Politics and international concerns

[ShaneWey]

I've seen some mention of politics and potential conflicts here and there but I didn't want to hijack a thread so I created this one. I love paying attention to world events and conflicts but I'm wondering if that changes after being in the military for awhile. Obviously it's a person to person thing but with so many unknowns, rumors and unpredictable movements, do you even give much weight to it all anymore?

 

Anyway, the Crimean crisis has been in the news a lot lately but that will likely fizzle out with sanctions, regardless of what happens to Ukraine; even if Putin does something audacious like invade.

 

But what the media has generally gotten bored with is Syria. Al-Assad just attacked civilians with chlorine-based chemical weapons again this week. Do you guys think this is something in which NATO and/or the US would look to get involved? Getting involved in another country's civil war (especially a predictably drawn out one such as Syria's) is by no means desirable but what war is? The use of chemical weapons, especially on civilians, almost demands some sort of intervention.

 

Anyway, just wanted to see everyone's thoughts on this sort of tension.

[Velocity173]

I think any future conflict we get into will be either one that specifically threatens our sovereignty or action taken against one of our allies.

 

If the last two conflicts had ended in a positive manner, we might look differently at going into a Syria or even an Egypt. General public opinion was quite concerned about putting any American lives in harms way when it came to Syria. I think a lot of Americans have examined the outcome of OEF/OIF; looked at what we've spent, how long we stayed and the loss of life and realized we didn't gain anything there. Don't know how many times I've read online "get our guys out of there and send them home ASAP." I think this attitude goes all the way back to the Somalia conflict. Americans were wondering why we went there when it has nothing to do with our safety here. Because of Somalia, the Clinton administration was hesitant in getting involved in the conflict in the Balkans in the mid-1990s. Policing the world isn't as much of a priority as it used to be, especially during a time with decreasing budgets.

 

I'm not one to sharp shoot decisions after the fact though. While I disagreed with the "Military Industrial Complex" that was so evident in both OEF/OIF, I actually supported our decision to go into both theaters. Looking back at Iraq now, you can say that was a horrible decision, but hindsight is 20/20. If we only went into conflicts knowing absolutely that our intel is 100 % and the outcome will be 100 % in our favor, then we'd never get involved in any war. Personally I think OEF/OIF should've been treated in the way we handled Desert Storm. Get overwhelming international support, go in fast and hard and then cut clean. Extended occupation in the hopes of nation building just doesn't work in these third world countries especially when civil war type conditions exist.

 

So, if it was my call, I would want my tax dollars going for conflicts that directly affect our safety at home or ones that significantly affect the global community (WWII, Korea, Desert Storm).

Edited April 17, 2014 by Velocity173