The Pentagon uses a secret program to wage proxy wars
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
Special forces are often NOT in direct action - it's risky - and instead are training local forces as force multipliers. There are exceptions but frankly you don't send Spec Ops to mag dump a terrorist in a fish market.
Is never reported in the West until decades later. It's reported with extreme detail contemporaneously by local sources in an extremely easy to access format.
I remember after 9/11, reading accounts by cross Arab/Western people who were reporting in extreme detail, specific grievances that people across the Middle East had with American foreign policy in an attempt to explain but not justify the actions of OBL and all of it being shut down with an almost aggressive ignorance of "they just hate our freedoms" by virtually the entire intellectual spectrum in the US.
Like, you would expect pro-war hawks to simplify the issue but even anti-war bleeding heart liberals often seemed to have zero interest in engaging with criticisms from actual people who would be impacted vs the imaginary people they construct who are convenient to their argument.
Even to this day, if you ask people what was OBL's self-stated reason for 9/11, 99% of people would get it wrong despite this being a purely factual question for which the primary source is trivially available [1]. I bet you, the person reading this comment have a vague idea of what OBL said and your vague notion is pretty significantly wrong.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
Not least of all, insofar as that view strongly suggests that white people and Europeans were the cause of current global power imbalances, they must be the solution. That is a dangerously counter-productive way to view the world. Even if we accept, for example, the theory that Great Britain transferred trillions of wealth from India to itself through colonization, it is a shadow of its former self and will never be able to meaningfully affect the future prospects of India.
I would posit that India should view British colonization the same way Great Britain views Norman colonization: something that shaped the country's past but something of only historical interest going forward. At least in my experience as a Bangladeshi, I think that's how most folks do view it. We don't think of ourselves as being defined by our colonial history. Indeed, my parents (who were born in what was then the British Dominion of Pakistan) have positive as well as negative things to say about colonialism.
Then why do they use a term that centers the west in describing the majority of the world?
> At most they might believe their countries should stop meddling in the affairs of post-colonial countries and let them develop on their own without further wealth being extracted.
Is the west continuing to meddle in the affairs of India or Pakistan? If not, then what's the point of this term that encompasses them? If you want to talk about African countries dominated by European mining companies, just talk about them.
> Reparations would also presumably be on the table
That's what I'm talking about. Reparations is an incredibly toxic idea as applied to former colonies. As you observe, they will never happen. But they give political cover to bad leadership in developing countries, enabling them to avoid fixing their own problems.
I often hear people use the phrase: "especially effects under represented minorities", which robs those people of agency, portrays them ALL as being X (which is prejudice by definition).
Worst of all the phrase is trotted out like a weapon to accomplish some goal.
It's a shame because usually the people think they're helping
Moreover, their limited exposure to minorities is often derivative of their interactions with other white people. E.g. someone who grows up in Wisconsin and has little exposure to Muslim immigrants other than as the subject of antagonism by Trump supporters, probably can't help but view those minorities except through the lens of their own opposition to other white people.
I don't know if it's the Chomsky talking but this kind of hyperbole taints your argument. While US involvement in Southeast Asia and South America are _far from_ perfect they're even farther from being like a "fourth reich".
https://news.yahoo.com/cia-trained-ukrainian-paramilitaries-...
The support on Ukraine war is very public, and it's part of the war effort.
MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Increasing Special Operations Forces Collaboration with Allies and Partners with Irregular Warfare Programs
The committee commends the Department of Defense’s use of the authority for the Support of Special Operations for Irregular Warfare (IW) provided in section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) and recognizes the ability to increase the capabilities of partner countries special operations forces such as Ukraine’s.
Nobody is lying here, the wrong questions are being asked
One might reasonably argue this is interference in US elections.
These sly actions may have good intent, but people deserve to know if, for example, a rogue administration has ever used the authority against someone they might have simply disliked.
...let the Russian flag fly over the Baltics.
In fact we keep seeing the outcomes of it still in the media.
This is reminiscent of how war protests in my liberal city stopped suddenly as soon as Obama was elected, and never restarted though he bolstered troop levels (initiated surges). The war was never the main point.
"End all wars/get rid of the military" rhetoric sounds great, until you realize it's a lie. It just means there will be different wars, perhaps won by the wrong people.
You can see this right now in Ukraine. The US and its allies are busy donating/selling all of their soon-to-expire weapons, their older model (but still good) jets, their brand new weapons. Who benefits from this? Ukraine, now. But also the weapon manufacturers, who represent a non-trivial proportion of the US economy. If Ukraine wins the war, it will be paying off its debts to the US for a century, with interest.
An economic example might be the sanctions it placed on Russia along with its allies. Russia is currently forecasted to see a 20% drop in its GDP this year, probably the single biggest effect of the war (compare to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria effects on the US). Lots of the sanctioning can only be done because most of the global economy runs on the US dollar, as opposed to the yuan, yen, pound, euro, because the Russian loans are dollar denominated. If someone's putting the pressure on the US in some way, its various investments let it wield some massive clubs.
Can you provide a source for the claim that the bulk of US military aid to Ukraine is in the form of loans that will have to be repaid? I'm skeptical because tens of billions in government spending has been authorized for that purpose.
Would the US be the country it is nowadays if it didn't join WWII? Probably not, it would be a very different world.
