Among the commentariat, America’s problem with “forever wars” is usually discussed as a failure of grand strategy. In this telling, presidents misjudge threats; generals overestimate what military power can accomplish; and policymakers confuse battlefield victories with political success. These explanations are all valid, but they miss something fundamental: the people making decisions about war face incentives that are often badly misaligned with the interests of the public.
The United States does not need to assume that its presidents are uniquely reckless, its generals uniquely ambitious, or its diplomats uniquely foolish. It needs to recognize that even intelligent, well-intentioned people can make systematically bad decisions when the institutional incentives surrounding them are wrong.
Consider the politician’s dilemma. No president wants to be remembered as the person who “lost” Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or some future client state. Continuing a failing war therefore has an asymmetric political advantage. If the war eventually succeeds, the president can claim credit. If it fails, responsibility can be distributed among predecessors, allies, Congress, insufficient resources, or changing circumstances. Withdrawal is different. If the government collapses afterward, the president who ordered the withdrawal can be blamed personally.
Here I thought like a fool Trump would end forever wars.
Also the military industrial complex is a self feeding machine with the pension system! After 20 or 30 years of service they start earning up to 75% of their base pay. If living a modest life style the retiree can get into politics full time and not have to worry about missing a meal or a mortgage payment.
So many former soldiers get cushy private sector jobs most are government contractors or lobbyists.
And that is how our Congress can pass $1T. NDAA bills
This is how you end forever wars. You fight one big war against communism, and then we have peace forever.
And the evidence supporting that is...
How many bullet points do you need me to list? The data is all publicly accessible.
But first notice that this is the eternal struggle of capitalism. I can't convince anyone to invest in my project until after it succeeds. No one wants to buy Bitcoin until after it's worth $1 million. And then they're mad that I have more than them. What we need is a historical precedent for why capitalism works and why it's the most moral system, so that society follows the rules automatically.
Think of the monkey ladder experiment. Anyone in the future who suggests some guy has too much money immediately gets dogpiled before the revolution gets out of hand, because the collective subconscious will instinctively remember "communism bad."
If we're serious about laissez-faire being implemented in the real world then we need to claim and hold territory. Regimes that ban Bitcoin for civilian use are violating the NAP in a way that necessitates physical intervention. Politicians should be as afraid of taxing Bitcoin as they are of drawing a picture of Muhammed.
This is no ordinary war. The Landlord's Liberation Army is baiting the communists into initiating a revolution at their weakest possible starting point. This is the free market bringing the state to heel. This is the invisible hand taking up the invisible gun. This is the recommencement of 1776, the Great Disunity, a Blitzkrieg through the financial system to counter the Long March through the universities, the fulfillment of the White Horse Prophecy, and the Day of the Rake.
My evidence is that Pluto has completed its revolution and escaped Saturn's bondage to deliver the vengeance of Uranus.
"Real capitalism has never been tried!" :)
But seriously, this approach is a practical way to reach a libertarian future: https://stephankinsella.com/2010/01/punishing-politicians/
Kinsella's my favorite and I don't think I've read that.
People don't share this idea because the idea of enforcing it makes them uncomfortable.
They'll be comfortable if we wear uniforms and sing happy songs.
Ha! that would be the day. Crazy how Muhammed is untouchable but Jesus gets mocked constantly in the western world.
It's a self-licking icecream cone.