Thousands of California soldiers forced to repay enlistment bonuses
latimes.com
latimes.com
How is this possible? If private businesses could do this, it would be mayhem.
You need to be a special kind of bastard to ask some one who willingly signed up to get shot at while defending their country to pay back any amount of money they got paid for doing so.
Wars aren't pretty, regardless of what you think about them, and especially about Iraq and Afghanistan never ever take it out on the soldiers, they are probably on your side because unlike most of us they actually seen war.
Soldiers don't decide when, where or against whom to go to war, they are not at fault I never understood how the left in the US could blame people who either got drafted (vietnam) or signed up to defend their country (post 9/11) for the atrocities of war.
If you sign up to become a fire-fighter or paramedic, you will never be in a position where the machine you are a piece of requires / encourages you to kill people who don't need killing.
The fact is that there are parts of war / military life that are more exciting than being a fire-fighter, say. It's also culturally reinforced and lauded.
I've almost signed up at various times, but I view it as a form of "combat tourism."
We have almost a century of literature and culture devoted to uncovering the dark side of modern warfare. In addition, we have a large number of cases where our own governments have lied to us that are well documented, and entirely uncontroversial.
That said, I still see the appeal. It's just not a situation I want to allow myself to be put in.
If I'm understanding that correctly, I can follow that chain of reasoning.
It looks like you're also making the claim that if they've done bad things they're not allowed to complain if something bad happens to them. I don't know if that's an accurate interpretation of what you're saying, so please do correct or clarify.
I'm not trying to be argumentative or critical. I'm trying to understand your position. The politics and tragedy that surrounds the situation can make these discussions problematic.
Thanks!
Edit: I worked on the wording on this and I'm still not happy with it because I think it can still be read as being condescending or uncharitable. That is definitely not the intent. I'm open to suggestions for wording improvements as well!
I mean soldiers know when they sign up that they might be required to do bad things. They agree to do those bad things to save themselves from poverty/unemployment/etc. I don't think that's right. They're using their own problems to justify creating worse problems for other people.
Not so general as "if you do bad things, you can't complain" but more like "If you do very bad things and kill people and get away with it, you can't complain about minor inconveniences like refinancing your house". Although they are separate issues, since soldiers aren't going to face justice for their crimes, why not look at their lost money as a kind of coincidental punishment?
And maybe...maybe, I'd agree that the ends justify the means IF that was the intent. But since this is the Pentagon doling out the punishment . . .
If you believe that the wars were illegal, this is a double whammy. The Pentagon is by far the biggest criminal and they benefit the most from this punishment.
I'd like to separate the determination of which acts are good and which are bad from the reasoning of the argument itself. Is that fair?
I think there are many reasons people sign up, and that most people sign up in good faith and don't expect to be asked to do bad things. I don't think they perform some mental calculus like "I'm willing to risk doing bad things to escape poverty".
I can see how one might find a sort of karmic justice in the situation. And it's a part of human psychology to tend to wish bad things on bad people. After all, they deserve it, right? :) I know I'm guilty of feeling this on occasion.
However, I don't agree with it. If you believe the soldiers did very bad things, I wouldn't think the lost money--not associated with the bad acts--would be satisfying justice. Linking them this way could even weaken your stance, opening you up to accusations of wishing ill rather than seeking justice. I don't think such accusations are a good or fair argument--and not one I'm making or implying--but I can imagine someone uncharitably making it.
Does this make sense? I admit it's got aspects of reasoning combined with perception, but I think both need to be taken into account, especially when discussing issues that are potentially controversial.
What do you think?
Is superior orders a valid defense? No. [1]
And while I'm loosely in the camp that feels that the 2nd Iraq war was a war of aggression, this action by the Pentagon is completely unrelated.
I'm still wet behind the ears here and am not familiar with all of the jargon. What does this mean? I take it you're scoping your response in some way but it's not clear to me what scope is intended.
If you're responding to my comment ("The military in and of itself isn't necessarily bad"), my only intent was to make sure I understood Hondor, not to make any claims myself. If that wasn't clear, I'll endeavor to be clearer in the future.
I'm making it clear that I'm responding but I'm not Hondor (aka, the parent comment to your comment). You don't generally have to be explicit, but since your questions were very much directed at him, I didn't want you to accidentally read that and think it was from "Hondor". I also didn't want Hondor to think I was putting words in his mouth (again, because it was a very one-on-one discussion).
The reason I did reply though was that regardless of any individual belief, there's some facts / laws about this that should be considered.
