[manigandham]

Feelings rarely ever help in these situations.

Why would a defense force put you more at risk? The world is not a gentle place and it takes less than 30 seconds of browsing international headlines to see that. The chaos is kept in check through violence and the military has a direct impact on the peace and freedoms enjoyed by the populace.

Two major nations are rapidly growing powerful tyrants with Putin and Xinping. Do you think these situations just magically go away? Military action has already been brewing in recent years and you either have an answer when it comes to blows or prepare for a lot of misery.

I've come to find that most people (in the US anyway) who think that the military only does harm have never really witnessed or experienced any violence or unrest to see how bad things can be, which is good for them and proof that it works, but it does lead to a strange disconnection as evidenced by the comments and votes.

[randomsearch]

I don’t entirely disagree with you, but to play devil’s advocate: do you think invading Afghanistan and Iraq, destabilising the Middle East, and declaring “war on terror” has really made the world safer for Americans? I think the ideal you appeal to has been corrupted by commercial interests overriding security concerns.

[manigandham]

Yes, I do think we have problems with certain commercial interests overriding public welfare, in pretty much all industries. Bad actors exist everywhere and unfortunately can cause much chaos in such a powerful force as the modern military.

That being said, yes, the world is safer than ever before. There have been many mishaps and sadly some of them are because of pulling back on military action prematurely, leading to a lack of control and a power vacuum that fills the void with much more turbulence than before. Proper leadership and direction still matters, but when it counts the US military is still capable and willing to keep its citizens and many others out of trouble anywhere on the planet, and there is a lot to be said for that.

[FearOfReprisal]

Is our military capable? We've failed horrendously at two wars in Iraq and one war in Afghanistan. We like to claim that we defeated ISIS, but let's be real, we defeated ISIS in about the same way we defeated Germany, we let everybody else fight for us, then took the credit.

ISIS? PKK & YPG defeated ISIS, and as a thank you we're about to throw them under the bus to stay in the good graces of the Turkish dictator.

We hear a lot about the great might of the US military, and yes I will concede that we do manage to destroy a lot of countries, but we don't seem to win wars.

[Nimitz14]

You cannot be serious?! PKK & YPG would have gotten absolutely crushed without american airpower. Nevermind that USSOF is on the ground, if I remember correctly there are Rangers and some USMC artillery in Syria as well. There were hundreds of airstrikes in the Siege of Kobane alone. You seem to completely misinformed.

[manigandham]

The might of the US military is still beyond any other nation, even though that advantage is being threatened recently.

ISIS was very much defeated, and it was actually the lack of military followthrough that let it grow back, although it is still severely diminished. The citizens of those countries that were ravaged are incredibly thankful for US military assistance, and I advise you actually talk to some of them if you haven't before you pass judgement on what war you think was lost.

[FearOfReprisal]

The US military is mighty, but not terribly effective. I mean, we're 17 years into the second gulf war. 17 years and we still can't pull-out because we screwed up the first one so royally.

I'm writing this from a refugee community center here in Istanbul, the Ad'Dar Center, where I volunteer a couple of hours every day helping helping kids with their lessons, especially in English and Math, cooking, making music, talking, and listening. (To a lesser extent I help people with paperwork and UN refugee processes, but I don't really have the patience for bureaucracy, so I leave that to the experts).

I'm not a political or military expert, but over the past five years 25% of my life was spent backpacking around the middle-east / balkans / black sea / eastern block regions studying languages and music, while the other 75% has been spent living / studying / working in Istanbul. I say this so that you know my perspective is not that of a SJW sipping $10 lattes while pigging out on $20 avocado toasts in SOMA. I haven't been in a war, but I've been through a coup, bribed my way through checkpoints, volunteered at refugee camps in Bulgaria, Greece & Albania, and have spoken to many hundreds of people who have been privvy 1st-hand to direct and indirect American "wars". Back stateside, I grew up in Michigan and 1/2 of our family friends were Afghani & Iraqi engineers who had fled to the US in the 1980s (the other 1/2 were white-trash patriotic biker gangs. Michigan is a weird place).

As you would expect, the feelings and views about America here are quite varied and diverse, but the two constants that come up in every conversation:

- America should stop policing the middle-east, we do more harm than good. - Supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia makes us the real financiers of terrorism - America is using the Kurds, our best allies in the war against terror, and will be stabbing them in the back at the first opportunity for political favor

ISIS isn't defeated, by the way, they've just re-branded.

[manigandham]

Your comment history seems to show a made-up version of events where you also claim the US did nothing in WW2. I'm not sure what narrative you're trying to push but your personal history seems suspect on this basis, and the anonymous username doesn't help.

You're also conflating foreign policy with military strength. They are not the same and I'm talking about the latter. How that power is used and whether it's always the best idea can definitely be argued, but the fact that the power is necessary and that having it keeps the peace is most definitely not debatable.

When it comes down to it, there is no other military power willing and able to defend its own and others to such an extent, and that alone set it apart. Trying to weaken that stature will only result in greater harm for both US and foreign citizens.

[iainmerrick]

I’d like to point you to Robert Peel’s principles of policing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

The whole thing is great, but your comment particularly reminded me of 4:

“To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.”

