... the United States would likely have
- perpetuated the war participation in Iraq with ten thousands of American troops there till today
- done and sustained a bigger "surge" in Afghanistan
- invaded Libya
- entered ground war in Syria
- escalated the Ukraine conflict to a major proxy war
- developed the civil war in Yemen into a proxy war instead of sitting it out largely
- spent an additional USD 1-5 trillion on the military for almost no benefit (incl. discounted long-term costs)
- suffered an additional 1,000-6,000 KIA
I do not see any benefits in warmonger policies.
On the other hand, the torturers MIGHT have been sent to jail. This is a capital letters "might" because those who bear the most responsibility were GWB and Cheney, and it's questionable whether they would have been prosecuted under a (R) POTUS.
S O
.
To play devils advocate, a much earlier intervention in Syria and Libya would have been great for the population of Syria and Libya.
ReplyDeleteFrom an EU utility standpoint, the whole refugee episode could have been avoided, with all the unpleasant side effects.
Ukraine might still turn out to be a repeat of Munich, so the jury on that is still out there.
There is one thing worse then interventions, and that are half way interventions like in Libya and Syria. It tickles enough support to keep the war going, but the civil society is completely shattered by the war.
What in the example of Iraq made you think that a U.S. intervention with ground forces in Syria and Libya (as McCain favoured) would have a nice ending?
DeleteIraq is still a mess after 13 years!
There was a popular uprising in Syria. Less so in Libya. The regime had the superior firepower and that kept it in the game. Now, they might be the better option, but at start a short air campaign would have tiped the scales.
ReplyDeleteNo support or full support would have been much better for Syria.
Iraq was a mess since the sanctions were enacted.