Yeah, your points were useful, and close to ones I was thinking as well. I was just a little confused by the "you guys are conflating" as I wasn't making any claims, but that's minor, and I should have probably just let it go. Pedantry will get me nowhere!
Of course, the military fulfils a necessary function. Unfortunately, it is often used for ill, and there's no sign of that ending. So, one might choose to not offer oneself as a tool to be used by corrupt or evil masters, except in the most direct cases of self-defence.
Regarding the scenario you've laid out: in general, people will do what they need to do for family survival, me included. But, if I steal or I kill to save my family you are right to criticise me.
Additionally, how is that any different from the choices in front of the people whose countries we go and invade?
In Restreppo, e.g. the captain lectures villagers after an Apache strike kills and maims a number of civilians. It was basically, why do you allow the Taliban to shoot from your village, so that I have to come and kill your sons?
Exactly the same argument applies in reverse. If you voluntarily join the aggressive American military machine, you're no better than the villagers who we kill for failing to root out the Taliban.
If you're a Sunni in Iraq and you're being massacred by Shia death-squads, then why is it wrong to support this ISIL gang who promise to protect you? You see where this argument leads?
I have sympathy for US soldiers, but I have more sympathy for civilians facing worse choices in the countries that we tend to invade or intervene in.
There are ways to serve that do not make you part of a machine that has historically been used to commit mayhem and murder on a vast scale.
EDIT> None of the above means that I think it is justifiable to claw back these enlistment bonuses. A promise was made to these enlistees, and it should be honoured. Is there an estimate of the total cost to forgive all of these repayments?
Similarly, not everyone in Vietnam got drafted, and even if they were drafted, that's no excuse for the abuses there. If you're signed up to fight against your will, that's no excuse for taking part in activities such as the My Lai massacre. Where is the moral high ground in punishing innocent foreigners because your government on the other side of the world forced you to fight?
Some, because it's a family tradition. Others, because they believe in serving their country. And many others, because it presents them with an economic opportunity they would never otherwise have had: college, vocational training, and increased social status.
Very few join hoping to go to war. I doubt that most of the people sent to invade Iraq truly wanted to be there.
And when they went, they were sold a well-scripted dog-and-pony show about how they were defending the freedom of the Iraqi people, about how they were there to fight a horrible dictator that murdered countless innocent lives.
Those people are not to blame, and certainly not to be held responsible, for the utter failure of both our political system and our media, which is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lapdog.
Also, something most civilians don't know is that military service isn't like a regular job.
In civilian life, you can quit your job whenever you want. In the military, while you may be able to change your job and re-train for a new one, it's not that common. Also, you do your job until you finish your term of service, or you go to jail. Only way out is to be assessed by a military doctor as unfit to serve.
In civilian life, if you screw up, screw off, or screw around, the worst that will probably happen is being fired.
In the military, at best you will face Non-Judicial Punishment for minor infractions (show up late to work once), and at worst you go to jail (keep showing up late for work).
How severely punished you will be is in large part up to your boss (commanding officer).
What makes it worse is that most people only see the marketing campaign before they join (pay for college! defend freedom!). But after they enlist, they discover that they don't get the job they were promised (we're full up on surgical assistants and aircraft mechanics, so you'll be sent to train for food service), that they spend countless hours on utterly pointless work (yet another safety briefing), and that overall, the life of a service member is pretty much the opposite of glamorous.
You don't need to worship the uniform, or agree with what the US Government does, to at least appreciate that people who serve in the military are, generally speaking, at worst a bunch of well-meaning Americans that are doing the best job they can in a situation that they largely can't control.
Oh, and once you get out? Getting all that college funding and a lifetime of government healthcare ranges from "easy peasy" to "tell me again why I made a deal with the unholy spawn of Initech from Office Space and Satan's legal team"
It's not just the media's fault, it's every person who shows sympathy for soldiers and reinforces the idea that it's a good thing to do.
You should show empathy, not sympathy for Soldiers. We don't want your freaking sympathy(from former Soldier), most just want opportunity. If you want to stop people from signing up for the US Army then here's what you have to do: 1) End inequality in America 2) End the spiraling healthcare costs (adding a single payer would likely go a long way) 3) Provide a means for formal education and social support for everyone. It's not enough to teach people, there's life skills a vast swath of America misses out on. 4) Fix the credit rating system. It amazes me that this is even allowed. Security check, sure...credit? Give me a break, just another form of discrimination.
