Post heroic war

[gcode]

Who will win a post heroic war

An interesting theory

Neither the West not its enemies are prepared to fight. Some 30 years ago, I coined the phrase "post-heroic warfare" to acknowledge a new phenomenon: the very sharp reduction in the tolerance of war casualties. My starting point was President Clinton's 1993 decision to abandon Somalia after 18 American soldiers were killed in a failed raid. But in truth, post-heroic attitudes had already emerged — and not just in affluent democracies. In 1989, the Soviet Union, whose generals could once lose 15,000 men before breakfast without batting an eyelid, abandoned Afghanistan after 14,453 of its soldiers were killed over almost a decade.

[YoDoug]

I don't agree with the birth rate making people lose their tolerance for war. It's the live, instant media coverage and constant opposition. You can't hide anything these days. Politicians are afraid to be the one that authorizes action that leads to bad media. Likewise the modern MIC is all about money and power, there is a not shred of patriotism left. As long as the ongoing conflicts keeps their pockets fat and their power intact, they are happy. In fact if we just keep funneling billions of dollars to Ukraine, that makes it's way back to the MIC through military contractors, and don't have to risk a single American soldiers life, that's a win-win for them. 

As for the population shrink crisis, lately I see more and more people buying into this BS. The foremost is Musk. He can't go a week with making a post about it. If you look at all his posts you can see the true agenda for maintaining populations. He's concerned about climate issues. He's touts how AI and robotics are going to replace workers and lead to some fictional high universal basic income. The truth is the value of a human to the elite is purely it's consumption. If populations drastically shrink there will be less consumers of big pharma's pills, big AG's food, Big tech's social media, etc. They elite couldn't care less about the middle class, in fact the wealth of the middle class is money other consumers would be spending on their products if they could have their way.

[CNCAppsJames]

Once lawyers amd the media got involved in war... it was all downhill from there. Our military is no longer allowed to fight to win at any cost. 

[Jim at Gentex]

Our military is no longer allowed to fight to win at any cost.

Exactly.

They are forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back by political bullshit which severely limits their capability and effectiveness.

It's sad to see what used to be a military superpower reduced to a pathetic political tool that is wielded by people who have never gotten their hands dirty in service to our country. 

[Smit]

I think the premise that we are in an era of "post heroic war" based on birth rate is kinda silly.

I would suggest the reason armies fight "heroically" is because they've been attacked viciously.

Ukraine is fighting heroically because they were attacked by Russia.

Israel is fighting heroically because they were attacked by Hamas.

I doubt anybody in either of those countries is checking to see what the birthrate is before they go in to battle.

As far as people getting your own soldiers killed, I think that everybody has always wanted to avoid that.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

George S. Patton

[CNCAppsJames]

A well reasoned take on the Russia/Ukraine War

All War Is Essentially a Failure of Diplomacy. Russia's Criminal War in Ukraine Is a Prime Example.
by Walt Zlotow Posted on February 25, 2022
 
We need to go back 31 years to begin the diplomatic failures that led to war in Ukraine Wednesday. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, it represented one of the most remarkably peaceful transformations of a belligerent empire in history. The West had a golden opportunity to embrace that transformation, incorporate Russia into the European community, but chose not to. Rather than dissolve NATO, the U.S. promoted Russia as an existential threat to Western Europe, requiring its expansion. Beginning with Poland, Hungary and Cech Republic, NATO gobbled up 12 former Soviet republics, encroaching senselessly right up to Russia's borders.
George F. Kennan, architect of U.S. strategic containment of the Soviets in 1947 that led to NATO in 1949, was aghast at this diplomatic blunder saying, "I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves."

