Hacker News Reader

Comment by eesmith | Hacker News Reader

What does the pre-WWI view of wars have to do with Russia's annexation of Crimea?

What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus ?

WWI, WWII, the French and US involvement in Vietnam, the Soviet and US involvements in Afghanistan, etc. have long demonstrated that the modern wars aren't all 'short and winnable'.

Though the 1990–1991 Gulf War, plus the US invasions of Grenada and Panama, may have helped re-foster that view in the US.

View on HN

The 90 Gulf War and the 82 Falklands almost certainly gave that view to Blair in the UK, as he commented along those lines in his early career. Even from the bombings early in the Balkans crisis. The political benefits of winning a short, just war seemed clear.

Which no doubt explained some of his enthusiasm for getting involved in the second Gulf War and the appalling state Iraq has been left in.

Choosing which wars are the short and just ones isn't so easy.

Except for the fact that the Northern Ireland conflict was still ongoing, entering its fourth decade?

Not really. The ceasefire was five years before Blair was elected, and talks had been ongoing for about a decade before that, slowly edging towards peace.

I would say that modern wars are 'short and winnable'. It's the nation building part that isn't.

What does a 'war' end?

War in Afghanistan (2001–present) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...

When specifically did that war end and nation building begin? Who won the war?

EDIT: Is the Global War on Terrorism / Operation Enduring Freedom a "war"? It certainly feels like an never-ending war.

You forgot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%9...

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War before that.

And a long list even before that.

I didn't omit the second - see my g'parent posting.

I left out the first because top-level thread comment concerned European 'Great Powers', and because I wanted to give a specific counter-point with the major world superpower.

Certainly, when you redefine war to be something else it can be anything you like.

If you only count 'conventional warfare' as part of the war, then yeah.

But time is always on the side of the defender, especially against overwhelming force. You beat a sprinter by making it a marathon.

Modern wars are neither short nor winnable... though they may be short indeed if nukes are involved.

I think all powers know this full well hence why they never engaged in direct conflict since WWII.

Wars since WWII have been limited wars against much weaker enemies and proxy wars.

it was a (only?) "short and easy" true territory annexation after wwii.

Very different from Vietnam and other wars that you listed.

Certainly far from "only". The Indonesian annexation of East Timor and the Moroccan "Green March" on Western Sahara also come to mind.

True but arguably due to very specific favourable circumstances for the RU side. This stands in stark contrast with the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine. Like WW1, this is a war of attrition, but perhaps less intense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com