[pavelludiq]

You need a military in order to prevent other people from bombing your country. You absolutely do not need to bomb other people, and if fact if your goal is to not get bombed, not bombing other people might be your best option for a bunch of reasons[1]. If your goal is to systematically rob your population of wealth by dumping insane amounts of money into an otherwise mostly useless industry(you don't really need 12 carriers to defend your country for example, they are mostly useless for defense), bombing other people is a good option.

[1] not making additional enemies, not setting the precedent that it's ok to bomb people, not driving away allies, not undermining your narrative that you're a good guy and therefore attacking you is unjustifiable, etc. These are just off the top of my head.

[koolba]

> You need a military in order to prevent other people from bombing your country. You absolutely do not need to bomb other people, and if fact if your goal is to not get bombed, not bombing other people might be your best option for a bunch of reasons.

And sometimes the best way to save lives of your people is to bomb other people.

That’s very naive. Not all antagonists are rational state actors. Terrorist orgs like Al Qaeda or ISIS aren’t going to stop trying to kill you if you ignore them. The only solution is direct action and only question becomes who’s going to do it, i.e. the USA or a local proxy.

[wongarsu]

ISIS is a direct consequence of US interventions.

The Post-WWII history of the middle east mostly follows the pattern “US declares $X evil. In its fight against $X, US supports $lesserEvil with money and weapons. $Y years later $lesserEvil has used funding and weapons to grow and become $greaterEvil. US declares $W as $lesserEvil and funds them. Repeat.“

Short term that might seem smart, but do it long enough and you have a region full of well armed splitter groups, are least half of which hate you.

The UdSSR/Russia isn't blameless either, but the most notable positive long term effect of US actions in the middle east seem to be more jobs in the military-industrial-complex.

[fauigerzigerk]

The pattern you're describing is unfortunately a pretty accurate reflection of the post WWII history of the Middle East. However, consider how these mistakes happened.

First there were the Nazis. They invaded half of Europe while the US remained neutral until it was attacked by Japan in 1941. After the US and its allies won the war, the overwhelming majority of Germans celebrated their liberation and went on to become a prosperous ally of the US. Great success.

Then there was the cold war, which was essentially an attempt to prevent the Soviets from achieving their avowed goal of world domination. Again, the US and its allies won that conflict and the overwhelming majority of Eastern Europeans are greatful for it. (Let's not get into a debate about the merits of Socialism here. Soviet style totalitarianism and Stalinism isn't what most on the left want nowadays. At least my Marxist friends don't)

So there were two very important historical episodes during which a refusal of the US to do anything more than defend the homeland would have been catastrophic. Unfortunately, this has lead to a doctrine of uncritical and imprudent interventionism and to a refusal to learn from the many mistakes that were made during the cold war, most importantly in the Middle East (but also in Latin America).

My point is, even though your criticism of failed interventionist policies is correct, it means little without also discussing the crucially important successes of global US military power.

[dTal]

Not just the Middle East. You could say the USSR itself was in fact partially an example of this pattern. The US donated enormous quantities of resources to the Soviet Union during WW2 to beat the Nazis, including significant railway infrastructure; the Cold War began virtually the moment both US and Soviet troops were in Berlin. While it is true that most Soviet weaponry was home-grown, arguably they would not have won without US aid.

In all the major conflicts after that - Vietnam, Korea, Middle East - the US was supporting opponents of the Soviet Union.

[fiblye]

>And sometimes the best way to save lives of your people is to bomb other people.

Sometimes, yes.

But those "preventative" bombings in recent decades are the very reason those people want to kill those in other countries. They directly say that they're attacking the west as retaliation, but the vast majority of people plug their ears, dismiss them as absolutely crazy and irrational, and say we'll never understand their motives. Maybe if a few weddings weren't bombed there'd be a few less terrorist attacks around the world.

Terrorist orgs like Al Qaeda and ISIS are relatively recent organizations. They didn't evolve in a bubble. They evolved in a place struggling with the damage of foreign intervention. To many people there, it's irrational not to support the group that opposes the what seems to be (and when looked at objectively) nonsensical intervention between two outside forces. The shit stirring there started as an attempt to push out Soviet influence. The mess in Syria continuing because Russia wants a sphere of influence and the west can't have that.

The tendency of dismissing enemies as irrational is the problem here. Groups don't grow so large with a complete lack of rationality. They have just enough that they persuade a considerable number of people, but they eventually go off the rails.

[SCHiM]

Mostly, I think a 'terrorist' can be a rational person. If you know for a fact that the USA killed one or multiple people from your family; when you live in fear of clear skies as a male of military age, and as insult to injury (if you're rich enough to know about it all) know that those responsible for your fear and loss say that _you_ are the bad guy. Well, I can very clearly understand the hatred some people feel towards the west/usa/nato.

