Big Picture #1 : Desert Storm

The way the United States wages war has changed a lot in the past few decades.

Throughout human history, wars have been waged to accomplish 1 main goal: Get more stuff.

That "stuff" is usually the other side's land and everything that comes with it.  Waging war for material gain makes a lot of sense.  

If I'm going to put my life on the line, I should stand to gain something tangible and important.  

Somewhere along the way, 1st World countries decided that waging war for material gain is uncivilized, and so now, we fight smaller, endless wars all over the world.  We fight in drips and drabs.  We let wars linger.  A Hyper Modern war has no clear path to victory, and there is no clear vision of what victory would even look like.  I don't see nearly enough tangible benefit up for grabs in the current Hyper Modern wars that the U.S. is fighting.  Primarily I'm talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.  

-------

It's a disservice to our soldiers to conduct operations this way.  If soldiers could die while a piece of territory is being fought over, then we should be committed to keeping that territory in our possession afterwards.  If a military engagement can't meet that criteria, you have to give me some other great reason why the hell we're going in there.

How many lives and dollars are being lost as we try to reshape both the people and landscape of Afghanistan?  Meanwhile, as we fight these cave dwelling blocks of terrorists that never seem to fully die, the guys we train to become the Afghanistan military turn around and kill the same U.S. forces that were helping them.  Again... what would victory even look like in this particular war?   

I have come to the conclusion that our conflict in Afghanistan does more good for the U.S. war machine than it does for the U.S. in general.  There is a contingent of people that is perfectly happy with these types of wars, because it benefits them directly, as they are a part of that war machine.  They pocket blood money from a safe distance while the world goes to hell.  As more weapons and equipment are bought and sold, I think about all of the amazing things we could have done with the money that has been burnt through and forever lost in the God forsaken hellscape that is Afghanistan.

-------

There are people in the U.S. who are completely against any kind of socialist program in our country, because they see it as a parasitic hand out that enables lazy people.  They might say, "How are you going to pay for all these socialist programs?" or "You're not using my tax dollars just so some lazy bum can collect welfare."

A good counter point to this sentiment, is: "How are we going to pay for endless wars that cannot be won?  What about all of those unchecked dollars?  What have these wars brought us in return?"

It's the same pile of tax money.  

I'm not saying government money should be distributed recklessly, because yes, there is so much waste out there, but a lot more good could be done for certain U.S. citizens who actually deserve help.

And then there's this angle that is both comically absurd and illuminating.  Think about this:  Hey.  Uncle Sam.  Can you fire one less missile, give me the money, and make me a millionaire?  That would be just super.  No one will ever notice.  That one less missile isn't going to make a difference in Afghanistan, but the money would change my life forever.  Think about that.    

-------

One of the biggest turning points in recent years was Desert Storm 1, in the year 1990.  The U.S. pushed Saddam and the boys out of Kuwait, with very minimal effort mind you, and then that was it for a long time, until we showed up again for Desert Storm 2 after September 11th, 2001.

This was our chance.  The chance of a lifetime.  Regardless of the 2 different motivations behind each chapter of this war, regardless of whatever other details were part of the equation, Desert Storm 1 was our chance in the Middle East.  If the U.S. had just finished the job the first time, the world would be a very different place right now.  It would have been relatively easy. 

The U.S. should have taken Iraq.  THIS was a war that was utterly, completely winnable.  You kill Saddam early instead of later and then fill that power vacuum yourself.  You set up shop.  Iraq becomes a U.S. territory.  Right now we are hoping to turn Iraq back over to the Iraqis, a people who have basically zero experience running things and making big decisions for themselves.  The key difference between the philosophy of the Western World and the philosophy of the Middle East, is this:

The Western World wants its citizens to realize their potential because that is better for the society overall.  When individuals strive for greater things, it improves the entire society in the long run.     

The Middle East wants to repress people and control them to a high degree.  The society doesn't reach its full potential, but the dictators in charge are fine with that, because they get to stay  forever entrenched in "the good life."  There won't be any election or exchange of power. 

In the spectrum of human societies, someone was going to do it the "freedom" way, and some other group of people was going to go the "repression" way.  And now, our destinies are intertwined.  

So, what if the U.S. had taken over Iraq during Desert Storm 1?

(1) ISIS wouldn't exist, because the conditions for such a group wouldn't exist. 

(2) The U.S. would finally have a strong foothold in the Middle East.  This is the most dangerous and troublesome area on the map.  The closer eye you can keep on it, the better.  

(3) The U.S. would have a much easier time supporting Israel because now we have this outpost in the neighborhood.

(4) Gasoline and other fossil fuel products would be incredibly cheap for the U.S. and its trading partners.

(5) The oil producing nations in the Middle East would be weakened because now their oil is not as valuable.

The U.N. would have condemned this kind of blunt aggression, but so what?  The U.S. is the team captain of the U.N., so as much grief as they'd give the U.S., it would just be a bunch of empty words in the end, and those same countries that complained about the U.S. way of doing things would be lining up to buy that cheap fossil fuel.

As a side note, I believe the human race needs to continue developing green energy sources, but in the meantime, the Iraqi oil would have been an incredible boost.   

-------

This Hyper Modern approach to warfare makes me think back to the chess parallel.  In both Hyper Modern warfare as well as Hyper Modern chess, the goal is the same: To control the desired area without actually being there.  I believe this philosophy can work in a game of chess, but it is a mistake when applied to real life war.

Either do a cannonball into the deep end and finish the job... or stay inside your house.  Don't walk up to the pool just to dip your toes in.

Right now we are in the middle, stuck somewhere between 0% and 100%.  In life, the "inbetween" is what kills you.  You have to eventually pick a direction.   



Final side note: I consider World War II to be the most important event in human history.  That war was not just fought for material gain, but was also fought to literally save the world from, you know,

THE DEVIL.

While every war has shades of gray, some have less than others, and I consider World War II to be the most clear cut instance of "good vs. evil" in human history, because one side's vision for the future was sooo much darker than the other's.

Good thing we won.