Bomb 'enemies' with supplies
Discussion
Has anyone ever written a comprehensive and reliable report on the possibility of spending the equivalent amount on unconditional aid vs invading and/or bombing a problematic country/regime?
This question has been sparked by watching 'War Machine' on Netflix - an examination of the failure of the traditional approach to 'war' in Afghanistan.
This question has been sparked by watching 'War Machine' on Netflix - an examination of the failure of the traditional approach to 'war' in Afghanistan.
The Squanto Doctrine?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squanto
It would be an impossible thing to accurately estimate but I would imagine in the long run unconditional aid would have similar results to unconditional bombing. That is to say empowering the wrong people, damaging the wrong things, fostering the wrong attitudes and perpetuating a cycle of dependency and resentment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squanto
It would be an impossible thing to accurately estimate but I would imagine in the long run unconditional aid would have similar results to unconditional bombing. That is to say empowering the wrong people, damaging the wrong things, fostering the wrong attitudes and perpetuating a cycle of dependency and resentment.
Not sure any of the recent "interventions" were without some form of purpose that could have been achieved by giving unconditional aid. Bosnia, please stop slaughtering each other, or no chocolate? Afghan, stop being medieval or we will give you parcels.
Sure it would work in Ethiopia, but that's hardly been a shining example of efficacy, has it?
Sure it would work in Ethiopia, but that's hardly been a shining example of efficacy, has it?
grumbledoak said:
It has been America's stated plan to destroy seven countries in five years purely because that is what their war machine is good at. This keeps it occupied. How would doing something else achieve that aim?
Hmm that deserves a bit of context. It wasn't publicly stated, but a private memo, relayed by Wesley Clarke.
It wasn't because "that's what they're good at" as an end in itself. It was a cack handed response to 9/11 that centred around identifying countries where terrorism flourished.
It also hasn't happened.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Hmm that deserves a bit of context.
It wasn't publicly stated, but a private memo, relayed by Wesley Clarke.
It wasn't because "that's what they're good at" as an end in itself. It was a cack handed response to 9/11 that centred around identifying countries where terrorism flourished.
It also hasn't happened.
They've had a pretty good stab at it. Properly fIt wasn't publicly stated, but a private memo, relayed by Wesley Clarke.
It wasn't because "that's what they're good at" as an end in itself. It was a cack handed response to 9/11 that centred around identifying countries where terrorism flourished.
It also hasn't happened.
ked up Iraq and bombed Libya back into openly selling slaves. Somalia and Sudan's tourist industries aren't exactly thriving. Thus far they've failed in Syria but they are still there stealing the oil. Lebanon recently reporting protests very reminiscent of the colour revolutions, presumably they are next for some air dropped freedom.How would dropping aid to the people in these countries have achieved the same objectives?
grumbledoak said:
They've had a pretty good stab at it. Properly fked up Iraq and bombed Libya back into openly selling slaves. Somalia and Sudan's tourist industries aren't exactly thriving. Thus far they've failed in Syria but they are still there stealing the oil. Lebanon recently reporting protests very reminiscent of the colour revolutions, presumably they are next for some air dropped freedom.
How would dropping aid to the people in these countries have achieved the same objectives?
Oh I'm not defending the utterly mad policy the US has employed, and we largely followed. Far from it. Just saying that the idea of destroying 7 countries in 5 years was not a military make work scheme as such but a badly formed policy in response to an attack they had no idea how to deal with.ked up Iraq and bombed Libya back into openly selling slaves. Somalia and Sudan's tourist industries aren't exactly thriving. Thus far they've failed in Syria but they are still there stealing the oil. Lebanon recently reporting protests very reminiscent of the colour revolutions, presumably they are next for some air dropped freedom.How would dropping aid to the people in these countries have achieved the same objectives?
It is completely impossible to imagine how things would have turned out had the same amount been spent on aid over the same period but a few ideas:
The total cost of the Iraq war between 2003 and 2010 is estimated at about $2.4 trillion, the GDP of Iraq in 2007 was approximately $89 billion. There's a reason I've picked these years and numbers, others are available. I can elaborate if you wish, but the principle stands.
That means bombing the hell out of them and occupying the country for 7 years cost about 27 years worth of every single thing produced in Iraq. Or nearly 4 years worth landing every year.
Dumping 27 years of production on a country would have huge ramifications.
The first effect would be to entirely kill the local productive economy. Who will farm when free food falls from the sky? Who will make clothes when they arrive by the lorry load every week? Why build a dam or a factory, a power station or oil well when those nice American guys are building one 4 times bigger and better up the road?
It would all still be largely administered by the regime so even if the average Iraqi had food, light and clothes the plum jobs would go to the right people, the best stuff would go to the favoured ones. The bags of Levis and crates of baked beans would be little consolation to the political prisoners.
