[mc32]

And you can’t think of what would happen if we just let things happen out there?

Yes we’re made monumental mistakes like Arab spring and gulf war II. But those would pale compared to what would happen if we just let things go. All those repressed military desires by dictators everywhere suddenly given a green light.

[salex89]

Being on the side "kept in check", believe me, we were better off on ourselves. Dictators fall one way or another, 3rd party military intervention is rarely selective and not a bit subtle with the collaterals.

[mc32]

That’s a difficult position to be in. It’s lose-lose. Dictators can last generations and drive countries needlessly into the ground (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, etc.) Interventions are blunt instruments (interestingly some US Democrat candidates put forth the idea of intervening in Honduras... Democrats...)

[luckylion]

> It’s lose-lose.

The size of the losses aren't the same, though. Saddam was by no means a benevolent Dictator, and he had plenty of people disappear, tortured and executed. But not nearly anywhere close to the number of people that died because of the Regime Change campaign.

And don't forget: a dictator usually keeps order. A civil war, ISIS roaming through the no-mans-land etc is much worse than a cruel strongman.

[salex89]

I hear you. But I just want to add one more perspective, when there is an intervention, the intervening party (US in this case) technically aligns with someone from the conflict. That might be a political oppositional force, it might be a national majority, it might be a region which is or is not a part of a country. Usually there is already some kind of conflict going on. I don't have any data, but from my own experience, a lot of people are not with either side, and they suffer greatly. It might be because of the sheer despair of the situation or the "oppressing" or "opposing" force. And don't be led to think that the force supported by the US plays nicely without war crimes, offence and with pure motives. Sometimes the party supported by the US has it's own agenda which aligns with the US and it is just beneficial to be supported. I guess that it makes sense and the great US wouldn't be the US without that kind of strategy.

This went political, and the topic was ecology. As this wasn't bad enough, this all goes with a huge ecological toll which impacts a broader number of people than those involved in conflict.

[isostatic]

Cuba and Venezuela are both products of U.S. interference

North Korea is Soviet (and later China) interference, but the U.S. was involved

Zimbabwes problem dates back to Brtitish interference, and now like the rest of Africa is starting to fall under China's influence.

Once you interfere, it can take generations to recover

[sailingparrot]

> All those repressed military desires by your actors are everywhere suddenly given a green light.

Too bad there is no one to repress the military desires by your American actors that are given green light to start arbitrary wars around the world, right?

[rat9988]

I'm pretty sure countries' citizen as Lybia, Afghanistan, Syria, Irak would be way better without the US.

[louhike]

Let's not forget what has been done in South America.

[Fjolsvith]

Well, hey. The current administration is pulling the US out of areas and treating your countries like sovereigns now.

[mc32]

It’s so odd. Watching the debates, it’s unfathomable that we have candidates calling for intervention in Honduras.... Democrat candidates... one could be forgiven for thinking this was Bush’s war-hawk party...

[dashundchen]

Who was calling for military intervention? I only watched the first debate which had calls for increased humanitarian aid.

[refurb]

Maybe in Iraq, but Lybia, Afghanistan and Syria would be even worse without foreign intervention.

[ssijak]

My soul hurts a bit when I see people from a privileged position of power write this and judging the world in simplistic terms. You say Lybia is better now, destroyed and torn by war, with no real government in sight, with ISIS there and civil war, thousands dead and economy destroyed is better than with Gadaffi and with biggest economy by far in Africa and with law and order (however that law and order is achived)? War destroyed Syria is better than before? And dont give me that "Asad used poison gas on his people" dumb excuse as a reason why US got into that war. Because US had no problem when they supported Sadam attacking Iran with poisonous gases, or when he used it on Kurd civilians, where US even supplied it to him.

I just hope US never experience this types of logic on their soil if in some future US loses world dominance and some other power decides that US "needs liberation".

[refurb]

I’m sorry your soul hurts.

I didn’t say it’s better now. What I said was that a lot of those places have a tumultuous history of instability (Afghanistan) or are run by dictators where a violent power struggle is a certain eventuality (Libya, Syria).

Gadaffi was going to lose power eventually (through death is certain) and the power struggle that results is going to be ugly.

[reallydude]

> US had no problem when they supported Sadam attacking Iran with poisonous gases

And that was in the past? The US had no problem segregating schools at one point. It's not compelling to bringing up an ancient relationship, where not a single person involved in the whataboutism, is still in power.

We have the internet and extremely timely war coverage now. That no longer flies.

[cf141q5325]

Have you looked at any of the countries you listed recently? Everyone has had a substantial ISIS presence as the result of the involvement, that alone says it all. They are also all still active warzones.

Lybia is still a country in a bloody civil war with local warlords and militias fighting for power. The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan is still growing yearly, with a ever increasing opium production and the Afghan National Police is also far from upholding law and order. And have you looked at Syria? Its a bloody proxy war with barely enough involvement to keep the conflict going at the cost of the civilian population. Not to mention the groups being supported by weapon shipments are fundamentalist Islamist, most notably splinter groups of Al Quaida. I am having a hard time as seeing it as anything else then a Afghanistan revival with the support of jihadist groups to keep the soviets busy.

[glogla]

As someone from Eastern Europe who would be Russian subject by now if it weren't for NATO, you have my thanks.

[isostatic]

NATO didn't attack anyone. The USSR fell on its own, Eastern Europe became free from within.

Defending a country with a set of borders is very different to the capability of the U.S. military, and relying on a country you have no say in for your defence is never a one way deal.

[ataturk]

I wouldn't say "let things go" but let's face facts: The US has bases all over the world. We occupy dozens of countries for nebulous reasons. If global security is that fragile, when is it ever going to not be?

My second thought is that the US MIC is out for itself. It would be one thing if we had a defense system like the Swiss which I look at as pretty sensibly invested civil defense infrastructure (which, btw, the Swiss are rapidly losing as they forget the lessons of the past). Instead, we spend billions on expensive, fancy technical weapons systems that don't necessarily measure up. For example, the Littoral Combat Ship that has an aluminum hull that cracks in cold water. Or the F35 which has to be one of the biggest aeronautical boondoggles in history. We just keep pouring billions down rat holes because of corporatism. I currently work in the health insurance biz and it's the same tune--billions going in all kinds of odd directions in order to make money but outcomes haven't changed or have gotten worse. But our stock price is great!