaty, and damaged the U.S.'s reputation so that they can't be trusted to adhere to future agreements (which I think is intentional, an attempt make the move away from diplomacy irreversible). The Trump administration openly works against the rule-based international order and openly opposes international law; the alternative to law and order is anarchy; the alternative to those mechanisms is war.

The Trump administration also has gutted State Department; they've attempted to gut its budget (Congress hasn't always agreed), they've cut and obstructed many programs, forced out a large proportion of talent (my vague memory is that they forced or urged out over a third of the most senior officers, who are, as I understand it, irreplaceable), and disrupted hiring.

Why would you destroy the means of diplomacy if you don't seek war?

Our?

I don't recall you speaking for me. And you are presuming you know where the visitors of HN hail from. Guess what, they're all over the world.

It's not incorrect to use "our" in this context even though the speaker's audience is international, "our" doesn't always mean "mine and yours" is can also mean "mine and someone else's," that use isn't event uncommon. We talk about "our family" to people outside of the speaker's family and we talk about "our country" to people outside of the speaker's country. It's natural.

our /ˈou(ə)r,är/ determiner possesive pronoun: our

1. belonging to or associated with the speaker and one or more other people previously mentioned or easily identified. "Jo and I had our hair cut"

belonging to or associated with people in general. "when we hear a sound, our brains identify the source quickly"

2. used by a writer, editor, or monarch to refer to something belonging to or associated with himself or herself. "we want to know what you, our readers, think"

Even then it is still incorrect because it presumes a shared viewpoint with other US citizens. Who might disagree.

No its not and no it doesn't; it's extremely clear what the speaker meant, you just wanted to get outraged for no reason.