Do all those things and we can start to level the playing field. Until then we'll likely need public jobs programs (and the military is indeed such a program, even if it is also something much more) to throw folks a rope to climb towards the American dream.
Obamacare was introduced just before the US healthcare system would go into the red (be a net cost for the government, as opposed to a source of income) and delayed that by creating new income for the government. This was not a coincidence.
The whole purpose of Obamacare was to make healthcare less expensive for the government, by putting more of the burden on the population, without being a new tax. It is very far from an accident that healthcare costs have spiraled.
But Obamacare only delayed the government budget drain until somewhere between 2018 and 2020 according to the congressional budget office. So "Obamacare 2" is coming in the next president's term, don't worry. It might even have single payer, as obviously raising costs is not a compelling public message.
But it must raise costs. There's no other option. It must raise costs to get back into balance, as the US government has borrowed massively from the healthcare system and is in no position to pay back any of it, so it cannot be allowed to have more outflows than inflows. The consequences would be too great. Well, actually, unlike most of the rest of the world the US could choose to defund the military to a significant extent and actually get a few more years of healthcare out of it (but we'd be talking 10-20% budget loss for the military at least, and as you point out that would rob more than a few young people of economic opportunity). But it would only delay matters, it can't solve them.
What can you do ? Nothing really. Too few people paying into a system with too many dependents. More kids was the answer, but obviously those would have had to have been born 20-25 years ago. Right now, more kids would only put more load on the system for the first few decades. Massively opening up immigration could work in theory, but if Europe is any indication, it won't.
Of course, all of this is assuming there won't be an economic crisis, and at this point, we're overdue one.
Similarly, it doesn't matter if you signed up to defend your country and were lied to, it still does not mean perpetrators get a pass on atrocities like the ones committed in Vietnam. No, not all soldiers did, but enough did to take that 'well-meaning' shine off.
The media also wasn't as unified as you suggest. I'm not even American and I saw plenty of different comedians mocking Powell's 'poster project' at the time, and there were plenty of American voices crying that there wasn't enough justification to invade Iraq. While there is some naivity to blame in going 'over there' (it's why the military recruit the young, after all), there is also some willful ignorance. To be clear, I don't think that soldiers are by default at fault, but at the same time, I don't agree with the current "never criticise a soldier" ethos coming out of the US at the moment. If it's as shit as you say, then soldiers should be coming back and telling everyone they can about the horror, and stopping kids from signing up, and generally that isn't happening.
In any case, if you want to risk your life in the service of your country, be a cop. You will directly serve the people in your community, and the greater country in general. If you want to fight for freedom, be a legal aid lawyer. Pay is as shit as the military, but you're directly helping people in need against forces they can't fight alone.
They served. They were certainly misused and misdeployed, but they served their country, they lost limbs, lives, time and the innocence that most of us enjoy our entire lives, and they deserve respect and support. Not worship; merely respect and support.
Words matter, and if you actually care about people losing their lives and innocence in these wars, then you should totally be on board with not calling the US military adventurism in Iraq "defending their country". It's mythologising the event in a way that's likely to get more people to sign up, when you should be getting fewer people to do so. The US unilaterally decided to invade a sovereign country that was no threat to it in the slightest, a country that was on the other side of the world, and that the US's own allies were begging the US to hold off. That is not 'defending'. 'Serving', yes, but not 'defending'. It also didn't do much for 'Freedom' in the area - one country is destroyed, another is imploding, and Europe is a little destabilised, all due to this adventurism.
If you care about people in general, you should call it what it is. Don't abuse soldiers who didn't do abuses themselves, but at the same time, don't mythologise them and chest-beat about how patriotic it is to go and kill brown people that aren't a threat to the people back home. Yes, 5000 US soldiers are dead, but that's only 1% of the death toll in Iraq from the invasion, and that doesn't include the knock-on effects in Syria. There was an article recently on HN about how even the guy who toppled the statue of Saddam in that famous photo-op, even he would rather live under Hussein's regime than modern Iraq.
If you want this kind of horror to stop happening, then people need to stop getting misty-eyed about serving their country in ways that are clearly not defence. There's a difference between 'not respecting' and 'not wanting the lie propagated'. Then the next time this kind of thing happens, there's not going to be a fresh source of recruits.
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/pentagon/#article/part1
Another similar situation that came up when I was searching down the first article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pentagon-bomb-squad...