The war for Europe was arguably won in Africa well before any major advances happened in either of the European fronts.
The North African campaign combined with the supplies the US has sent to the Soviets was pretty much the only reason why the Soviets have won on the eastern front.
The Axis and specifically Germany were over extended in Africa and Africa pretty much took all the fuel and air lift capacity Germany had at the time.
The Italian campaign was the nail in the coffin for the Axis in Europe well before D-Day.
And that is if we can ignore the pacific theater altogether.
> I think we forget over time and become complacent to the strong possibility that the US maintaining its economic and defense hegemony has generally resulted in fewer non-American people doing bad things.
American hegemony is mostly good for the US. Let's not lie about doing 'good' elsewhere. American actions have destabilized many countries and governments to secure and advance American interests. Have American citizens benefited? Probably.
> So you go from a generation who used the military might to stop literal Nazis and effectively save the world. Follow that up with generations of overthrowing democratically elected governments and fostering civil wars globally.
> to more of a lull where people forget that and start calling for a removal of all foreign bases and a reduction in might, to being smacked by the reality again that bad people predictably do bad things, such as russias invasion of ukraine.
I don't think people want a removal of all naval bases or military presence, just enough to pay for fucking healthcare, teachers, food, bridges, and housing. You know the usual basic necessities for life. I guess killing and maiming people around the world is just easier to do.
> it’s good overall that we have this military might, even if not everyone appreciates it. That remains to be seen. Tell me that in a few years when we have more guns than food and water.
As always, unless you're colorblind, the world exists in color, not black and white.
It's a nice sound bite, but it doesn't work that way does it?
It works out ok for the US though. We get inflation and all kinds of shortages for a while, but manufacturing moves back. We have no trouble feeding and fueling ourselves, and no worries about invasion. In a decade we dominate the world even more, because most of our peers fall apart. But it won't be much fun for a while, and for a lot of the world it'll be seriously grim.
I'm not necessarily saying it's the moral obligation of the US to police the world forever, just because it was in our strategic interest to do so for a while. Maybe we should do what you suggest. Just saying, be aware of what it really means. It doesn't mean world peace.
But this is already the case, due to the US-backed push for open borders/open societies, at home and abroad. Just yesterday there was a submission on using media manipulation to subvert politicians that want "sacrosanct borders": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31937756
> But this is already the case, due to the US-backed push for open borders/open societies, at home and abroad.
You misunderstand. He was talking about wars of territorial conquest (e.g. moving a border through military means).
"Well but it's not our problem!" is not exactly comfort when a religious or ethnic minority is being erased on live tv.
No, that comparison doesn't come up literally ever that I've heard from. I do recall several anti-war pieces in NY Times and others encouraging us to not back Ukraine, the usual war hawk pieces suggesting to escalate, and a bunch of poorly written stories that rehashed weeks old tweets.
As the joke goes there are two kinds of people: those who believe in conspiracies and those who have actually interacted with the government.
The closest you might get is something like Journolist which was Ezra Klein trying to convince other news heads to parrot his takes - which is a disgrace, but not some secret conspiracy.
This would partially explain low recruiting for various US branches and some of the disregard most citizens seem to have for what their government is doing.
What is equally interesting is the inevitable comparison to Russia and 'special operation' happening in Ukraine ( because it certainly is not war ).
Then again.. these days you do not want to voice unpopular opinions and it makes me sad.
I suppose it was awkwardly phrased on my part, which invited that comment. Russia's act of aggression is an act of war against Ukraine, but Russia calls it special operation, while US is engaged in various conflicts, which it deems 'anti-terrorism' activity. This is what intended to mean by that sentence.
What is more interesting is that US is now officially in a proxy war with Russia as well.
Ukraine is a proxy war and has been since it broke out in 2014 - plenty of evidence to suggest the US was nation building there too under the Obama admin (Nuland Pyatt tapes). Biden and Kerry were all over Ukraine as senators / VP since shortly after the fall of the USSR, and don't forget Ukraine had an IMF loan up for renewal (which was predatory to say the least) in 2013 right before Euromaidan, and Russia was going to bankroll their loan instead. Wouldn't be the first time a coup follows an IMF loan.
Don't take it from me though...
End This War, not Endless War it says here
Well, the replies and downvotes certainly augment the foolishness. Assuming operations in Africa are for keeping countries repressed rather than promoting freedom and justice for those who can't fight for themselves, etc. The US is not innocent, but through their actions and 100 years of selflessly policing the world it has more good to boast about than any of you. At least it doesn't just sit behind a keyboard judging others and pretending self-righteousness and moral superiority; it demonstrates it.
I would prefer the US now focuses on homeland issues, but making your assumptions and wrong judgment is not something I will do.
Does a dozen people with guns acting in combat under government orders count as "war"? They are skating on that ambiguity.
It's unfair to criticize secret programs because we don't know enough about them?
1. to keep African countries divided to further American policies and agendas
2. to thwart development, own exploitation of natural resources, and the possible rise of Africa as another super-power
> 1. to keep African countries divided to further American policies and agendas
> 2. to thwart development, own exploitation of natural resources, and the possible rise of Africa as another super-power
Those aren't so much reasons as conspiratorial speculation. You might as well include:
3. Harvest Adrenochrome from African Children
China is stepping out of that role and will likely make them take a loss at their own game.