A better way to wage war?

[Rapscallion]

I posted in the thread about illegal immigrants about how the money proposed for the large wall between Mexico and the US could be better spent improving the lot of the poor in Mexico.

That all stemmed from a point someone else raised elsewhere many moons ago when the invasion of Afghanistan was well underway. They mused that for every cruise missile fired at million dollars each time (or whatever was sent over and however much it was), the US could have sent in ground troops to protect other people who were distributing, say, fifty tractors, plenty of seed, and other tools, just so the populace would have a far better quality of life. This would cut the support of the militants in control, and it would generally speaking be far cheaper.

Wholesale bribery, rather than going in guns blazing. I don't know where I stand on this, so I thought I'd put it out there for people to discuss.

Thoughts?

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Well, there's no doubt that America had to go into Afghanistan. But we have taken the Taliban out of power of the country. Yes, the Taliban are now coming back and fighting again, but up until that point, we had succeeded. Now, due to Pakistan's lack of giving a crap, terrorists are free to do whatever they want on Pakistani soil. Without a doubt, if bin Laden is still alive, I'm sure he's either in Pakistan or he moved out of Afghanistan through Pakistan. Pakistan can't protect their borders and the terrorists know it. And honestly, I'd rather was millions on missiles to take out groups of enemies than having ground fights. Means less deaths for our troops.

What I've mentioned is what I've thought about for myself. There's so much more I wish I was at liberty to say, but I just can't do that.

[crazylegs]

You cannot win a conflict based on air power alone, it takes people on the ground to actually do this.

It is only since US troops have been walking in Iraq that incidents have gone down, before they used to drive at high speeds through the town and because there was no human contact they had very little success.

In addition UK policing has recently put staff back out on foot and again is increasing their success.

You have to have people out there, slogging it to make a difference, you can put all the missiles into the ground that you want but it wont win the war.

[Boozy]

War is a big waste of money. It improves the lives of no one, and there are rarely positive long-term results. Even when one side appears to have "won", the real consequences can take years to become obvious.

For example, the military-industrial complex is bankrupting the US, economically and morally. It's taken a few generations to do it, but it's happening.

[Greenday]

WWII was certainly worth it, for America at least. It helped pull us out of a depression. We were able to free Europe, not piss Germany off, free China from Japan, help free a crapload of islands in the South Pacific.

The Korean War was kinda worth it. After all, we met our objectives, didn't we? South Korea is still free.

It seems like whether a war was worth it or not is based on if we won or not. We haven't completely won in the Middle East, thus people don't think it's worth it. Tell the now unopressed Afghanis how going there wasn't worth it.

The US is going bankrupt because the current administration doesn't know of the word budget. We could finance the war and not be destroying the economy if there wasn't so much wasteful spending going on.

[Rapscallion]

*cough*

The question was more or less whether or not it would be better to give the populace of another country a better life and take over that way rather than by shooting the crap out of anything that moves. Would it be more effective?

I wasn't really expecting answers about whether or not certain wars were better, or whether certain politicians understood budgets etc. Would it be more cost effective or would it generate a load of entitlement whores in other countries? Do you think it would actually work?

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Then I'm still a little confused. Do you mean, which way is better, being diplomatic? Or militarily change the country?

[Rapscallion]

It wouldn't be diplomatic. In short, if the US (or other major economic powerhouse) wanted to invade a shithole in the middle east with little money and low standards of living (take your pick - there are several to choose from), not to mention an oppressed population, they could simply march over the border and give out things that make the life of the population better. Bags of fertiliser, bags of seeds, better tools, the odd tractor - stuff that allows the population to thrive with far more ease.

A national military exists to defend the population of the country in which it operates, or should according to the basic ideal. In turn, it has to take support from the country in terms of food/weapons made by smiths etc/money. Many such countries have oppressive regimes where the military keeps the population down, existing only to serve themselves (military juntas etc).

Would it be more cost effective to march in and distribute some wealth to remove that support, and gain a more peaceful solution?

Sure, there would have to be armed patrols to defend the basic population, considering the repressive regimes would try to take the newfound 'wealth' from the peasants, but after a while they wouldn't have the support they used to have. All the superpower soldiers would have to demand in return was 'don't support the ex-rulers, don't throw bricks at us, and there's a new school for your village (complete with teacher) in the next year - what have the Romans ever done for you?'

So, do you think an approach like that would work and cost fewer lives?

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

It definitely won't work, because we'd still have to deal with the oppressive regime. While the civilians MAY agree to it and not attack our troops, the regime will NOT agree and won't just stand there and watch as we march through the country.