It's been happening for decades now. On the whole, the Pentagon budget is one of the few (perhaps the only?) Federal budgets that is so screwed up that it can't even be audited. The pay for soldiers is just the tip of the iceberg here, contractors are also getting massively overpaid and the USG is not nearly as good about clawing those back (since contractors can fight back). Literally hundreds of billions of dollars each year are moving around these systems, and we cannot even reliably trace where they are going.
There's no political will to fix this because people automatically assume military = classified and golly we can't audit classified books. Another huge part of the population has a totemic fetishization of the military and criticising their books translates to criticizing the military itself. So in turn we end up tolerating terrible bookkeeping that would never be allowed in another Federal department let alone the private sector...
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/07/31/Pentagon-s-Sloppy-B...
The USG civil retirement system is similarly weird and terrible. Please reference: the giant cave system where they have to keep multiple hundreds of thousands of square feet of cabinets full of paper records.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/03/22/sinkhol...
This terrible mess of ancient, individual systems is replicated all over the USG. The VA system operates similarly (cited above). During the 2011 and 2013 default crises the Treasury systems had no way of controlling individual payments, knowing the overall reserves at a future point in time, or even knowing when individual payments were going to happen.
I know from personal experience that if the military overpays you for anything, there's often no warning between when they find the error and when they garnish your paycheck. SOP is to take everything back at once, leaving the servicemember with nothing and with no warning. DFAS is supposed to send a letter of indebtedness to give the family time to prepare for any financial adjustments, this often arrives after the first garnishment.
Compulsory involves conscription or a draft, I'm not sure how the "jail or army" thing is classified but since you are given a choice it's technically stelly voluntary.
The "professional" classification of the army doesn't mean it's voluntary professional means that you can be a career soldier and you are paid for doing so even if you are drafted, conscripts on the other hand are not paid other than a small stipend.
That said once you sign up the contract this isn't a job, you can't quit, you can't "call in sick", can't say no to anything, you are effectively forced to give up certain rights for the duration of the contract.
There's a better than good chance they just started docking 100% of his pay without telling them anywhere but their pay stub, then put them in a situation where it takes man-days at a minimum to get answers. It's something that happened to a way too many people that I knew. first one was old navy so ended in a hilarious fist fight(after being without pay for two months from an admin error), second one was new navy so it was a very painful process of working with personnel while they were on 4 hour workdays in shipyard, then there are way too many people that fell into classic bonus blackmail were the navy just beats you down in all directions(socially, finciancilly, and time) after getting disqualified from your job(mast, medical, mental, and family issues all included) (basically if you get bonus of some sort it hangs over your head for a good 4-6 years, and if you do pay it back you're paying it back in docked pay, withheld taxes, and maybe even your bank account. And in the amount that was paid to you before taxes).
It doesn't happen very often, but enough to make it worthwhile to always keep a copy.
What employers are legally able to get away with this?
Now, a decade later may be too late (and looks terrible) but it's certainly possible for shorter time periods.
When young men and women volunteer to fight and die for our country, and are made promises by the system, these promises should be honored.
This behavior by the California National Guard is disgusting.
If I'm extended an offer of employment including a $10,000 signing bonus, sign, take the job, receive my bonus, complete the job as agreed, and the contract expires and I go on my way... The company doesn't get to come back to me years later and say "Oh, oops, I actually forgot to have my boss sign off on that bonus I gave you. You need to give it back."
If you broke agreements with your financers on where/how that money was to be spent, that's your problem. Our contract was still valid - you have broken your contract with your financer and you can deal with the penalties.
Ok. There's a law, a bad law that needs to be changed. Is Congress so dysfunctional it can't fix this monstrosity?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350433/John-Stewart...
Well, first they'd have to get past the inevitable argument to defund Planned Parenthood.
So, yes. Yes they are that dysfunctional.
Hit this impossible target or you're fired. We can't tell you to lie/cheat people to hit the numbers but we will promote the people who do and PIP the ones who don't. Meanwhile we will go through the motions of legal compliance.
Everyone gets what they want and the higher ups can come back later and act like it is a huge surprise to them that the people they hired and trained were gaming the system.
[1] https://twitter.com/i/moments/789498562904293376
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/1...
These are pretty quick u-turns by an establishment that's confident about business as usual following elections. Gravy-train!
Were these soldiers told how much they would receive before enlisting? If so surely that is a contract and they don't have to repay. It only makes sense if they ALL received more than they were told and all didn't report it. But ~10,000 people doing this doesn't make sense.
