Which of these two statements, if believed to be true, would make the world a better place?
1. There’s no point in attacking and occupying another country because it never turns out well.
2. Sometimes wars of occupation turn out great!
I’m not asking which statement is true. I’m asking which situation would be a better world if people believed it.
It seems to me that as long as rebels and insurgents can get great weapons – and that always seems to be the case – the days of “winning” a war are over. So I wonder if, in the long run, the world and the United States are better off if the history lesson from Iraq is that even the strongest military power can’t occupy one of the weakest.
Do we win by losing?
Maybe sometimes we need to go pound a country that’s harboring terrorists, for example. But do we need to stay and overthrow the government after the pounding is done? If the U.S. didn’t have troops in Afghanistan, would Osama be any harder to find?
I like to look on the bright side. The U.S. proved that it can destroy any country that it wants. Iraq has shown that no little country can be occupied without unacceptable costs. That seems like a good way to leave things.
Discuss.
[I didn’t feel funny today. Not enough sleep.]