My perspective of the Iranian incident is a little different than most people. In my 28-year career in the military I served in 1 war, suited up for a second and was subject to recall for a third. Every time there was an incident around the world which could result in a military response to failed diplomacy, we were keenly aware of the possible implications. We would study the news articles and TV coverage and talk about what we might do differently or not do at all. When the hostages were released, I had the privilege of being invited to attend a classified briefing by Col. Thomas Schaefer, USAF, who recounted his experience while held by the Iranians. Some of what he told us at the time was not yet released to the media and told of the harsh conditions and cruelty of his captors. As you said, our feckless leadership at the time botched an ill-fated rescue attempt and it took a change in leadership to force the Iranians to release our hostages after 444 days of captivity.
This war has been ongoing since 1979. Someone else did the math, but Iran or Iranian backed terrorist have killed close to 900 servicemen and women.
Iran has always been the main interest ea h time going into the Arabian Gulf. Their little gun boats always trying to provoke an attack at which they could point the fingers at the US as aggressors.
They would also send fighters out to look at shipping and try to get a response. It would drive the ship to battle stations in self defense.
It's been a Cold War with some heated times since 79 due to Iran's revolutionary government.
I always find the remark about "foreign wars" somewhat bleakly amusing. As if implying, I'd rather the war be a domestic war fought here. The last big one was the Civil War and before that the various wars against the Indians, Mexico, the war of 1812 and so on. Personally, I'd rather any war be fought someplace else. WW II was the closest one we had here (Hawaii, The Philippines, Alaska Guam, and the incendiary balloons floated over from Japan). More than close enough for me. I'd prefer not to be fighting the "Battle to retake Denver" . The question is the why is the war. If it's to keep the hostilities in other places rather than here, it's probably a good idea. If it's to bring Democracy to fillintheplaceofyourchoice and make the world a better place. it's probably not a good idea and won't really succeed. The Scuttlebutts comments on WW I are exactly right. Stopping Hitler and Imperial Japan was a good idea. Korea too. Vietnam? Iffy I think. in the long run. Stopping Husain from controlling a lot of the world's oil supply? Probably a good idea. Trying to turn Iraq into "good country"? Not really workable. Getting rid of the Taliban? Good idea. Making Afghanistan a better place to live? Not really doable. The ultimate message of any war should be: Don't screw with us. Bad things will happen if you do. Unfortunately we live in a world where people have fantasies of becoming great leaders or martyrs for the cause, whatever the cause may be. Don't think that is going to go away.
Our founding fathers were mostly against standing armies and lasting foreign interests due to the undue influence and corruption these circumstances tend to breed. I think our long term presence and attempts to influence foreign nations and policies has created an endless cycle of justifications for conflict.
I agree that a strong military is necessary in times of defense. I strongly believe this is why emphasis on militias and protections for them were codified. Ensuring that should the circumstances arise we would be ready and properly equipped to match the needs of the occasion.
If we acted in a timely manner, addressing threats swiftly and effectively we might find our position strengthens and the willingness to provoke a response would dissipate. Perhaps if we made war a not for profit venture we might ensure reduced incentives to maintain a state of conflict. I am concerned that the profitability of conflict unfortunately drives us to find the next one before the previous one concludes. I do not see how most of our conflicts over the past few decades have benefited We The People, improving our quality of life or protecting our long term interests.
I might go as far as to argue that many of these conflicts could have been avoided had we encouraged strong leadership and the avoidance of situations leading to the development of future conflicts or engagements.
I hope one day in the future that war is no longer a necessary enterprise, though it is one of the three oldest professions in recorded history, so I won't be holding my breath.
I agree with almost everything you said. The one exception is the part about "We can’t allow our political class to saddle the world with another failed State."
Frankly, the success or failure of a nation is not our problem or our responsibility. The "pottery barn" doctrine of "If you break a nation, you are responsible to make them a functioning democracy like us" is, frankly, horse apples.
It ignores human nature, it ignores reality, and it ignores history.
First, it assumes that the nation we attack is functioning before we attacked it. I would submit that Iran was already broken, and had been since the end of the "Iranian revolution" The nation that was created was not a functioning nation as we would call it, no more than the nation of Yugoslavia was functional under Marshal Tito. It was several nations, held together by fear, an iron fist, and murder. When Tito fell, his "heirs" couldn't hold it together, and in fact the last was "found dead of an apparent heart attack" (cough GRU assassination cough) while awaiting trial for his crimes against humanity.
If it's already broke, you ain't responsible to fix it.
Secondly, human nature is such that, what you do not earn, you do not value. This is why a man can not truly free an actual slave, and a free man can not be enslaved, the most you can do is kill him. I may be captured, I may be forced to do labor while I am figuring out how to escape, or kill as many of my captors as I can on my way to Valhalla, but I am not your slave. OTOH someone who has become a slave, whose internal identity has become "I am a possession, owned by my master." Can not be made free, simply by striking off his chains.
