Very low casualty tolerance in recent conflicts

Here's the short version:

The conflicts Western soldiers get sent into are not worth much expenditure in blood, and almost everybody understands this.*

The mismatch between sending the men into a warzone and not wanting to sacrifice many of them for the cause is founded on the politicians' desire to play great power games. The many people who feel better thinking of their country as a military powerhouse are the supportive useful idiots for such poor policies.

It's disingenuous to blame the low casualty tolerance of the citizenry; it's the politicians who create the mismatch, not the people.

Still, this blame game is being played almost every time when the topic is being mentioned. It's as if warmongers claimed the right to blame the people for the fact that warmonger policies are unpopular when in reality warmongers simply fail to propose adequate policies. I wonder why they get away with it so easily.


*: I've yet to see anyone who admits that he or she thinks sacrificing 50,000 soldier lives to establish an (unstable) Iraqi system of governance of Western choice would have been worth it.

No comments:

Post a Comment