Then the war would end. The food would stop, the clothes wouldn't arrive, the factories would close and the oil wells would run dry. You would have a huge rural population who would be unemployed and unemployable, guided by religious fanatics and state appointed thugs. You would have a corrupt police and judiciary, an education system which is counter productive, over ambitious infrastructure crumbling before your eyes and a general feeling of helplessness.
An open goal for the regime to say that the American pigs have robbed our resources, and the religious fanatics to say Allah will help us recover them.
Basically all the ingredients that make Iraq from 2010 to present.
I'll repeat that I am in no way saying that the Iraq war was a good thing. It was an unmitigated disaster by any sensible measure. It does not follow that an equivalent amount of aid in any form by any means would have produced a better result, and may well even produce a worse one.
Fundamentally that is because it doesn't answer the core problem of Iraqi despotism or of Islamist terrorism. Neither of which suffer from a lack of undirected resources or a lack of being indiscriminately bombed.
Both are a product of the lack of a sensible middle class, and a middle class can only be the product of directed resources and discriminate punishment.
Fittster said:
Never understood why Argentina didn't buy the population of the Falklands off. Give up, your quite frankly miserable island and we will give you $5 million dollars each.
Because giving $10bn to foreigners is a lot to a crumbling nationalist despot. A few hundred lives on a military adventure is nothing. JuanCarlosFandango said:
Fittster said:
Never understood why Argentina didn't buy the population of the Falklands off. Give up, your quite frankly miserable island and we will give you $5 million dollars each.
Because giving $10bn to foreigners is a lot to a crumbling nationalist despot. A few hundred lives on a military adventure is nothing. Fittster said:
Never understood why Argentina didn't buy the population of the Falklands off. Give up, your quite frankly miserable island and we will give you $5 million dollars each.
Erm, there’s no way in hell, the British are going to give up their territory. It’s a little thing called ‘principal’. The world has gone to st, it’s full of limp wristed liberals now. I really hope the Falkland islanders continue to do everything they can to uphold their sovereignty, and I hope the British government continues to do everything in its power to facilitate / support it.GOATever said:
Fittster said:
Never understood why Argentina didn't buy the population of the Falklands off. Give up, your quite frankly miserable island and we will give you $5 million dollars each.
Erm, there’s no way in hell, the British are going to give up their territory. It’s a little thing called ‘principal’. The world has gone to st, it’s full of limp wristed liberals now. I really hope the Falkland islanders continue to do everything they can to uphold their sovereignty, and I hope the British government continues to do everything in its power to facilitate / support it.Fittster said:
GOATever said:
Fittster said:
Never understood why Argentina didn't buy the population of the Falklands off. Give up, your quite frankly miserable island and we will give you $5 million dollars each.
Erm, there’s no way in hell, the British are going to give up their territory. It’s a little thing called ‘principal’. The world has gone to st, it’s full of limp wristed liberals now. I really hope the Falkland islanders continue to do everything they can to uphold their sovereignty, and I hope the British government continues to do everything in its power to facilitate / support it.However, does anyone imagine that bombing Nazi Germany with anything but fiery death would have done any good?
GOATever said:
Fittster said:
Never understood why Argentina didn't buy the population of the Falklands off. Give up, your quite frankly miserable island and we will give you $5 million dollars each.
Erm, there’s no way in hell, the British are going to give up their territory. It’s a little thing called ‘principal’. The world has gone to st, it’s full of limp wristed liberals now. I really hope the Falkland islanders continue to do everything they can to uphold their sovereignty, and I hope the British government continues to do everything in its power to facilitate / support it.OTOH, if a bunch of foreigners arrive unannounced and lay claim to the place, that's not a Persian/Cyrus deal, it's an existential one.
I reckon they could have airdropped fit Argentine women on the place for ten years and spent a fraction of what they did in lives and money.
These days they have no chance. The Falklands are a Fortress for anyone who isn't a first world military.
Edited by glazbagun on Sunday 3rd November 00:30
Ayahuasca said:
If the Argentines had not invaded in ‘82 I believe that they would control the islands by now. The Argentines have broadly similar values to our own.
However, does anyone imagine that bombing Nazi Germany with anything but fiery death would have done any good?
Depends on your definition of "Good". Vs the Commies, I reckon Thatcher and Reagan ((Holocaust aside. BIG aside- was that even an issue mid war, or was that post war?) would be minded to follow the Nazi's to Siberia where it not politically inconvenient.However, does anyone imagine that bombing Nazi Germany with anything but fiery death would have done any good?
In the end they did side with Germany and no Fiery Death was required to bring down the USSR, just lots of military spending and good open PR mixed with old fashioned corruption.
What would the cost of military victory against the USSR have been vs the Economic one we/they achieved?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff