Are the actions of the U.S. military justified?

[Cordel One]

Devotion to the United States military is perhaps one of the main characteristics of American nationalism. Many things have contributed to this such as the Civil War, the Monroe Doctrine, World War 2, and the Cold War. At the same time, the involvement of the United States in many unpopular wars (Vietnam) and human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay) has led many to view this institution in a negative light. This brings me to the subject of this thread: the modern United States military. Beyond the question in the title, is American interventionism in the Middle East justified? Should we continue on this path? Remember, this is a touchy subject so please do your best to remain civil.

I tried really hard to write the above paragraph with as little of my anti-military bias leaking through. Click below to see how I really feel.

If you've been on this forum for the past few months you probably know where I stand on this issue. I dislike almost every action the military has made as an institution after the end of the second World War. It is neo-imperialism in my eyes, an endless series of wars selfishly started to further the interests of the nation's corporations and weapons manufacturers, causing pain, suffering, and destabilization around the globe. The military itself is deceptive and manipulative in terms of recruitment as well, enticing people into doing its bidding with propaganda and college admission.

[-Ra-]

Always. Someone's got to be the global police. The US Military is mostly a force for good, and I hope to see its continued hegemony lest China or Russia rise in its stead.

[Sanghyeok]

Devotion to the United States military is perhaps one of the main characteristics of American nationalism. Many things have contributed to this support have contributed to this, such as the civil war, the Monroe Doctrine, World War 2, and the Cold War.

Of which only the US Civil War and World War II had the US as "good side".

At the same time, the involvement of the United States in many unpopular wars (Vietnam) and human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay) has led many to view this institution in a negative light.

We should view it negatively.

This brings me to the subject of this thread: the modern United States military. Beyond the question in the title, is American interventionism in the Middle East justified?

No.

Should we continue on this path?

No.

Remember, this is a touchy subject so please do your best to remain civil.

We can wish for civility, but I'm sure I'll become Sailor Moon in real life before this controversy is over.

[Stellar Colonies]

Sometimes, sometimes not.

Overall, it is mixed.

[Cordel One]

Remember, this is a touchy subject so please do your best to remain civil.

We can wish for civility, but I'm sure I'll become Sailor Moon in real life before this controversy is over.

I kinda put that in there as a "don't hurt me, mods"

[Cirrus Azale]

I mostly support what the US decides to do with its military, but I do not support ideology wars and intervention in the Middle East. Diplomatic solutions could have easily given companies access to Middle Eastern oil.

[Picairn]

Depends on what war you ask. Stopping genocide in the 1995 Bosnian war is a good thing imo. Sad that the US didn't do anything in the Rwandan genocide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... rate_Force

[Post-Corporate North America]

No. The military should only be used to protect our freedom, our allies' freedom, and to conduct humanitarian operations. (Korea was justified though)

[Cordel One]

I mostly support what the US decides to do with its military, but I do not support ideology wars and intervention in the Middle East. Diplomatic solutions could have easily given companies access to Middle Eastern oil.

That's where they're conducting just about all their major operations at the moment.

[-Ra-]

Depends on what war you ask. Stopping genocide in the 1995 Bosnian war is a good thing imo. Sad that the US didn't do anything in the Rwandan genocide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... rate_Force

NATO intervention in Bosnia is a textbook example of how the US Military can be put to good use. The only people who would oppose it are people who condone genocide and communists, and the Venn diagram of these individuals is literally a circle.

[Vallermoore]

It depends on the situation.

[Cannot think of a name]

It’s a broken vase we’re trying to fix with a hammer.

The latter half of the 20th century and the 21st century have been, geopolitically, the shitty aftermath of colonialism. The irresponsible handling of the end of the already irresponsible colonialism has conflated and in some cases generated out of whole cloth problems that we continue to make worse through heavy handed interventions. On one hand colonial nations have a responsibility to the areas they went and fucked up, but frequently the solutions are rooted in the colonialism that created the problem in the first place or in egregious cases colonialism dressed up as assistance where we attempt to continue the raping of resources without the responsibility to maintain the areas being robbed.

I honestly don’t have an answer-mostly because every situation is distinct and the very notion that there’s a single fix is the kind of thinking that has caused most of these problems. I think that aid and assistance is needed but it has to be guided outside of national power and in conversation with the people in need so that they are writing their own story. I know it’s en vogue to dismiss bodies like the UN but this is honestly the kind of thing that the UN exists for. And we should come to terms with the idea that it will be messy and that there is no clear notion of success and in some cases the best we can hope for is to mitigate the damage, collateral or otherwise. But we can’t keep wandering around as a hammer thinking everything is a nail.

[South Acren]

Gotta say, as much as I disagree with the idea that Vietnam or Afghanistan were good ideas, i feel like others, like the Gulf War and Korea were justified. Can't forget that it wasn't just solely a US thing either.

