Military Review

United States is contraindicated to fight

A major American edition of The National Interest has published anti-rating wars. According to the author of the “anti-rating”, publicist and university lecturer Robert Farley, these wars and conflicts were not worth it. Because of these wars, America suffered only losses. And it's not just about the Vietnam War and the recent Iraq campaign.

United States is contraindicated to fight

According to Robert Farley, Senior Lecturer at the School of Diplomacy and International Trade at the University of Kentucky, publicist and author of "The National Interest", in the discussion that preceded the 2003 war in Iraq, the Americans were "fascinated" by the difference between "wars of choice" and "wars by necessity". The fact is that if opponents of the war in Iraq condemned the campaign as a “war of choice”, supporters insisted on “necessity”. However, the question itself is wrong: after all, some of the wars “by choice” turned out to be a really good choice. However, with others, exactly the opposite happened. In addition, it cannot be said that the United States always makes wise choices.

"Antireyting" Robert Farley includes five unsuccessful wars that "choose" America should not.

1. War 1812 of the year. It's about the second American war of independence, which took place against the background of the Anglo-French conflict and competition. To a large extent, the United States was able to avoid war before the 1812 year. And although the US “offenses” against the British in that war were “legal”, it quickly became clear that the Americans were poorly prepared for military actions.

Yes, the naval forces acted well, but on the whole, success was on the side of the British crown: the British "did what they wanted and when they wanted." The British burned down the American capital, and only “heroic resistance” prevented Baltimore from setting fire.

The republic almost collapsed from internal divisions, before Washington and Washington reconciled.

2. Another unsuccessful campaign is The Black Hills War.

The first 120 years of its existence, the United States government waged an almost uninterrupted war against the Indian tribes who lived on the western border (and sometimes in the jurisdiction of the United States). In other cases, conflicts flared up because of the Indian attack on the villages of the Americans, the newspaper notes; in others, the cause of the collisions was pure self-interest - the struggle was for territory and resources.

The worst war of those times is the war for the Black Hills. It began in 1876 year. White settlers encroached on the lands allocated by the Cheyenne tribe and the Lakota Sioux tribe. The US government did not succeed (and to a large extent it did not want to) to limit the migration of whites to the Black Hills, and therefore it simply decided to capture some of the most valuable areas.

As a result, the Americans suffered "one of the most serious military defeats" in the Indian wars.

In the end, the combination of military and diplomatic efforts led to the fact that most of the Cheyenne and Sioux surrendered, except for those Indians who fled to Canada. However, the collision continued for nearly fifteen years.

This is how the American government "reassured" the Cheyenne and Sioux and gained control over the territory that later became South Dakota. Death and destruction caused by the war, showed the cruelty of the American government against the Indian tribes.

3. Great War (The Great War). This refers to the First World.

When the war in Europe began in August 1914, American politicians correctly identified the conflict as purely European. Despite the fact that the United States was already the largest economy in the world, official Washington has not yet concluded that it is responsible for global stability and conflict resolution. The United States looked at the conflict and profited from the “slow burning” of European civilization. So it was from 1914 to 1917.

President Woodrow Wilson in the 1916 election campaign of the year promised "to stay out of war." Incidents with Germany (for example, with submarines) changed the position of the American government. But what is the result? During the eighteen months of the war (the fiercest battles were in the summer of 1918 of the year), 116000 Americans were killed. That war led to the collapse of four empires (Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire) and the glorification of two other states (England and France). The central conflicts of war remained unresolved.

4. Vietnam war. American politicians have been watching the events in Southeast Asia since the middle of the 1940s. Later, the United States military intervention in the conflict was directed against the Viet Cong and the forces of North Vietnam. But for what purpose? The United States began to withdraw from South Vietnam in 1972, but how could South Vietnam protect itself from the North? In 1975, all American actions went down the drain. Meanwhile, the invasion of the Americans was the cause of the long suffering of the Vietnamese people.

5. Iraqi Freedom (Operation Iraqi Freedom). In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime and build a friendly democratic state in the country. One of the declared goals of the campaign was to prevent the spread of weapons mass destruction, as if the Iraqi groups associated with major terrorist networks.

