My rule of thumb in supporting US military intervention

[Pototan]

this is a complex question. some people think we should never intervene. Others think we should always intervene. Some of our greatest mistakes on the global scene have been made because the emotion of the moment overrules a more thoughtful and productive approach.

I sat this as a 71-year-old who cut his political teeth opposing the Viet-Nam war So, here's my rule of thumb. Never, ever put American boots on the ground in a country in a civil war. Thís could be difficult to decern at times whether or not an outside nation is trying to establish a puppet government, but that's what our intelligence is for. If we followed that rule of thumb, we would not have been involved in Viet-Nam. As an aside, LBJ would probably have had 4 more years and we would have had greater social justice in America.

Iraq and Afghanistan would have been treated differently. We could have had a rapid deployment d=force to take out and terrorist cells in those countries, or others. But no permanent troops stationed in either country and no change in government.

So, when should America use its military prowess in defending any ally who is invaded by another nation. WWI and WWII would fall under that criterion, and probably Iraq I. I have trouble decerning the Korean War, but that outcome has been to America's advantage.

I realize my "rule of thumb" is not a one size fits all, but I like to use it as a baseline in my support, or opposition, to America's military intervention.

Therefore, we should do whatever is necessary to support our ally, Ukraine. It's always preferable to accomplish our goals without putting boots on the ground (or in the air) but defending a Democracy and an ally invaded by an authoritarian neighbor seems historically consistent with our successes in international conflicts.

[2naSalit]

1. We are literally...

Trying to stop another hitler.

[Pototan]

3. My point, exactly

[stuck in the middle]

2. Draft Registration was instituted...

…in 1980 to fight the war in Afghanistan, against the USSR.

Iraq and Afghanistan would have been treated differently

We were there for more than four decades.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/selective-service-revitalization-statement-the-registration-americans-for-the-draft

[Pototan]

5. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires

Two hundred and fifty years of history should have taught us something.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan enticed us into making life difficult for the Russians. But, in the meantime, the American meddling trained the terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden, who eventually became our mortal enemies.

There are two parts in my "rule of thumb". One is the invasion part, the other is the ally part. Afghanistan was never an ally.

[anciano]

4. Interesting post .....

FWIW my rule of thumb is that we should never send our sons and daughters to die for anybody, anywhere. Period.
PS I am a veteran.

[Pototan]

6. I respect your opinion

but if we felt that way in 1941, we'd probably be singing Deutschland Uber Alles before the MLB games.

[anciano]

7. Thank you for your reply....

First of all, it's 2023 not 1941, and there have been tremendous advancements in our military technological capabilities since then. With the capabilities we now have at our literal fingertips (militarily, economically, and cyberspace related), "boots on the ground" are as obsolete as the medieval weapons of spears, long bows and battering rams.

[Xolodno]

8. Mine is "don't meddle in the internal affairs of other nations".

We did that in Iran, a country that had a long history of wars with Russia, now they are becoming allies.

Add to that, when Iraq sensed weakness in its neighbor, it attacked and we gave Saddam chemical weapons in the hopes he could topple the government of Iran. He failed and owed a lot of money, so he went after Kuwait. And we know the rest of this history. All could have been avoided.

In Afghanistan, we just wanted to give the Soviet Union their version of Vietnam and perhaps spark other Islamic republics in the Soviet Union into rebellion, there was no altruistic reason. Once the Soviets left, we stopped aiding them. And boom, Bin Laden was created. And after four presidents, 20 years, trillions spent we overthrew the Taliban (which we inadvertently created) to give it back to them.

The GOP likes to bring up the "border crisis", ironically, they are the ones that created it by supporting right wing governments in Central and South America and stamping down leftist politicians. So now their economies which many were probably set to be equitable have become a mess and almost impossible to fix.

In Korea, China drew a red line and said do not approach the Yalu River. MacArthur ignored it and probably had full blow intentions to invade communist China. Obviously that backfired as Chinese troops poured over the border and Russian "volunteers" with MiG's started denying air superiority. What remained of NK would probably be absorbed into China and there would have been only one Korea if we just respected that hard line.

We've often created our own messes. I think that's why France is no longer intervening much in their former colonies in Africa. It becomes a problem that won't go away.

[Pototan]

9. Wow, what a well written reply

I like to post here at DU because I like to open discussions with intelligent and knowledgeable people.

Your reply was very insightful. Thank you

[Martin Eden]

10. Iraq was an unnecessary war of choice, justified by lies

The regime of Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and was not building weapons of mass destruction. He was a tyrant, but not an Islamic extremist bent on terrorism against the west. In fact we supported him in his bloody war with Iran. It wasn't until he attacked Kuwait and threatened our "friends" the Saudis that he could no longer be tolerated.

The neocons who pretty much wrote the GW Bush foreign policy decided back in 1998 that regime change in Iraq was a key first step to implent their Project for a New American Century. They needed a pretext to gain public support, then 9/11 came along. Islamic revolutionaries like al Qaeda were a threat to Saddam Hussein's power, but that didn't stop the Bush administration from deliberately conflating the two and misreprenting the available intelligence on Iraq's defunct weapons programs. The UN inspectors were coming to the conclusion that the infrastructure necessary for a nuclear weapons program simply didn't exist in the country, but Bush forced them out before they could complete their work. Dick Cheney and his cohorts in the oil industry were already making plans for the petroleum resources.

The first principle for military intervention needs to be improving our own democracy at home before launching wars under the guise of promoting democracy abroad. Our history in Latin America is wicked with promoting corporate interests above democracy. General Smedley Butler called it a racket. In 1953 we helped Britain overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran after it nationalized its oil industry. After 25 years of tyranny under the Shah we installed, the Ayatollah Khomeni brought the Islamic revolution -- a prime example of unintended consequences.

To be sure, military intervention is sometimes needed for our own security and to defend against naked aggression and the spread of autocratic powers, World War 2 being the prime example. The future of human civilization is still very much at risk. America has at times and still could be the most essential champion for a better future. I fully support our military aid to Ukraine, though in this nuclear age we must avoid war with Russia.

Alarmingly, the greatest threat to our democracy comes from within. Nearly half the American electorate supports a would be dictator who already attempted a coup and is much more prepared this time around with the help of the Republican Party and a detailed plan from the Heritage Foundation (2025 Project) to make radical changes in our government that would vastly increase the power of the president. 2024 could possibly be our last legitimate election.

Our international allies see this more clearly than most Americans. The "indispensable nation" in protecting freedom and democracy is in danger of flipping sides.