Thirdly, History has shown that "remaking a country in our image" has NEVER worked, for any nation that tried it. The best nation in the world at that sort of thing, the British Empire, under Queen Vic, couldn't do it. At most you wind up with a highbred, no longer really the old nation, but certainly not your nation. India, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Hong Kong, the United States, under her ancestor, Canada, Bermuda, the list goes on and on, of nations that were either created or attempted to be altered into carbon copies of Great Britain as she was in prime. None of them were they successful at making over in their image. It just can't be done. Society and social values are plastic, but not liquid.
Finally, the birth of this doctrine, while espoused and accredited to Collin Powell, is actually probably an outgrowth of the Marshall Plan, and the aftermath of WWII. It's an over reaction to the aftermath of WWI. Yes, the end of World War One, and the Peace Treaty of Versailles created, as surely as lighting a fuse creates an explosion, World War Two.
We rightly recoiled from that, and said "OK, lesson learned, don't curb stomp a guy then make him pay for the privilege of having been curb stomped forever. Don't let him live, while telling him he is no longer permitted to defend himself, or to do anything else, except pay to be alive... And then fail to keep a hand on the choke chain."
The trouble is, we, the US often does, we overreacted in the other direction. We decided that, far from making him pay, we would pay to fix him. That instead of failing to hold the choke chain, we would live in his living room, with a gun out, watching his every move, for... Wait for it... well, we still live in his living room. We still have troops in Germany and in Japan. They're no longer called Occupation Forces, but, they're still there!
The problem with the end of World War One is two fold. One the German Government surrendered before the people believed they were actually whipped. Two, the French wanted desperately to PUNISH "The Hun" for having the audacity to have made war with the great and powerful nation of France! They wanted revenge! Not just for this war, but for the entire history of Germany, which has been impeding the French DESTINY of ruling all of Europe, since the Thirty Years War!
England wasn't going to kick over this, they wanted to see all the powers of the continent brought as low as possible, to keep their empire in power. The US wanted to go a different way, but was viewed as just a bunch of stupid colonials who needed to keep their mouths shut, and listen to their betters.
End result of all this, when WWII ended, the US decided that "being the only big kid left standing, we are going to determine how this shit goes this time, and show you Jack Asses of Europe how to do this shit!"
Not unreasonable, and in the situation that the world found itself, it was a good choice... But that need not, and should not be our only way of ending a war that we won, going forward. Sometimes, it's enough to say, "we are done here, you can't do to us again, what you did that caused you to get thumped. Figure out your future for yourself, but understand that if you mess with us again, you're going to find out that this was us being nice."
My perspective of the Iranian incident is a little different than most people. In my 28-year career in the military I served in 1 war, suited up for a second and was subject to recall for a third. Every time there was an incident around the world which could result in a military response to failed diplomacy, we were keenly aware of the possible implications. We would study the news articles and TV coverage and talk about what we might do differently or not do at all. When the hostages were released, I had the privilege of being invited to attend a classified briefing by Col. Thomas Schaefer, USAF, who recounted his experience while held by the Iranians. Some of what he told us at the time was not yet released to the media and told of the harsh conditions and cruelty of his captors. As you said, our feckless leadership at the time botched an ill-fated rescue attempt and it took a change in leadership to force the Iranians to release our hostages after 444 days of captivity.
This war has been ongoing since 1979. Someone else did the math, but Iran or Iranian backed terrorist have killed close to 900 servicemen and women.
Iran has always been the main interest ea h time going into the Arabian Gulf. Their little gun boats always trying to provoke an attack at which they could point the fingers at the US as aggressors.
They would also send fighters out to look at shipping and try to get a response. It would drive the ship to battle stations in self defense.
It's been a Cold War with some heated times since 79 due to Iran's revolutionary government.
I always find the remark about "foreign wars" somewhat bleakly amusing. As if implying, I'd rather the war be a domestic war fought here. The last big one was the Civil War and before that the various wars against the Indians, Mexico, the war of 1812 and so on. Personally, I'd rather any war be fought someplace else. WW II was the closest one we had here (Hawaii, The Philippines, Alaska Guam, and the incendiary balloons floated over from Japan). More than close enough for me. I'd prefer not to be fighting the "Battle to retake Denver" . The question is the why is the war. If it's to keep the hostilities in other places rather than here, it's probably a good idea. If it's to bring Democracy to fillintheplaceofyourchoice and make the world a better place. it's probably not a good idea and won't really succeed. The Scuttlebutts comments on WW I are exactly right. Stopping Hitler and Imperial Japan was a good idea. Korea too. Vietnam? Iffy I think. in the long run. Stopping Husain from controlling a lot of the world's oil supply? Probably a good idea. Trying to turn Iraq into "good country"? Not really workable. Getting rid of the Taliban? Good idea. Making Afghanistan a better place to live? Not really doable. The ultimate message of any war should be: Don't screw with us. Bad things will happen if you do. Unfortunately we live in a world where people have fantasies of becoming great leaders or martyrs for the cause, whatever the cause may be. Don't think that is going to go away.
