If you read my thoughts here before, you’d know that I’m not the biggest fan of war. And now we’re apparently entering (notice I didn’t say “declaring”) a war against Syria. As you might guess, I’m against this war.
Usually I’m pretty theoretical and dare I say ideological when it comes to my opinion on economics, ethics, and politics. I could spend time talking about how the war is going to be financed with stolen money via taxation. I could talk about how there are some people who are going to make huge amounts of money when this war is fought. I could also talk about how there’s no threat against the United States, and therefore no real reason for the United States to go to war.
Instead, I’m going to give a practical reason why we shouldn’t engage Syria in a war.
It’s just not going to work.
Just take a look at the record of the United States. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Iran, Afghanistan (this was when Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were considered “good”), Vietnam, Iran (not a typo), etc. were all botched efforts. Can we honestly look at any of those events and say that the United States left those countries better off when they left them than when they found them? And in some of them (see Libya, Egypt, and now Syria for recent examples), our friends were enemies in wars we were simultaneously fighting.
How far back do we have to go to find a war that ended well? Most people will immediately point to World War II. Don’t get me wrong—stopping Hitler and the Third Reich was a very good thing. That said, the United States fought on the side of the Soviet Union and communist China in World War II. Both Stalin and Mao each killed significantly more people than Hitler did. I don’t see how that should be considered a win for the free world. The US may have fought against a very bad dude, but it allied itself against some other very bad dudes.
I don’t expect any good to come out of a war with Syria. Well, you might make out well if you work in certain sectors of the defense industry. For the people we’re told that are going to be helped (the Syrian people), don’t expect much. If the Assad and the Syrian government are overthrown, expect some even worse players to enter the political arena and seize power in the vacuum that’s left behind.
And remember, al Qaeda is our frenemy.
Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Iran, Afghanistan, and Vietnam all got new leaders who were very open to fiat currency and USD for oil purchases.
I think you’re missing the point of the “win.”
I agree we shouldn’t go anywhere near Syria. However, I think your arguments could be tighter. It sounds as if you’re trashing the US’s involvement in WWII (maybe you’re not, but it comes off that way). Yes, we allied with enemies to fight for a common cause, but ask Poland, France, Belgium, etc how they feel about it…Were China or USSR the same threat? Maybe, but probably not as immediate a threat as an invading Hitler. Did Hitler violate NAP? Would mercenary or private armies tried to stop him if they were more prevalent?
You often say something like, if Stalin says 2+2=4, he isn’t wrong. If Stalin says we need to stop Hitler, should we not help because Stalin says it?
Also, great point about the last whatever involvements not having the best result, but does that mean since we screwed up in other places we should never enter another war ever again? There are entrepreneurs who fail multiple times before they make their millions.
Again, I’m not disagreeing with you, I just think the reasons you stated, while perfectly fine for your opinion, probably aren’t strong enough to convince others.
Good retort.
“Yes, we allied with enemies to fight for a common cause, but ask Poland, France, Belgium, etc how they feel about it…Were China or USSR the same threat? Maybe, but probably not as immediate a threat as an invading Hitler”
Ask ask all of the people who died at the hands of the Chinese and Soviets if they were better off fighting Germany.
I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t have fought Hitler and Nazi Germany. I’m only saying that the Chinese and Soviets were also very evil and there are severe ethical consequences in allying with them. Really, it demonstrates the moral hazard and lose-lose situations of war and government.
“Did Hitler violate NAP? Would mercenary or private armies tried to stop him if they were more prevalent?”
Yes and yes. There was plenty of property that people would have wanted to protect. Again, I’m not saying that it was bad to fight against Hitler.
“You often say something like, if Stalin says 2+2=4, he isn’t wrong. If Stalin says we need to stop Hitler, should we not help because Stalin says it?”
Stalin was right, but if Hitler said we needed to stop Stalin, Hitler would also have been correct. If a rapist wanted murderers off the street, would you agree? Does that mean that you agree with his raping?
“Also, great point about the last whatever involvements not having the best result, but does that mean since we screwed up in other places we should never enter another war ever again? There are entrepreneurs who fail multiple times before they make their millions.”
When the factors and situation leading up to the war are the same, you can expect the same results. The same goes with the intentions of going to war. When performing a scientific experiment, you set up the parameters. When you run the experiment, you record your results. If you want different results, you have to adjust the parameters.