Comment by bjourne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bjourne | Hacker News Reader

I agree with the message. I think that it is our civic duty to ensure that debates are possible. Because when a society transcends into Fascism, the first thing that is lost is the right to disagree. If it becomes impossible to question the prevailing dogma and everyone who attempts to do so is labelled a traitor or worse, then the path to totalitarianism is open.

People should remember the Iraq war and especially the build-up to it. Debates were silenced by the rallying call to "Support our troops!" You couldn't claim that the war was a pointless hunt for oil engineered by the oil companies. Because that implied that the "war moms," those who let their sons enlist and fight the stupid war in Iraq, were doing something wrong. Telling it how it was, that whoever travels half-way cross the world to participate in a war against a people they should have no beef with, is committing state-sanctioned murder, was not allowed. I know that is polarizing, but polarizing is whatever a lot of people disagree with. It doesn't mean that it is factually incorrect.

So the next time the US rallies the dogs of war, remember Iraq and what made that war possible. Because it will happen again. When Trump, or his successor, decides that "something has to be done" about North Korea, Iran or Syria, do break the decorum. Don't allow disagreement to become taboo because then history will repeat itself.

Traditionally, once the decision is made to go to war, all debate about the justifications for the war must end.

Countries where the debate continues end up having a social split where part of the nation supports the war, and part does not. This kind of civil division is fatal during war time if your enemy isn't similarly hobbled.

Any war, even the most worthy, is susceptible to having its justifications criticized but the consequences of not being unified during the conflict are so catastrophic that people prefer to criticise wars only after they have been won or lost.

That's certainly true about total war where the nation's survival is threatened by defeat, but it's not true about the kind of limited wars was have seen since world war 2. In fact, because these wars are limited wars for the world powers that start them, but total wars for the postcolonial states in the receiving end, I think it's very correct that the public e.g. in the US continue to aggressively question the rationale for war even after it's begun in e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, and so on.

Henry Kissinger would certainly have been happier to see a US public united behind the Vietnam war effort because it would have made it easier to win in a geopolitical sense, but what about in a moral sense? The US wasn't threatened existentially by failure in Vietnam, and it's right that we didn't adopt the attitude expressed in your comment.

On that note, the US spends almost as much in defense as the entire rest of the world.

Losing a "war" in the middle East would not affect the US very much outside reputation.

Calling it “defence” is almost Orwellian... when the majority of the budget is spent on attack and offence in other countries?

This is true with the current realities of oil supply, maybe not so much 10 or 20 years ago. With indefinite domestic/local supplies now established, I really wish we could let them live their lives without our interference.

I would respectively suggest that most countries in the rest of the world don't behave in such a was as to require this level of excessive spending on "defence". As you state, if you are conducting defensive operations, how can it be that failure of that defence will not impact your country.

> Traditionally, once the decision is made to go to war, all debate about the justifications for the war must end.

"traditionally"? This makes starting a war the perfect way to unite a country. Dictatorships and oligarchies seems to love this trick.

> This kind of civil division is fatal during war time if your enemy isn't similarly hobbled.

For dissenting citizens losing a war is often much better than dragging it longer or even winning it.

See Germany in WW2 for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com