[Nea Chora]

Depends on what war you ask. Stopping genocide in the 1995 Bosnian war is a good thing imo. Sad that the US didn't do anything in the Rwandan genocide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... rate_Force

NATO intervention in Bosnia is a textbook example of how the US Military can be put to good use. The only people who would oppose it are people who condone genocide and communists, and the Venn diagram of these individuals is literally a circle.

isn't this all x are y ? all communists condone genocide? also, wildly inaccurate. many genocides have been perpetrated by non-communist regimes, and to say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

[-Insaanistan-]

In the words of Roy Moore “Not generally, no.”

[Nazeroth]

Gotta say, as much as I disagree with the idea that Vietnam or Afghanistan were good ideas, i feel like others, like the Gulf War and Korea were justified. Can't forget that it wasn't just solely a US thing either.

Exactly

And the UN is a dumpster fire

Anyways the US is mostly good and a good portion of its wars were for the bigger picture(anti communism as an example which was a real threat)

The wars in the middle east though are total garbage and im saying this as someone who served 7 years. Iraq was totally unjustified and afghanistan was no longer justified once Bin Laden left and was killed in Pakistan. Bombing pakistan for harboring him would have been better, but they have nukes.

[Picairn]

Gotta say, as much as I disagree with the idea that Vietnam or Afghanistan were good ideas, i feel like others, like the Gulf War and Korea were justified. Can't forget that it wasn't just solely a US thing either.

Gulf War and Korea was certainly justified because the invaded countries, Kuwait and South Korea, had the right to ask for help in defending their countries. While those wars weren't solely a US thing, they were spearheaded by US diplomatic and military efforts.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Imo no. The US military is a foreign occupation force in many parts of the world and has been an uninvited one time and again. And when asked to leave it's like that houseguest that won't go away. Never forget the unprovoked act of aggression the war in Iraq was, because literally nobody but nobody in Iraq asked for us to invade and occupy their country, killing thousands of their people.

Our military has many people with good intentions in their heart. It's unfortunate they don't realize until it's too late that they are just a tool to the elite that will be forgotten once they are needed no longer (look at all the homeless vets on skid row).

[Major-Tom]

Sometimes yes, sometimes definitively no. Context is key, and while we could discuss how our actions in Iraq destabilized an entire region on the basis of a farce, we could also discuss how our intervention in Rwanda or even in the Gulf War was ultimately advantageous.

It depends, but more often than not, it is our nation-building exercises that prove to be the most cynical and wretched. When we focus on intervention on the basis of humanitarianism, then we usually see favorable outcomes.

I think, OP, you're being willfully naive about the military in general. Separating the institution from those who bend it to their well is important - most military folk go in for good reason, how the federal government chooses to utilize our proud and storied military is a different story.

[Nazeroth]

Imo no. The US military is a foreign occupation force in many parts of the world and has been an uninvited one time and again. And when asked to leave it's like that houseguest that won't go away. Never forget the unprovoked act of aggression the war in Iraq was, because literally nobody but nobody in Iraq asked for us to invade and occupy their country, killing thousands of their people.

Our military has many people with good intentions in their heart. It's unfortunate they don't realize until it's too late that they are just a tool to the elite that will be forgotten once they are needed no longer (look at all the homeless vets on skid row).

Most people in the service are just doing a job and have little idea of any politics involved, hell many come right out of high school.

[The Python]

If you've been on this forum for the past few months you probably know where I stand on this issue. I dislike almost every action the military has made as an institution after the end of the second World War. It is neo-imperialism in my eyes, an endless series of wars selfishly started to further the interests of the nation's corporations and weapons manufacturers, causing pain, suffering, and destabilization around the globe. The military itself is deceptive and manipulative in terms of recruitment as well, enticing people into doing its bidding with propaganda and college admission.

Yep I agree.

[Willtime]

the U.S. military means military of the U.S.
So it is designed to benefit the US,right?
Every country which has such great military power,will do the same things.
If you believe the US(or other country,such as China)will protect your benefits as they protect themselves,you are fooled.

Is it justified?
It is justified for the US.
But if your country is not the US…………

[Nazeroth]

the U.S. military means military of the U.S.
So it is designed to benefit the US,right?
Every country which has such great military power,will do the same things.
If you believe the US(or other country,such as China)will protect your benefits as they protect themselves,you are fooled.

Is it justified?
It is justified for the US.
But if your country is not the US…………

Indeed

If its not the US its China(who is horrifically worse) and if its not China is somebody else

Their is literally no getting around that.

[Sanghyeok]

the U.S. military means military of the U.S.
So it is designed to benefit the US,right?
Every country which has such great military power,will do the same things.
If you believe the US(or other country,such as China)will protect your benefits as they protect themselves,you are fooled.

Is it justified?
It is justified for the US.
But if your country is not the US…………

Indeed

If its not the US its China and if its not China is somebody else

Their is literally no getting around that.

We could avoid that by not having countries at all.

[-Ra-]

Indeed

If its not the US its China and if its not China is somebody else

Their is literally no getting around that.

We could avoid that by not having countries at all.

And other fairy tales I tell myself at night.