Our founding fathers were mostly against standing armies and lasting foreign interests due to the undue influence and corruption these circumstances tend to breed. I think our long term presence and attempts to influence foreign nations and policies has created an endless cycle of justifications for conflict.
I agree that a strong military is necessary in times of defense. I strongly believe this is why emphasis on militias and protections for them were codified. Ensuring that should the circumstances arise we would be ready and properly equipped to match the needs of the occasion.
If we acted in a timely manner, addressing threats swiftly and effectively we might find our position strengthens and the willingness to provoke a response would dissipate. Perhaps if we made war a not for profit venture we might ensure reduced incentives to maintain a state of conflict. I am concerned that the profitability of conflict unfortunately drives us to find the next one before the previous one concludes. I do not see how most of our conflicts over the past few decades have benefited We The People, improving our quality of life or protecting our long term interests.
I might go as far as to argue that many of these conflicts could have been avoided had we encouraged strong leadership and the avoidance of situations leading to the development of future conflicts or engagements.
I hope one day in the future that war is no longer a necessary enterprise, though it is one of the three oldest professions in recorded history, so I won't be holding my breath.
I agree with almost everything you said. The one exception is the part about "We can’t allow our political class to saddle the world with another failed State."
Frankly, the success or failure of a nation is not our problem or our responsibility. The "pottery barn" doctrine of "If you break a nation, you are responsible to make them a functioning democracy like us" is, frankly, horse apples.
It ignores human nature, it ignores reality, and it ignores history.
First, it assumes that the nation we attack is functioning before we attacked it. I would submit that Iran was already broken, and had been since the end of the "Iranian revolution" The nation that was created was not a functioning nation as we would call it, no more than the nation of Yugoslavia was functional under Marshal Tito. It was several nations, held together by fear, an iron fist, and murder. When Tito fell, his "heirs" couldn't hold it together, and in fact the last was "found dead of an apparent heart attack" (cough GRU assassination cough) while awaiting trial for his crimes against humanity.
If it's already broke, you ain't responsible to fix it.
Secondly, human nature is such that, what you do not earn, you do not value. This is why a man can not truly free an actual slave, and a free man can not be enslaved, the most you can do is kill him. I may be captured, I may be forced to do labor while I am figuring out how to escape, or kill as many of my captors as I can on my way to Valhalla, but I am not your slave. OTOH someone who has become a slave, whose internal identity has become "I am a possession, owned by my master." Can not be made free, simply by striking off his chains.
Thirdly, History has shown that "remaking a country in our image" has NEVER worked, for any nation that tried it. The best nation in the world at that sort of thing, the British Empire, under Queen Vic, couldn't do it. At most you wind up with a highbred, no longer really the old nation, but certainly not your nation. India, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Hong Kong, the United States, under her ancestor, Canada, Bermuda, the list goes on and on, of nations that were either created or attempted to be altered into carbon copies of Great Britain as she was in prime. None of them were they successful at making over in their image. It just can't be done. Society and social values are plastic, but not liquid.
Finally, the birth of this doctrine, while espoused and accredited to Collin Powell, is actually probably an outgrowth of the Marshall Plan, and the aftermath of WWII. It's an over reaction to the aftermath of WWI. Yes, the end of World War One, and the Peace Treaty of Versailles created, as surely as lighting a fuse creates an explosion, World War Two.
We rightly recoiled from that, and said "OK, lesson learned, don't curb stomp a guy then make him pay for the privilege of having been curb stomped forever. Don't let him live, while telling him he is no longer permitted to defend himself, or to do anything else, except pay to be alive... And then fail to keep a hand on the choke chain."
The trouble is, we, the US often does, we overreacted in the other direction. We decided that, far from making him pay, we would pay to fix him. That instead of failing to hold the choke chain, we would live in his living room, with a gun out, watching his every move, for... Wait for it... well, we still live in his living room. We still have troops in Germany and in Japan. They're no longer called Occupation Forces, but, they're still there!
The problem with the end of World War One is two fold. One the German Government surrendered before the people believed they were actually whipped. Two, the French wanted desperately to PUNISH "The Hun" for having the audacity to have made war with the great and powerful nation of France! They wanted revenge! Not just for this war, but for the entire history of Germany, which has been impeding the French DESTINY of ruling all of Europe, since the Thirty Years War!
England wasn't going to kick over this, they wanted to see all the powers of the continent brought as low as possible, to keep their empire in power. The US wanted to go a different way, but was viewed as just a bunch of stupid colonials who needed to keep their mouths shut, and listen to their betters.
End result of all this, when WWII ended, the US decided that "being the only big kid left standing, we are going to determine how this shit goes this time, and show you Jack Asses of Europe how to do this shit!"
Not unreasonable, and in the situation that the world found itself, it was a good choice... But that need not, and should not be our only way of ending a war that we won, going forward. Sometimes, it's enough to say, "we are done here, you can't do to us again, what you did that caused you to get thumped. Figure out your future for yourself, but understand that if you mess with us again, you're going to find out that this was us being nice."