Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News "Unintended Consequences of Military Intervention"

So, a bunch of decision makers sit around a big table and debate whether or not to have a war. The people in favor propose that they could throw massive amounts of money and lives at a project and and there is a possiblility that maybe it could work out to be economically beneficial.

The leader asks what is the probablility of success.

Proponents say... well, sometimes these thing work out well... but we really don't know.

Is that how it works?

No, you still do not have it, Ardy.

Why are you fixated on the view that wars are designed to achieve national goals?
That is certainly possible, but definitely not necessary.
All the modern wars of the United States are fomented and sustained by very private interests for personal profit -- the war contractors, war profiteers, etc.
They have no interest in helping their country -- they just want to feather their own nests.
The country can go down in flames and hellfire, as long as they are all right, Jack !

Numan
I continue to admire the perpicacity of your postings

That said, I was trying to stick to a single thread of discussion about the generalized motivation for war accross all countries

When that discussion is fully elucidated, I am sure there will be great enthusiam to move on to your dead on critiques of the american politcal system

Thx
Ardy

Ardy, numan's post pretty much summarizes what I've been saying.

Wars are started with economic motivation. There are profiteers, as numan pointed out, and there are motives of economic hegemony on the part of the aggressors.

Whether or not the goal of economic hegemony is reached depends on the outcome of the war. Those who initiate it do not know the outcome beforehand.

So, given those two aspects, there always seems to be some economic benefit, whether it be to the profiteers or whether it be through economic hegemony, or both.

I don't know how else to explain it.

For the Just, War is Noble and Good. Only War reveals the best and the worst of Man.

Zeke
Of course you are correct that it is impossible to predict the outcome of wars.... and there are lots of reasons for this.

I observe that people can go through years of psychological therapy to try to untangle the complicated web that results in a particular problem. And I can say for my self that I seldom have a clearly defined and unitary motivation for my decisions.

SO given that the decision process of any individual is very complex, and given that the decision process of multiple people must also be very complex... and to a large degree opaque. And certainly, one must allow for the fact that other cutures will have motivation structures that are totally unfamiliar to us... and necessarily even further obscured.

SO, what puzzles me is how you can see uncertainty in one set of complexity... and yet with laser like precision see through even greater complexity and arrive at certainty as to the single unifying motivation.



Again you are correct, but there does seem to be a hole in your logic. Let me illustrate.

Many people get married. the choice of partner will likely have an economic impact on their future. But it does not seem a fair conclusion to say that the choice of marriage partner is almost entirely driven by economic factors.

I am thinking that the hypothesis presented to us that wars are primarily motivated by economics has the logical flaw of having been, in fact, a conclusion. Which could explain why it performed so erratically in logical analysis.

I am still at a loss to see the underlying economic motivation in the two war examples to which I provided links. One was the Hatfields and McCoys - that one seems to be motivated by hatred.

The second hasn't actually evolved into a war yet, but I thought that if we made some significant progress here, we might use what we discover to deter that war from ever starting. That issue is the threat of Kim Jong-un re: attacking the U.S. What form does the economic motivator take that provokes North Korea's saber rattling?

I do enjoy discussing topics, but sometimes it is like pulling snail's teeth to get folks to materially participate! Quibbling seems to be more popular with some.

Both my posts and those of numan present a reason why collective decisions tend to be less complex than those of individuals. There is no hard and fast way to determine the process that leads to complexity.

I don't think that it is with "laser like precision" but I do think that there is sufficient evidence to say that the hypothesis of economic motivation has more than a fair chance at being correct.


The hole in your logic is that, again, you equate the individual to the collective decision. And, what is more, your example is perhaps not the best one, given that there are many examples where economic gain IS a main reason for marriage.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. As such, it is a conclusion. I believe the logical flaw lies in your comment.

As I mentioned before, even hatred does not spring out of "nothing". There is usually some reason for it.

Oh, perhaps, economic sanctions imposed on North Korea. And why would the U.S. impose those sanctions? Well, perhaps because the end of North Korea's regime would solidify American economic allies in the region.


Indeed, you should check your own comments. You may just find a clue therein.

I have long noted that, due to the intensity of the brainwashing to which they are subjected, many or most Americans are astonishingly incapable of making even the most simple distinctions between individual and collective behavior.

Must it constantly be pointed out that if someone at a high level of decision making in the War and Murder Industries of the United States did not make sufficiently profitable decisions, they would soon be replaced by those who were more efficient at exploiting the populace and finding markets for their murder products ?

The subjective motivations of these sociopathic wretches are of little or no significance to their objective activities promoting murder and mayhem.