Bearing any burden... Again?
Arguable on several levels. A major collapse might not be required, we -- the world -- could get simply get smarter. Unlikely, to be sure but a series of minor and more probable "collapses" could trigger change for better OR for worse. Note also that our ability to predict near peer wars is suspect at best.Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon
However, the issue isn't really what might occur but our response...What we have learned in the last few years we also learned in the Indian Wars, in the Philippines, in the Caribbean and Central America and in Viet Nam:We will, by necessity, be less inclined to get involved in the next few cases, but it is man's curse that he forgets. I would prefer not to forget what we have learned in the last ten years.
- Small wars should be kept small. Commitment of major forces, the GPF, is inherently and by definition enlarging.
- Humanitarian interventions should be of the shortest possible duration to preclude any semblance of occupation or of overwhelming local mores and practices.
- "Stabilization" is a myth. We have never stabilized anything. We have imposed or, more often, tried and failed to impose our will on others. That's not stabilizing, that's simply interfering for our nominal and theoretical advantage -- and it universally fails.
What we have learned in the last ten years we really already knew and that knowledge was not forgotten, it was deliberately ignored as much for US domestic political reasons as for any others; we didn't keep the war small; we didn't intervene for humanitarian but rather for political reasons and we did not 'stabilize' but instead added significantly to the normal flow of destabilization that is endemic to humankind.
Oh -- we also learned that our 'doctrine' has lost its way and our overall state of training and military education is marginal.
I'm with you. I hope we don't forget those things.
Bookmarks