Looking back, you understand what all this was nonsense, writes the author of "anti-rating."

Yes, the United States "won a convincing victory over the Iraqi armed forces in the first weeks of the war." However, they "could not establish order in the country."

Iraq quickly became a field for civil war, characterized by great loss of life and economic disruption.

Major investigations carried out after the invasion did not confirm the existence of a WMD development program. No significant contacts between the regime and the Al-Qaida terrorist network have been identified either.

The current government of Iraq controls only part of the territory. In addition, it is forced to fight the "IG". The influence of Iran in the region has increased. Even American Republican hawks are no longer eager to enter the new Iraq war.

What is the conclusion to be drawn?

To avoid a ridiculous war, politicians need to be aware of their own responsibility. George Washington warned at one time that the United States must exercise great caution and stay away from unnecessary wars, as well as from invasions abroad.

In conclusion, let us ask ourselves a simple question: does Barack Obama, for example, realize this? Not. The invasion of Libya 2011 of the year and Russia's "containment policy" are examples of this. But do those who wish to change Obama in the Oval Office realize this? Maybe Hillary Clinton? Or Marco Rubio? Also no. The first one calls for the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, and the second one is eager to shoot down Russian aircraft in the Syrian sky.

It is not surprising that some American analysts are certain that Washington will lead the planet to a nuclear war.

What kind of responsibility here!

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aleksander
    Aleksander 12 November 2015 06: 04 New
    Because of these wars, America suffered only losses.

    At least I’d have torn myself ....
    1. Goga101
      Goga101 12 November 2015 06: 13 New
      Aleksander - насчёт убытков - врёт автор, "наваривались" они на каждой войне, другое дело, что "политические убытки" - особенно после того как они обосрамимились во Въетнаме....
      1. Tatyana
        Tatyana 12 November 2015 07: 56 New
        From the text of the article
        ... some American analysts are sure: Washington will lead the planet to nuclear war.
        What kind of responsibility here!
        The fact is that Washington is only a WEAPON in the hands of the American financial OLIGARHAT, which the USA themselves absolutely do not care geopolitically!
        World war politicians are asked from managers hired by OLIGARHAT. And this is not entirely correct. After all, the financial oligarchs themselves are hoping for a world nuclear war and can sit out somewhere else. Question - WHERE exactly? and WHO of them specifically? and when?
        It is necessary that during the war it is THEY — the instigators of the war — who personally, once again, DO NOT STAY PUNISHED!
    2. Vend
      Vend 12 November 2015 10: 04 New
      Quote: Aleksander
      Because of these wars, America suffered only losses.

      At least I’d have torn myself ....

      Losses are not only in the United States, entire countries are disappearing from world maps. I'd like you to be right. Wait is already tired
  2. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 12 November 2015 06: 51 New
    To avoid a ridiculous war, politicians should be aware of their own responsibility

    О какой ответственности может идти речь если "исключительные" преподносят очередную войну, как защиту своих национальных интересов. А кто же будет нести ответственность за защиту нац интересов страны, даже если эта "защита" с треском провалилась и принесла только хаос. Американцев постояно успокаивает то, что они разжигают очередной конфликт далеко за океаном и этот конфликт на прямую не касается самой Америки (за исключением потерь), а даже приносит барыши ВПК.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 12 November 2015 07: 31 New
    It is not surprising that some American analysts are certain that Washington will lead the planet to a nuclear war.
    ... They say this, from the very moment that nuclear weapons appeared .. R. Bradbury seems to have a story about the house. 21 century house .. clever, wakes up the owners, cooks, educates children .. But there is nobody in the house , all died during the nuclear war .. The house survived ... The story was written in the 50s ..
  4. ImPerts
    ImPerts 12 November 2015 07: 40 New
    США жёстко блюдут мир и порядок у себя в стране. Не допускают крупных конфликтов в Северной Америке. Но всячески раздувают пожары на других. Это позволяет ослабить "партнёров", получить прибыль и продемонстрировать финансовому жулью место, где они могут спокойно тратить (инвестировать) награбленное.
    Therefore, the issue of wars of choice or necessity is somewhat contrived. This is not a global war, where the economy must be transferred to war footing.
    This is not Vietnam, where huge resources and human resources were sent, which led to depletion and discontent in the electorate. Now these are local conflicts. Any local conflicts are beneficial to the United States.
  5. Do not care
    Do not care 12 November 2015 07: 42 New
    A bit of humor on the topic
    Satirist George Carlin on the Gulf War:

  6. V.ic
    V.ic 12 November 2015 07: 58 New
    When the war in Europe began in August 1914, American politicians correctly defined the conflict as purely European.

