[rejor121]

In my humble opinion, I feel like many commenters here aren’t veterans or don’t understand how thin the line is between a stable and unstable world. Or simply don’t care to look deeper at why the USA military does what it does, along with the different three letter agencies.

Yeah, a lot of mistakes have been made. Many of them will continue to be made. The hope is that we still leave the world better off than it was before.

Inaction can lead to just as bad a result, if not worse, than taking an educated action at all. It’s simple to sit there behind the desk reading articles and history when you’re not one making the decisions, good or bad.

[vollmond]

> It’s simple to sit there behind the desk reading articles and history when you’re not one making the decisions, good or bad.

We are participants in those decisions, on both sides. We are part of the targets of those decisions (eg domestic spying, provision of military equipment to local and regional police forces), as well as tacit supporters of those decisions (or do you think an American civilian can travel the world without being blamed for those mistakes? I have heard of a lot of Canadian flags being added to travel luggage...).

Our tax money pays to kill children in deserts. Our tax money pays to destabilize governments. Our parents and children and brothers and sisters who ARE veterans directly participate in executing those bad decisions. And then many of them commit suicide. My father shot himself three years ago, near his 50th anniversary of shipping out to Vietnam, because of the mistakes he was part of there and later which stayed with him for so many decades. I don't think our second-guessing of those decisions taken in our name is at all inappropriate.

> Yeah, a lot of mistakes have been made. Many of them will continue to be made.

There must be a threshold of "too many" or "too heinous" mistakes at which point one stops trying to improve an organization and instead withdraws support, right? Otherwise it may as well be a religion.

[throwawayyou]

This is colorful role-play. When you get older you'll write better with fewer cliches.

> It’s simple to sit there behind the desk...

Most of DoD employees, including enlisted men, sit behind desks most of the day.

The military is an excellent welfare institution. One of the limited forms of socially celebrated welfare in a lot of the United States, like the South.

[glenda]

Military violence can make the world more unstable too. Especially when many civilians are killed. There is no way to actually determine if military action taken by the US has been a net positive for the world.

[buscoquadnary]

There are a lot of Jews that exist today because of US military action that would like to weigh in on the net positive impact of the US military actions, as well as several million Koreans that don't have to live in "best Korea" to are pretty supportive of it.

[8note]

Said Jews were previously New Yorkers, and would also be fine in New York too.

Theres a lot of Palestinians subjected to war crimes that aren't very excited about the same US military action

[glenda]

And in the years since we have killed millions of people in Vietnam and hundreds of thousands in the Middle East and we’re currently bankrolling what many people consider to be a genocide in Palestine.

There have been several successful actions, but we’re talking about the net impact not specific instances.

[UnpossibleJim]

So, in the 2022 released budget military spending accouted for 10 percent of all spending and 50% of discretionary spending. While we're spending that on active campaigns (not the dark ones), we aren't spending that on health care, education, infrastructure or disaster. Not to mention a cracking and floundering legal system in dire need of reform.

We outspend every other country by a lot, including China and Russia combined... and then the next three added on top. We are not the only world power who has a moral obligation to keep the world safe, if that is what you say we are doing.

I say this as the son of an Army veteran who died to 5 different cancers caused from agent orange, only 3 of which would the VA cover after we fought (hard) with them. And the cousin to a Navy admiral whose almost up to his 25 years.

[buscoquadnary]

Ya, but we have been the ones to keep the world order stable the rest of the world powers consist of the EU, Russia and China. China is currently actively prosecuting a campaign of religious genocide, Russia speaks for itself, and the countries in the EU that are part of NATO don't even contribute the amount of money they agreed to, much less have a willingness to send soldiers to fight and die in some other corner of the world.

The fact of the matter is the US is one of only 3 powers that can help maintain a stable world order, that reduces piracy, stops things like ISIS, and helps keep megolmanical dictators like Kim Jung Un in check.

You can argue other countries should be willing to contribute to that, but they don't. So those are your options China, Russia, or the US. You let me know which one you'd prefer, because as much as you don't like it those are your choices.

[UnpossibleJim]

Kim Jong Un doesn't exist without China, full stop. ISIS doesn't exist without the US and Russia. Those existential threats are pawns in a greater game left over from the 50's, 80's and 90's.

As for the EU, why would they meet their obligations when they could spend their money elsewhere? They're the fat 30 year old bachelor playing video games in their parents spare bedroom because they were never forced to leave. The US needs to take a step back and make them pay their own check at some point. It's time for the adults in the room to start adulting.

[sudosysgen]

It makes no sense to day Kim Jong Un doesn't exist without China. China has an interest in preventing a massive refugee crisis on their borders and are thus interested in the stability of North Korea.

Unless you think China should regime change North Korea and risk the death and displacement of millions of people?

If they could get Kim out without massive disaster then they would have done it yesterday. He causes them a lot of issues and they have been very reluctant to help him - they would have been well within their rights to, for example, veto all sanctions against North Korea.

[UnpossibleJim]

It's relatively well and widely known that the Kim Jung's and the military are supplied by China, partially to keep the peace, but partially as a diversionary state under their thumb. It isn't even conspiracy theory at this point, when retired generals start talking and writing about it.

N. Korea's population and military would have broken away long ago under such conditions without some outside support.

[sudosysgen]

It's not a diversionary state, it's really just a buffer, ie, not immediately hostile.

It's very very well documented that the Chinese are incredibly displeased with Kim Jong Un. Plenty of retired generals talk and write about it.

NK's population and military breaking away without outside support is far from guaranteed to bring a better outcome for anyone. It's not clear to me a military dictatorship is going to be less brutal or repressive than the Kims and it's not clear either that the population could ever break from the yoke of the military should the Kims lose power.

[seanw444]

There hasn't been a single generally good armed conflict the US has participated in since the Korean war. And there are ones we didn't participate in that we absolutely should have. Like when the CCP obliterated the ROC. They're lucky they still have an island to occupy.

[8note]

From a non-american perspective, it's purpose is empire. Making sure that Americans can force other countries into following certain trade or security rules without doing so itself.

Among those purposes is to ensure that dictators maintain power and can torture their citizens, to ensure that american companies have control over said countries natural resources and pollute the environment with impunity.

To like the American military is the same as to like the american police. Sure, beating up random black people is good for somebody, but that doesn't mean that there isn't good in not beating up random black people.

[mythrwy]

To me it doesn't appear the hope is actually that we leave the world better off then before.

Otherwise the actions of the US Military and intelligence services would be much different, with longer term consequences thought through and impacts on peoples lives taken into broader consideration.

To me, it looks like the hope is actually maintaining financial control of the resources of other nations. Every action I see indicates that.

But the US is hardly alone in this respect either, just the most recent example.

[the_only_law]

> Inaction can lead to just as bad a result, if not worse

Those damn soviets would have won if we didn’t torture US citizens.