Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fniff]

Interesting... So, what circumstances would make you not want to get involved in a Syrian intervention?

[MaximumZero]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/george-pataki-exits-republican-presidential-race-217212

Yep, Pataki is dropping out. He hasn't officially dropped out just yet, but he's signalling that he's going to.

As someone who lived in NY during his time as governor, he should drop out of politics.

[Strife26]

Interesting... So, what circumstances would make you not want to get involved in a Syrian intervention?

Most likely would be a half hearted commitment to intervention. I got out of a piece time Army for a few different reasons and those reasons all still stand, so I wouldn't go back in if the actual troop level was low (I don't especially care to be a garrison soldier against). Once the intervention turned into an Iraq style cluster fuck, I'd be more and more likely to get back in uniform, from guilt as well as draw of bonuses going up (if it's a fifty-fifty chance of a deployment and there's a five digit enlistment bonus, for example, I'd pull out my boots again).

Other than that, it'd require a massive downgrade in the righteousness of the intervention, the professionalism of the forces involved, or a major change in my life status.

So, if the goal of the intervention is propping up Turkey, the deployment would involve working closely as a small group with a middle eastern military force, pay and benefits were slashed, and I fell in love, got married, then enrolled in the college of my dreams, then my desire to go would likely drop down considerably.

[Sheb]

the deployment would involve working closely as a small group with a middle eastern military force,

I'm curious about this part. Is you concern about the quality of the soldiers (don't want crap watching you back), blue-on-blue incident or the fact that you don't feel the same comreadeship for non-americans and the urge to protect them, or still something else?

[Strife26]

Concern about the quality of the soldiers, mostly. I've worked with Iraqi troops and I spent a good sized months trying to turn a Korean draftee into a tanker. There's a world of difference between a disciplined soldier and someone who is issued a weapon. Working with incompetent people isn't something I terribly fond of doing and it'd also be a large increase in personal risk, yes. Also, while I do have a surprising amount of experience in it, trying to turn iffy soldiers into real ones isn't something I'm trained in or keen on doing. Now, if it was turning foreign soldiers into tankers, that might be more agreeable to me, but that's getting into the weeds a bit with hypotheticals.

I suppose that my readiness to head overseas would depend on at least the variables of vague morality of the action, professionalism of the group I'd be with, compensation, and length of contract.

Edit: I think tanky-ness of the job should be in that list too. If it's fighting Soviet tanks coming through the Fulda Gap, we're pretty much just down to a very moderate morality and professionalism requirement for me to jump at it.

[Strife26]

And double posting too, because I'm reflecting on how much comradery factors into things, because I'd be perfectly cool if it was a hypothetical intervention in Germany or Korea or someplace like that. I don't think it's primarily me not being a fan of Middle East forces in general; however, if I was fighting with Koreans or Germans, I'd be confident that they'd be friends to America in a decade. Syrians? Not nearly as much.

Then the Kurds go and throw a major wrench into my thinking, because I'd be totally cool about fighting with them, and goddamn Turkey messes up our future with them. That might be a case of morality (because the Kurds really do deserve a state, both practically and ethically, I'd argue) and professionalism.

And that in turn implies a few more variables, ease of me joining,  and legality of me joining. Obviously, in the context of me throwing my uniform back on for an American intervention, both of those aren't a concern (although ease of deployment might factor into the earlier consideration that I wouldn't reenlist if actually heading overseas was unlikely).

So yeah, many variables.

[Rolepgeek]

So it's essentially an obligation to your comrades, not to your country or some abstract ideal? Then I still wonder about the 'missing out' bit - what do you feel would you be missing out on? Most people try to get and stay out of war zones instead of trying to get into one...

From what I've heard, in the heat of battle, you don't fight for your country or some abstract ideal; you fight for the guy next to you.

I actually find it kinda funny that I think of myself as fairly liberal/progressive, but I still get as fired up as most neocons seem to. Difference is just the reasons behind why I think we should be invading places, really.

[RedKing]

I'm curious about the assertion about fighting beside the Kurds. Because from my study of their history, it seems like you can trust them about as far as you can throw them, minus two meters.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[mainiac]

How far back are you going to say that the kurds are unreliable?  Given what happened after the first gulf war, if anything I'd say it's the kurds that are reliable and the US that is unreliable.

[smjjames]

I don't know, maybe this is the ethnic group we can put in power to ensure stability in the region. We haven't tried them yet, I don't think.

Didn't we try to do something similar with the Taliban or Muhadjeen? Granted that was back in like the 1980's, but point is, 99% of everything that we've done in the MidEast has come back to bite us in the ass in some form or another. Maybe a better example would be the Shah of Iran.

Also, we'd have to be careful about making it look like we're going 'Hey ppl, the Kurds are your new overlords, like it or not'. Plus they'd have to carve their territory out of someone elses country.

How far back are you going to say that the kurds are unreliable?  Given what happened after the first gulf war, if anything I'd say it's the kurds that are reliable and the US that is unreliable.

Welcome back maniac I'm also wondering on that about the Kurds being unreliable.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The idea that the US armed the Taliban isn't quite accurate, and the version where the Taliban were directly created by the US is definitely edging out of competing interpretations and into conspiracy theory. The muhadjeen (whom in the Soviet-Afghan War had no overarching structure and consisted of various factions) that were most assisted by the US would eventually become the Northern Alliance, who were allies again during the US-Afghan War and theoretically still are.

[mainiac]

Welcome back maniac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqzJkTatWiQ

[Strife26]

How far back are you going to say that the kurds are unreliable?  Given what happened after the first gulf war, if anything I'd say it's the kurds that are reliable and the US that is unreliable.

I'd agree completely with this sentiment. It's really amazing how friendly US-Kurdish relations are, considering how many times we've fucked them over.

Also, we'd have to be careful about making it look like we're going 'Hey ppl, the Kurds are your new overlords, like it or not'. Plus they'd have to carve their territory out of someone elses country.

It'd more giving all the semi autonomous Kurdish regions an actual country. I'd bet my everything it'd end being a damn sight more stable (because actual nation state) than what's there now.

[smjjames]

How far back are you going to say that the kurds are unreliable?  Given what happened after the first gulf war, if anything I'd say it's the kurds that are reliable and the US that is unreliable.

I'd agree completely with this sentiment. It's really amazing how friendly US-Kurdish relations are, considering how many times we've fucked them over.

I think most of that was indirectly, but yeah, the US isn't the only country that has fucked them over.