[wolverine876]

> funding the mujahideen

Blowback keeps happening. IIRC, the modern Central American drug gangs were born of US funding and training of anti-Communist forces in the 1980s.

Remember it next time someone says, 'let's send arms to those insurgents!' Obama dialed it back, partly for that reason (AFAIK). Biden apparently has embraced a policy of 'restraint', with the idea that outcomes from US intervention often are counter-productive.

(I don't support it - instead, accept the challenge and find better interventions. Quitting is a bizarre solution IMHO. People still need freedom, and need help.)

[lindseymysse]

I always thought we could do well parachuting in cell phones into these hot spots, and these cell phones get $50 usd or maybe a little more transferred to accounts tied to that number.

Then we could have incentives -- hey, go to this mosque, not that one and we'll pay you $20 more a week.

It would be cheaper than what we do now and would be a lot more effective than dropping bombs on wedding parties.

[wolverine876]

Very interesting. As you may know, there's research showing that if you just give people cash (or other liquid forms of money), they spend it well and it's highly efficient. It's very interesting to apply that to conflict.

We do sometimes buy off governments, effectively, via foreign aid.

[loonster]

Obama did not dial it back. His ATF moved guns across the southern border which resulted in US deaths (Fast and Furious).

Gave weapons to Syrian rebels.

Gave weapons to Libyan rebels.

[wolverine876]

That they did some doesn't mean they didn't reduce it. If I say I'm drinking less, drinking one beer doesn't contradict it.

> Gave weapons to Syrian rebels.

That was the main place they limited supplying arms, IIRC. For example, (again IIRC) the US wouldn't send portable anti-aircraft weapons.