Comment by psunavy03 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by psunavy03 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> [0] Please someone get this one into the mainstream US debate next time they're trying to start a war.

Speaking as someone with 20 years in uniform and as a War College grad (if only by correspondence) . . . the military ironically has this wired more than any other institution in the Federal government. The reason the military gets drawn into so much of US foreign policy is not because of a fetish for blowing things up. It's because it's the only institution where formalized planning is a thing, the only one where feats of large-scale logistics are par for the course, and the only one where "I'm not going there because I might get hurt" isn't a valid excuse.

As an example, one of the best ways for distributing aid after a natural disaster is an amphibious task force, because you can send the same Marines in to distribute aid that you would to take territory. And going into relatively unprepared areas and setting up infrastructure for follow-on forces is basically their bit either way.

The problem comes in because military force is never the complete solution in and of itself outside of something like what's currently happening in Ukraine. And when you involve all the other agencies plus scads of glory-seeking politicians, it's hard to keep things from becoming a shitshow.

Military force, as demonstrated by the US and its allies, worked out really well in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan (Taliban 2.0 after 20 years), Syria.

Declaring victory and running way is the common theme of US foreign policy.

> outside of something like what's currently happening in Ukraine.

Typical slippery slope. "The problem comes in because military force is never the complete solution in and of itself outside of something like <insert any use of army>"

Even just the military won't solve the Ukraine. Like lets say superman comes down and lasers all the Russians.

Who gets what land? What happens to the people whose houses are destroyed? What happens to those whose farms are litered with landmines?

This is the posters point. The military can execute on a lot of things effectively but in order to go from 80% to 100% you need more than just them.

We have answers to all these questions, or can find them, but they can't be implemented in an active warzone.

Right, the military quells the warzone, and you still need a plan for after that. That's the 80-100% part, coming from people outside the military.

Seems pretty simple unless you are secretly stanning for the orcs. Ownership of the land should revert to the status quo ante before Putin's initial incursion into Crimea. Those whose property has been destroyed or mined should be compensated with seized Russian assets. Kidnapped Ukrainian children should be returned to what's left of their families.

What alternatives would be more fair, from your perspective?

I read this as a logistical question rather than a moral one. What happens when two farmers can't agree on where their property boundaries sat prior to the war, the fences got ripped out after one side used the area as a staging ground, and any records have been blown up by glide bombs? What happens to the real, physical land that's covered in mines and needs to be either cleared or fenced? Where can Maria and her family stay tonight, next week, and where will they end up? These aren't (necessarily) problems for the military to solve.

Good points all. Like the other poster said, though, first the war must end. It's to our shame (meaning the West's) that Ukraine isn't well into the suing-Russia-for-reparations phase.

> Those whose property has been destroyed or mined should be compensated with seized Russian assets.

Unless you think the resources of the clearly guilty are limitless, this sounds like Versailles-type collective punishment that may be satisfying, and maybe even moral, but is counter-productive long-term.

Putin is no Hitler, though. I suspect that turning Russia into a failed state that the rest of the world will have to support is exactly his plan. He looks at Kim Jong Un with envy, not contempt.

Orcs? How polite.

What do you call African Americans and Asians? Just curious.

Depends. What country did they illegally and unjustly invade, and what war crimes did they commit in the process?

By that logic you need to take a good hard look at your own history.

Damn straight. Orc-nature is a consequence of one's actions, and we have no shortage of it ourselves.

That being said, we're not the orcs this time, so your point is tangential at best.

You’re masking your racism and Russophobia with evasion.

Da, tovarisch

What no vatnik? Or is that reserved for Reddit?

I do love the smell of racism and hypocrisy in the morning.

> What alternatives would be more fair, from your perspective?

It would be more fair for the Americans to first return to Europe and only then voice their valuable opinions about fairness.

Whatabout

Whatabout

Whatabout

What about taking arguments of this quality back to Reddit, where they belong?

Point of order . . . "the Ukraine" is what Putin and his ilk call it. Ukraine is the name of the country. Its etymology does come from the Slavic word for "march" or "borderland," but that's the point. Ukraine is its own sovereign nation since 1991. Calling it "the Ukraine" or "the borderlands" subtly legitimizes the Russian claim that it's nothing more than "Novorossiya" or "New Russia."

The Ukraine literally means The Borderlands and refers to the areas fought over repeatedly by all various European countries from Sweden to Poland to Austria to Hungary.

Novorossiya is the name for the southern mainland of The Ukraine. The name dates back to the late 18th century, there’s nothing really “new” about it. Do you consider the name America to be old? Novorossiya is as old.

I suggest you find out how these lands were merged into The Ukraine during the Soviet era.

You're being downvoted because that's not a slippery slope argument familiar to the mostly US-based readership and it's hard to tell if you're crazy or not.

Ie, the US identifies very strongly with three wars (revolutionary, civil, and ww2) where military force was a necessary but not sufficient condition. Ie, the US lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan despite having a far more favorable balance of military forces because they could never find a political solution. If you were taught that wars are won by force alone, you were miseducated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com