They run stories about how the military bombs some civilians while fighting jihadists, but not about how those same jihadists routinely round up and torture children, kill scores of locals, etc.

Outside of Iraq, which fuck Bush, can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing?

I think it's a really shallow view to say it's better to not bomb a few civilians... then leave them to be preyed on by violent locals instead.

I'm a millennial, and didn't enlist at 18 because I didn't want to go to Iraq (and still don't support starting that war), but I'd have gone to Afghanistan, and as I get older, I find myself much more willing to support the military.

I suspect I'm not alone in that, either.

Who gets to make that determination? A random drone pilot? An officer?

Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.

We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction.

> Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.

This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multiple concurrent motivations.

Yes they are. I only said that the motivation always was national self interest not benevolence.

> We do. Because we can.

I think that exhausted my tolerance for further discussion with you.

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Nobody has ever fought a war for 'benevolence'. It's a silly concept. If you know anything of history, you'd also know that WWII was not fought for 'benevolence'.

No I didn't. Read what I said again.

Might makes right to decide what is right. That is now and always will be the case.

I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more.

Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that in any way. What I meant was that might gives you the power, and therefore responsibility, to make moral decisions about when and where to impose your will on others when they are acting 'sufficiently immorally', however you choose to define that.

Ever notice that people arguing for war are always anxious that the opportunity will slip away if we don't attack _them_ this instant?

Ever also notice that _them_ look pretty much like a lot of erstwhile allies that we aren't at loggerheads with?

That's all well and good, but I don't want to hear a lot of whining from your corner when the next 9/11 happens.

Spreading democratic and egalitarian values is in the national interest.

Yes, just like you should throw the switch on the trolley car to kill one person instead of let it kill five.

Other people don't agree.

I don’t think were much worse than any other major actor in this regard. I have an incling we do a fair bit better than most at catigating ourselves.

People are willfully ignorant.

Blowing up people's weddings via drone? Corroding civil liberties? Equipping small-town police forces with military equipment and mentalities?

I could go on. There is a lot more to dislike than just the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Terrorism is not about fostering abuse of constitutional rights and responsibilities, it is about fostering fear of our constitutional rights and responsibilities.

It's really hard to name a single good thing to come out of the war on terror.

It's not just your generation. I'm in my 50s and this opinion isn't rare in my age group either.

We don't have a strategy or goal or even clear enemy. We just do it because we are powerful. Of course there are people that want to kill us, blow up our airliners. But it's not clear we are doing anygood.

We have to set actual goals, not just being there and bombing targets of opportunity, saying sorry when it goes wrong. What's our goal? We don't have one.