I think this is seen as something similar -- the people giving out the bonus money basically "stole" it, so it wasn't theirs to give. Kind of like if a sales person at a store told you "buy now and I can give you an instant rebate", then pulled rebate money from the cash register. I think you'd have to give that money back too (assuming the "rebate" wasn't authorized, and was effectively stolen money).
Also what if I where no longer in possession of the good?
Yes, but even if you've caused a judgement against him to be passed there'd likely be nothing to collect from (because you're not the only person in such a situation and he's likely had used the money).
All these are situations where due to actions of person A a situation has occurred where either person B or person C must be harmed. The general principle is that the solution should harm that one of them who was more negligent to allow such a situation to occur.
>[Considering a swimming pool salesman...] Envision a situation in which a third party questioned the agent about the expected life of a chlorinator. Suppose the agent told the third party that the chlorinator's expected life was twenty years when it was actually only five years. Suppose further that the agent made this representation knowingly and with the intent to induce the thirty party to buy the equipment, and that the third party did buy this equipment in reasonable reliance on the agent's misrepresentation.
> Even assuming the manufacturer did not authorize the agent's misrepresentation, and in fact told him always to be truthful with potential customers, the manufacturer would be liable if the third party brought a common law fraud action against him. The court would determine liability under an authority analysis, applying the general rule that an innocent principle is liable for an agent's misrepresentations if the misrepresentations fall within the general class of statements that the principal apparently authorized the agent to make.
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=21...
Because the military will treat you like shit if it's merely inconvenient to do otherwise. VA. Guard units called up to combat for one day shy of the time that would qualify them for combat pay. The linked article. Institutional abuse. Forced reenlistment during questionable wars. Etc.
USN, E6, 1975-1981. Not that that gives me any particular place on the moral ground. And for the record, I had a relatively easy time in the Navy. But even if I'd never been in, I'd be as outraged as I am now.
Soldiers got contracts promising one amount but received checks for another amount? Yeah, they should have to pay that back then.
But who wrote checks and / or promised numbers higher than the contracts?
No, soldiers got promised one amount, got contracts for that amount, got paid that amount, and now it's being clawed back because the people who did the original promising and paperwork filing were breaking various laws.
Unless the contracts weren't signed by someone from the government who could sign those contracts?
How would the soldiers know if the government recruiter was legit or not... yeah seems fucked. Government didn't supervise their recruiters correctly. Wouldn't that make all the contracts void? Messy.
If the military needs bodies, they should just go back to drafting them. Would help society see the true cost of policing the world instead of taking advantage of the poor.
"We just can’t do it. We’d be breaking the law"
Yeah, I'm sure the California National Guard tried really, really hard not to go after their bonuses.
EDIT: I should really note that this depends on where you live. Support is certainly more sincere in the South, over here on the West Coast people by and large don't give a shit.
As someone who grew up in a large western coastal city, I would agree that perception is accurate to that locale.
Maybe on HN/Reddit and big cities in the coasts. Elsewhere it's all about "support our troops". But yes, like snerbles says, it's not much than that.
It's also all about "lower our taxes. Cut public spending."
The Army combines the worst aspects of civilian life back stabbing politics with the most stereotypical portrayals of inefficient and uncaring government bureaucracy. To top it off, what really does set it apart from both the civilian world and normal government is of course a hierarchical rank structure, which shit freely flows downhill towards those who can't stand up to it.
I was enlisted in the late 90's and stationed Germany. I had a POV (personal vehicle) that I had to license/register. I had to drive to a neighboring facility to get to the license office. The office was closed, for some stupid reason (they where short staffed, and someone was out sick). The Area Military Police where in the same building, and I (stupidly) stopped a the desk sargeant and complained. I was escorted in to see the MP Sergeant Major, who yelled at me for a while, and took my ration card and confiscated my license plates (for no reason other than he could bully a lower enisted).
So this all meant I had to leave my car, and take the train back to my home base. I was late, and got into a lot of trouble for that. Then, I had to beg and finagle to go back and get my car properly licensed a week later, when I was supposed to have already had it done. This all contributed to me getting a reputation as 'shit bag', do nothing low life of a private. You get a lot hell when you have that type of reputation; a lot of 'extra duty' and unfair treatment. Like being ordered to crawl through mud in near freezing weather, with no change of clothes and no oppurtunity to dry off for DAYS.
But yeah, normal humans can't comprehend; fuckery. The term "fuck fuck" games from the reddit link is very fitting.