    Зря автор прописал участие USAв той войне неудачным. "Когда в августе 1914 года началась война в Европе, американские политики правильно определили конфликт как чисто европейский". "Погибло 116000 американцев", зато президент USA В.Вильсон позиционировал Североамериканские Соединённые Штаты как великую державу, выведя её из ранга второстепенных. Мирный договор был написан в соответствии с принципами Вильямса.
  7. oldseaman1957
    oldseaman1957 12 November 2015 08: 00 New
    Quote: Goga101
    "наваривались" они на каждой войне,

    Stoned and snickering. And they have never been beaten (A pity!), - and that is insolent to the stop.
  8. twincam
    twincam 12 November 2015 09: 05 New
    Quote: oldseaman1957
    Quote: Goga101
    "наваривались" они на каждой войне,

    Stoned and snickering. And they have never been beaten (A pity!), - and that is insolent to the stop.

    Yes, quite a while ago no one threw them in the back of the soup.
  9. Alimk
    Alimk 12 November 2015 09: 57 New
    The first calls for the creation of a no-fly zone in Syria, and the second is completely eager to bring down Russian planes in the Syrian sky.
    And how will they shoot down:
  10. pts-m
    pts-m 12 November 2015 11: 30 New
    It turns out that the Yankees who previously ruled the rulers were wiser. And now degradation. How will they now live?
  11. Belousov
    Belousov 12 November 2015 13: 08 New
    The author is not right in the conclusions. States may have incurred political losses, but on the other hand, they were repeatedly blocked by economic profits.
  12. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 12 November 2015 13: 09 New
    I hope that we will live to see the time when the international community will conduct the trial of the United States as the main aggressors and instigators of wars.
  13. iliya87
    iliya87 12 November 2015 13: 38 New
    I think it’s not right to consider individual wars as right and wrong. Even if approached from such an angle, there should be clear and clear criteria, and actually on what points to compare. Not right, because geopolitical interests due to the development of technology, economies, etc. are changing. In addition, no one with the interests of people does not take into account such things and therefore civilian or military victims are generally not taken into account in wars for domination (economic political military nature)
  14. silver_roman
    silver_roman 12 November 2015 13: 41 New
    that all this is complete nonsense. I will not put the article minus just because it reflects the opinion of some next Yankee.
    All the goals that the states have pursued in recent wars ARE ACHIEVED !!!!!!!!!!! there was no thought to make some kind of democratic state out of Iraq. Enough nonsense to write and comment. let the Saxons feed their audience! No, I’ll put a minus !!! am
    автор задается такими высоко моральными вопросами типа"задумывается ли очередная администрация о последующих войнах??". та они плевали на все эти горы трупов, которые они принесли в нашу историю. Есть грубый и сухой прагматизм. Та вообще они заинтересованы, чтобы лярда 3-4 на Земле померло бы ...в общем не хочу обидеть автора, но здесь нечего обсуждать!
  15. Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 12 November 2015 16: 51 New
    Correctly contraindicated
  16. Rock616
    Rock616 13 November 2015 01: 10 New
    Quote: Aleksander
    Because of these wars, America suffered only losses.

    At least I’d have torn myself ....

    Better let PUKAN tear laughing
  17. Rock616
    Rock616 13 November 2015 16: 51 New
    It’s interesting to me, who pasted the minus article ????????
    P/S.разве только из-за того ,что автор пиричислил одну сотую всех вторжений "светлых эльфов" laughing
  18. The point
    The point 15 November 2015 17: 08 New
    To whom is war, and to whom is mother dear? Another example is evident.
  19. Vitail
    Vitail 19 November 2015 00: 57 New
    Americans pontoviki and no more