- Jun 28, 2004
- 6,984
- 17,068
On the airstrike thing, I am not gonna put it all on Trump
Under Obama tons of civilians were killed in missions, and airstrikes.
The American public needs to face reality that if you demand the government fight terrorist overseas, and demand that tons of ground troops not be used, that strikes like these are the next best option and civilians will be killed.
We as a nation he to have a more honest discussion about stuff like these. I'm sure both Obama and Trump would want no civilians killed in strikes. But we hardly ever get that lucky.
100 is ridiculous though.My heart goes out to those people.
Since so much of a nation's power is based on how other nation's perceive it, America is less powerful than it was 20 years ago. After Vietnam, the world though that if you can use static defense and/or guerilla warfare, you can inflict enough casualties that America will lose its appetite for war and you can win a political victory. After the first Gulf War and after Somali, other nations and groups understood that the post Vietnam consensus was over. After The First Gulf War and after Somali, we reversed that idea. Now our opponents had to think neight massive static defenses nor guerilla war will even bloody Americans to the point that you can achieve a political victory.
Unfortunately, the second Iraq war and the bombing campaigns done by Clinton, Obama and now Trump, make us weaker. It tells our opponents that we are unwilling to but an army in the field or to even use manned, close in air power. I am absolutely fine with our political culture being averse to large scale ground assaults and prolonged military occupations but our political culture also demands that presidents still be bellicose. So we are in an equilibrium where we use our air power, the best in the world, and gain a series of tactical victories but take strategic loses. That lose is the lose of fear in the eyes of our opponents.
Obviously, one should never take the word of the Pentagon officials at face value. There is no such thing as a precision or "surgical "airstrike and civilians get killed.
At the same time, we should give credence to the historian and for whatever it may be worth, America does put some value on minimizing civilian casualties. Compared to WWII or Vietnam, US airstrikes are more precise and some measures are taken to reduce civilian casualties.
My theory of political economy and defense spending is that each additional dollar of defense spending means an orientation toward more and more special interests.
A small military largely does fulfill the national interest, we do need to protect ourselves. Beyond that though, new military resources exist to help certain sectors, certain companies even the whims of certain, wealthy and well connected, individuals. A rough estimate would have 10% of US military resources protecting the homeland and shipping lane, the other 90% serves the elites and their interests abroad.