30 seconds of glancing at the international news is enough to see that the world is a much more peaceful place than it was in the early 20th century, say.

It is definitely necessary to have a military, even if only as a deterrent, but it can also be counter-productive to depend on the military too much. Those aren’t contradictory statements.

[manigandham]

Police != military. Those principles don't really apply here as they are different forces both in duty and power.

A military can only act as a deterrent if it has the capability to actually pull off what it claims, otherwise it very quickly loses standing. It's far better to have the ability to defend and never need it then to be wishing you had it when something goes wrong.

There is no such world where you don't depend on the military. The world is literally controlled through violence. Everything comes down to either direct action or the threat of it (backed by the capabilities as mentioned). Sure you can avoid a lot through diplomatic means, and we should always look for peaceful solutions, but reducing military power is only done at your peril.

[iainmerrick]

Police != military

The US is (or was) often referred to as the world’s policeman. I think it’s a fairly useful analogy.

Police certainly can (and often do) control the populace through violence and intimidation. It’s also possible to reduce crime via cooperation and consent.

On the world stage, you can regard nations as individual actors and think about what those actors can do to coexist peacefully. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a brutal “survival of the fittest” struggle. The same strategies used by individuals could work at the nation state level too. And they do! Look at the role of treaties, trade deals, mutual migration, art and literature, economic interdependence, etc in maintaining the peace.

I am definitely not saying we don’t need a military. We sometimes need armed police too. But not every police officer needs to carry a gun around.

[manigandham]

I don't see how it's useful because it assumes the world is 1 country and we're only policing internally. Everything changes when you take away international borders and the idea of separate nations.

Regardless, I'm not sure where you disagree with the rest of my comment because I do say that diplomacy should come first, but it would be denying reality to suggest that the underlying foundation is not built upon military might and the threat of world-ending firepower. That is the real force keeping things civil and any upset to that balance can cause chaos real quick.

Peace never lasts forever, so you either have a strong military and hopefully never have to use it, or you're just counting down the days until pain and suffering are at your doorstep.

[gaius]

A military can only act as a deterrent if it has the capability to actually pull off what it claims

Consider that the US military has lost every war since it was one of the victors of WW2 along with the UK and Russia. And it didn’t make any difference. All those wars were entirely optional and the consequences of losing them were nonexistent. So what’s it all for, really?

[XalvinX]

Well, it's not "all for" opium, but let's face it, it is an important trade......

[manigandham]

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. The world isn't static so of course there were consequences.

I'm not saying the military is perfect or that everything it does is right (and much of that is due to the whims of leadership), but that having a strong military is an option that most wish they had because they see first-hand what it's like without. There is no substitute for that power and it's easy to overlook in the several decades and generations of relative peace that has endured so far.

[gaius]

When America was defeated in Vietnam, the next thing that happened was not the NVA burning down the White House. In fact there was never any possibility of that happening nor a threat to the US mainland.

[manigandham]

So every other country is some tiny 3rd world nation? You do realize there are major superpowers that are currently kept at bay through the promise of force? Or do you think they’re just being nice?

[Amygaz]

Stop watching Fox News /s

Kidding aside: It has already been shown that every century is less violent than the preceding one. This has nothing to do with military per se, but a lot to do with improvement in social norms helped by technologies. Steven Pinker is a good debater on that topic.

[ionised]

> Feelings rarely ever help in these situations.

So don't go with feelings, go with facts.

Any real reading into the US' military and intelligence operations in South America, Africa and the Middle East should be all the evidence you need.

[manigandham]

Evidence of what? The American people are safe and sound and the interests of America are still protected, and very few countries even think about threatening us here, thanks to a strong military force.

Those ares you mentioned would be better off if they had a strong military to keep order and protect their citizens.

[dnomad]

Strange. I've come to find that most who think the modern military is primarily a "defense force" are wholly deluded about what the history actually does and its history.

[manigandham]

Sure, it acts in the interests of the state, and as a citizen of that state, it acts in my interests, one of which is my defense. It's a complex definition but I'm interested in what you think is so deluded?

[throwaway2048]

Its arguable that the US military has never fought a defensive war in its entire history.

[opless]

You might have forgotten WW2?

[FearOfReprisal]

To be fair, America didn't really win WW2, we hardly even fought, mostly we just supplied Hitler with arms, and when that wasn't fashionable anymore, we supplied the allies with arms.. Then we swooped in at the end to take all the credit and the fat construction contracts.

[jcranmer]

That is wrong on just about every level.

In the 20s and the early 30s (that is to say, before Hitler rose to power), the US brokered efforts to reduce the burden of WWI reparations, as well as inject loans into Germany to help its moribund economy. FDR was opposed to Hitler, and would have brought the US into the war earlier, but US public opinion was firmly isolationist. Even then, the US was neutral really in name only, as it devised conditions for selling weapons that amounted to "only the UK can buy them." Yes, the US logistical support to the Allies was crucial both to keeping them collapsing and actually decisively winning the war, but the US military did prove superior to both Axis and other Allies in several regards, most notably artillery, amphibious assaults, and carrier operations.

[ekianjo]

Ever heard of the independence war?