[Marysville]

You should perhaps read on what led to creation of these terrorist organizations. BBCs 'Hypernormalisation' would be a good start.

[barrkel]

The single easiest way to create terrorists is to invade another country. Terrorism is a law enforcement problem, it is not a military problem.

[titzer]

> And sometimes the best way to save lives of your people is to bomb other people.

Hello, it's 2030 calling. Yeah, that recent nasty terror attack? Carried out by people born between 2005 and 2012. They grew up in the wartorn cities of Baghdad, Kabul, in the mountains of Afghanistan, in the little towns hit with little "pinpricks" of drone strikes for the past 20 years because the big brains in the USA thought that "BOMBING THEM FIRST" was the best plan. Those young kids who carried out that attack have known nothing but war, while you have known nothing but peace and have the gall to suggest that they and their neighbors should be subject to constant, round-the-clock, death-from-the-sky TERROR. They've known people who got hit by drones. They've known people who were collateral. They've seen the craters. Arms and legs blown off. Brains. Dead bodies. Charred remains. From machines in the sky, operated by people sitting in airconditioned offices half a world away. You don't think they know that? That drone operators sit in airconditioned offices and blow people up? War is fucking hell. And that's been their reality. And our reality has been playing video games. They fucking hate us. God damn, how could they not?

Welcome to the endless cycle of violence your myopia brings.

If you think the best way to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda is by blowing up random people who seem important now is a good plan, then it's going to be a fail. Al Qaeda and ISIS need to be defeated and expunged by and from CIVILIZATION--their networks dismantled and defunded by detective work, cooperation with local governments, the rule of law, and lots of arrests. They are going to be defeated when the local population is sick of their shit and doesn't believe what they believe. They are going to be defeated when being part of Al Qaeda is a poor alternative in life, because life offers you so much better alternatives, and their ain't shit to be that damn mad about.

There won't be Al Qaeda when people chill the fuck out, on all sides. Instead, everyone has absolutely lost their minds; they are incapable of seeing threats at their true scale. But no, some kind of insanity has taken over the thinking in the military and intelligence agencies where every threat is clear and present, and every single terrorist anywhere is just five days from hitting NYC with a nuclear bomb....

[koolba]

> Those young kids who carried out that attack have known nothing but war, while you have known nothing but peace and have the gall to suggest that they and their neighbors should be subject to constant, round-the-clock, death-from-the-sky TERROR. They've known people who got hit by drones. They've known people who were collateral. They've seen the craters. Arms and legs blown off. Brains. Dead bodies. Charred remains. From machines in the sky, operated by people sitting in airconditioned offices half a world away. You don't think they know that? That drone operators sit in airconditioned offices and blow people up? War is fucking hell. And that's been their reality. And our reality has been playing video games. They fucking hate us. God damn, how could they not?

There's a great quote by Machiavelli that explains this: "There can be no proper relation between one who is armed and one who is not. Nor it is reasonable to expect that one who is armed will voluntarily obey one who is not."

> Welcome to the endless cycle of violence your myopia brings.

Myopia is thinking the world is nothing but sunshine and lollipops. There are people in this world who's entire existence is based on the destruction of everyone else with a different way of life. ISIS falls into that camp and anything short of utter destruction of them and anyone that gives aid or comfort to them will allow them to continue. A cancer like that needs to be fully excised to prevent it from returning.

> If you think the best way to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda is by blowing up random people who seem important now is a good plan, then it's going to be a fail.

I never suggested that "blowing up random people" is a good idea. I was making that point that in the interests of saving lives of your own people, it can make sense to bomb (and presumably kill) other people. It's not that there won't be any loss of life. It's that doing so will save lives on your side.

> Al Qaeda and ISIS need to be defeated and expunged by and from CIVILIZATION--their networks dismantled and defunded by detective work, cooperation with local governments, the rule of law, and lots of arrests. They are going to be defeated when the local population is sick of their shit and doesn't believe what they believe. They are going to be defeated when being part of Al Qaeda is a poor alternative in life, because life offers you so much better alternatives, and their ain't shit to be that damn mad about.

Sure it's bombs alone that will solve the problem of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Nor did I suggest that they would. But putting pressure on the locals by splitting the world into "with us or with them" camps isn't that crazy either.

> There won't be Al Qaeda when people chill the fuck out, on all sides.

I can assure you that nobody in either Al Qaeda or ISIS will ever "chill the fuck out". Given the opportunity to maim, hurt, or kill anyone in Western society, or more generally anyone that's not they're specific sub-sect of Sunni Islam, then they will seize on it.

[workinthehead]

I think you're the naive one. How do you think ISIS got started?

[Lennie]

You do realize that the actions of the US ended up creating both Al Qaeda and ISIS, right ?

[maushu]

> you don't really need 12 carriers to defend your country for example, they are mostly useless for defense

There is also the deterrence theory.