> Army Master Sgt. Toni Jaffe, the California Guard’s incentive manager, pleaded guilty in 2011 to filing false claims of $15.2 million and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Three officers also pleaded guilty to fraud and were put on probation after paying restitution.
I'll be writing to my representative (Duckworth), both candidates to replace her, and her Senate opponent (Kirk). I expect responses at least from the two named since both are former military.
I definitely think in this case the government should "forgive" this debt - and they probably will. VA benefits are already pretty flimsy, our vets have it hard enough.
>>We’d be more than happy to absolve these people of their debts. We just can’t do it. We’d be breaking the law.
- Stop quoting laws at us. We carry weapons
Who thinks the Iraq war was actually about Freedom? That might have been the rallying cry but it was about securing access to oil and securing massive re-building contracts and/or reparation money. Many argue that the 1990s stock market boom was a direct result of the US getting $10/barrel oil via the Iraq war reparation deal, where they repaid the US for the costs of having to attack the US.
Any war where people suddenly have an interest in saving humanity should be viewed very skeptically, since there are hundreds of crises of freedom around the world. If the crisis happens to be on top of a giant oil field, well, then there may be some conflating variable.
Do you have a cite for that? No one on any side is building pipelines in Syria anytime soon, because, well, war. Also, pretty sure if I told Suheil al-Hassan or Abu Mohammad al-Julani they were fighting for natural gas pipelines, they'd knock my teeth out.
But lets say you are right -- do you think Russia is suddenly interested in some far-away humanitarian conflict or...perhaps there is something more?
Also, given the vast injustices around the world, any opinions on why the US decided to suddenly instill freedom in Iraq in 1992?
Edit: After doing some research, I did find that there was a proposal for a Qatar-Turkey pipeline in 2010 (see https://web.archive.org/web/20120228125310/http://pipelinesi... ). It was proposed to connect to Nabucco, which hasn't been built. The articles that link the Syrian civil war, or more specifically Qatari involvement in said war, contend that Qatar wants a Muslim Brotherhood government to build the pipeline, which ignores Saudi coolness to the idea of the pipeline (Saudi Arabia also funds rebels in the civil war) and the fact that Qatar also funded the uprisings in Libya and Egypt, in the path of no contended pipeline.
In other words, the idea that the Syrian civil war is mostly about gas pipelines looks rather like people trying to find some resource that the war must be about because they can't believe war is about anything other than resources.
>ASALOUYEH, Iran, July 25 (UPI) -- Iran, Iraq and Syria say they're set to sign an official contract to construct a natural gas pipeline connecting Iran's South Pars field to European customers.
>Iran's state-run Press TV announced that a deal between Iran's interim Oil Minister Mohammad Aliabadi and his Iraqi and Syrian counterparts -- the biggest of its in the kind in the Middle East -- would be signed at Asalouyeh, Iran.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Industry/2011/07/25/...
Something tells me the US is not too keen on Iran-Iraq-Syria joining forces for much of anything, and I do not believe the Russians are too keen on the idea considering their existing natural gas pipeline to the EU and the just proposed one between Russia and Turkey
I don't agree with Marx on a lot, but I think a sad fact is that he was right about that, at least over 90% of the time. US independence can be largely seen in this way, Germany's aggression in WWII after the league of nations crippled the German economy, Japan's aggression in WWII, Korea, Vietnam...
Worst thing about this is the scarcity problem--what economists regard as a problem of having enough resources--today is pretty much solved. For example, already enough food is produced for everyone on earth. We don't have a pressing need to go to war over resources. We do drive large cars, trucks and SUVs, and live in oversized houses that we don't need. A person looking at this from another planet would shake their head and ask what will ever be enough for us to stop bloodshed.
edit: There are versions of the theory of "imperial overstretch" that say that empires are forced to expand by the influence of internal elements that are enriched by the process of making war, thus increasing the influence of those elements, forcing more expansion, requiring more taxation and privation from the citizens of the empire, until eventually the entire empire collapses from the strain.
Greenspan was an economist, and economists sometime us an analogy of looking at macro topics through the framework of a household, i.e. a national budget vs a household budget. Using that same framework, if one neighbor went to war with another over natural resources on their block and declared "he had a gun, a very big gun," as the reason -- and conveniently after the house was broken into but with nothing connecting the perpetrators to the victim, that would be clearly illegal, and probably viewed as insane.
I think those of us from America are very lucky to live in a country that places high relative value (though far from perfect history) on human rights and civil liberties, and it's likely a large reason we are so successful. I want us to keep improving on it instead of devolving into something less.