[BlaqueKatt]

It wouldn't be diplomatic. In short, if the US (or other major economic powerhouse) wanted to invade a shithole in the middle east with little money and low standards of living (take your pick - there are several to choose from), not to mention an oppressed population, they could simply march over the border and give out things that make the life of the population better.


and the oppressive governments could just as easily take it from the people by force or threats(example-"you accept anything we will harm you).

We sent Genetically modified crops to some famine stricken countries Africa-they were designed to give high yield in a desert-they dumped them and claimed GMO crops caused AIDS and Cancer, and that the US was trying to kill off the population of Africa. one country's president banned vaccines against Polio from the US telling his people it was really a shot to cause sterility-they believed him and refused the vaccines.

So no it wouldn't work

[Rapscallion]

I believe I pointed out (or should have) that the troops would be required to protect the goods given to the population, and the population themselves. Sort of a forced-annexation of the population.

I'm neither for or against the idea - I'm just tossing it out there to see if people think it could work, or if it would need modification.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

That is part of the multi-faceted approach that is working in Iraq, and worked at least part of the time in Vietnam. This administration just forgot that when you're fighting a war like this success not only relies on blowing shit up, but also actively engaging the populace and making their lives better.
For example in Afghanistan, we want to knock out opium fields that are providing Taliban troops with money. We can go in and burn the fields and leave, but that doesn't ultimately lead to a more stable nation which is our ultimate goal. Providing orchard starts and protection against taliban who would try to pressure the farmers into growing poppies again would.
A single well can speak volumes where a machine gun cannot. While I don't think that this approach alone would work, it definitely has a place in the toolbox.

[Amethyst Hunter]

The best way to wage a war is to PREVENT that war from ever taking place to begin with.

Yes, a few (VERY few) wars are sometimes necessary for the sake of self-defense, sadly, but ultimately, all war is a losing scenario all around no matter which side emerges the 'victor' - because it represents the worst of breakdowns in human communication. I once saw a sticker that read "Confucius say war is not won by who is right but by who is left." That's so true. And the ones who are left are often carrying some serious mental and physical baggage as a result of their war experiences (the wife/husband who is suddenly left a widow/er, the soldier who has seen brutal combat, the children who are orphaned, and so on).

If, as Raps suggested, we were to spread ground charity, we should have done that a long time ago before the first gun was ever fired. But, as someone else also pointed out, charity doesn't always work in the case of openly hostile governments which have serious control over their citizens. The citizens may want the offering, even (secretly) like and admire the ones offering it, but when push comes to shove, if some of their countrymen are waving guns literally in their faces telling them they and their loved ones will die if they accept aid or cooperate with 'the enemy' in any way, well... It takes a HELL of a lot of courage to stand up to that kind of bullying knowing that one is very likely to suffer and perish in the end.

Charity only goes so far and only works if both parties are amenable to it, and it needs to be much more than a band-aid fix - it needs to be a long-term commitment. If we didn't meddle so much in other countries' affairs, if we made an honest effort at helping others thrive (as opposed to just survival), I daresay we'd see a lot less animosity in the world.

[Slytovhand]

Well, there's no doubt that America had to go into Afghanistan.

Actually - there is... lots. But that's for a different thread... (I sort of hinted at in in my Conspiracy thread :D)

As for Raps' OP (I got it when I read it...), I'd point to (?) Roosevelt's (?) Real Deal during the Cold War. Granted, not quite the same thing (as we're not talking oppressive governments), but still, it has shown that it can be effective to get the locals on board (as long as it isn't via handing over weapons to do rebels and all....).

I do think that it is something that the UN should have been doing for years and years... get what is needed to those who need it, and stuff the oppressive governments - by having fully armed troops making sure that it doesn't get stolen... and to protect the general population.

As for Iraq... it is already happening - it's just unfortunate that the news you hear from there doesn't actually tell you about it - cos it's not sensational enough...

[Greenday]

\As for Iraq... it is already happening - it's just unfortunate that the news you hear from there doesn't actually tell you about it - cos it's not sensational enough...

Depends on which news you read. Working for the military, I hear all of it. The US military has done a crapload for the Iraqis and the Afghanis.

[sms001]

It wouldn't be diplomatic. In short, if the US (or other major economic powerhouse) wanted to invade a

There's a great science fiction story whose name and author escape me at the moment (But seems very Vonneguttian - I'll try to track it down.) where the U.S., instead of bombs, drops consumer goods on a country. The premise was essentially the same as yours: raise the standard of living, create a demand for commerce, and the hearts and souls will follow. I personally would LOVE to see a saturation bombing of an antagonist with OLPCs, coffee makers, and small arms for a couple of months before "real" hostilities. If the populace doesn't REALLY want to shift paradigms, nothing will make them, and your idea seems like a good litmus.