Comment by magicsmoke | Hacker News Reader

Comment by magicsmoke | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The counterargument to this is that dependence on the US military keeps other countries from putting in the resources to become military competitors. It's as similar argument to how sanctioning Chinese tech companies ends up encouraging them to develop indigenous technologies that will later compete for market share on other continents. The US having a dominant military presence globally ensures that other actors either don't even bother spending on a military or don't have conflicts they can practice their militaries on (a big problem for China when they can't see if their new toys actually work) If only the US has active military experience then it's a lot easier and cheaper to fight inexperienced competitors. Even for allies like Europe, if the US leaves the EU to develop a military and they get some experience with fully self-reliant overseas adventures in North Africa or the Middle East, how do you know they won't turn Fascist/Communist/fancy future political ideology one day (or the reverse for the US) and start launching invasions across the Atlantic?

> The counterargument to this is that dependence on the US military keeps other countries from putting in the resources to become military competitors.

You dont need to be a direct military competitor, Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that you can still defeat US with a thousand cuts.

Last I remember it was the US invading Afghanistan/Iraq and not the other way around. The US funding Saudi Arabia, antagonizing Iran, and collapsing Iraq has the bloody logic that it prevents an oil-rich Islamic superstate from unifying the Middle East like various Turkish/Iranian/Arabic empires have in the past. Keep globally influential competitors from forming.

> Keep globally influential competitors from forming.

At the expense of US soldiers dying from the hands of AL Qaeda/ISIS and wasting trillions of dollars which could have been used to rebuild US infra and providing healthcare and other services to US citizens.

Didn't the US lose by that definition?

Argue whether it's a winning or losing strategy in congress, I'm just saying that's what the strategy is, making sure the US has as a much of a global monopoly on conventional military power as possible.

> making sure the US has as a much of a global monopoly on conventional military power

No one is saying US does not have that monopoly, its just that US still loses with that monopoly.

> Last I remember it was the US invading Afghanistan/Iraq and not the other way around.

Which means the US had to do all the expensive logistics work too.

How have either Afghanistan or Iraq defeated the US in any conventional sense of the word?

In the conventional sense that the US ultimately failed. Yes they managed to blow up a lot of things and kill a lot of people, but it's difficult to argue that US national interests have been improved, let alone with any durability. In some respects it's fairly uncontroversial to say that US interests have suffered a net loss.

What exactly has US accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq.

George Bush in 2003 had the Mission Accomplished banner, if the mission was accomplished, what are US soldiers still doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com