But year after year, U.S. and Western diplomacy continued to stir adverse Russian reaction rather than reduce tensions. In 2008, the U.S. flirted with adding Georgia to NATO. This inspired Georgia to intervene militarily in 2 Russian aligned breakaway provinces. The Russian response was a short, decisive crushing of Georgian hubris as the US and NATO stayed out of the fight.
Not chastened by that diplomatic debacle, the U.S. and NATO made essentially the same blunder in Ukraine in 2014 by inspiring and promoting an ultra-nationalist coup that ousted elected Ukraine president, Viktor Yanukovych., who sought economic cooperation with Russia. That blunder ignited a civil war in the Donbass, bordering Russia, between the new government and Russian speaking Ukrainians there. 13,000 have died from U.S meddling.
The 2 breakaway provinces from that civil war eventually became the flashpoint for Russia's decision to engage in criminal war 8 years later.
Sadly, the American public is woefully ignorant of the diplomatic background and failures that have led to a potentially catastrophic war could that spiral into nuclear confrontation. In the run up to the current war the U.S. publicly announced all Russian security demands were off the table. That is not diplomacy. That is a recipe for senseless war.
The U.S. government and mainstream media have essentially erased this sorrowful diplomatic prelude to war from public knowledge and discussion.
We in the small but committed peace movement promote responsible diplomacy as our N0. 1 goal for the U.S. to engage in with potential belligerent states to prevent war. But the U.S. blundered ahead, eschewing diplomacy for either outright invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq, or as behind the scene supporters of war in Libya, Syria and Yemen.
That is diplomacy in 21st century America. Every potential conflict is We Win...You Lose. That never results in peace, just criminal war. Except diplomatic failure in Ukraine has set the U.S. back on its heels, playing catch up with criminal war by Russia. And until the U.S negotiates diplomatically, the Founding Fathers, as proclaimed by George F. Kennan, continue turning over in their graves.
Walt Zlotow became involved in antiwar activities upon entering University of Chicago in 1963. He is current president of the West Suburban Peace Coalition based in the Chicago western suburbs. He blogs daily on antiwar and other issues at www.heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com.

[Surface]

As I understand it, a 'post heroic war' isn't entirely bad thing because it shows a recognition in the value of a human life.

War is always ugly and people will die, but how does one militarily win against an enemy which does not value life itself?

Russia isn't alone in being a country which would use it's people as cannon fodder. They would send humans into the line of fire solely to exhaust the opposing side's supply of munitions. When those people died, they'd send more....then more. Many men were sent to fight without weapons. They had no chance. Their life literally was worth the cost of an enemy's bullet.

Does "Fighting to win at any cost" mean it's acceptable to completely destroy everyone and everything? Perhaps a 'post heroic war' means people on both sides are more willing to compromise to protect something more valuable than a line on a map.

This is the difficulty Israel is currently facing. Hamas uses it's own innocent as shields to achieve their objective.
How does one 'win' against an enemy like that while preserving a respect for the value of all life? 

[mowens]

I didn't think Palestine had been on maps since 1948.

[gcode]

In a nutshell, Israel is wiping Palestine clean

They really don't have a choice.
The Hamas party platform is the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the people who live there.
The people of Israel have 3 choices, fight, leave or die.
Hamas started this war on 10/07/23 and they are getting their ass kicked like a rented mule.
They could have stopped it on day 1 by returning the hostages.

[CNCAppsJames]

.....
Does "Fighting to win at any cost" mean it's acceptable to completely destroy everyone and everything?
......

I look at that statement through the lens of WWII.

 Neither Germany nor Japan were going to cease hostilities without the very real threat of complete and total annihilation. That is a fact that cannot even be disputed.

Radical Islam and those people and nation states that sponsor it have not been shown the necessary degree of brutal warfare.......because we've got a bunch of lawyers and shitbag politicians playing nice. "They just need jobs." "Global warming is causing them to do this." "If Israel were to just give up X.... then Hamas will be part of the global citizenry."

NO. Just fucking NO! You cannot reason with Hamas any more than you could reason with Adolph Hitler. There is one way, and one way ONLY to deal with vermin like that; you exterminate them. With EXTREME prejudice. But that will never happen because we've bee pussifying ourselves since the end of WWII.

I'm not saying WE go nuclear... that said, it's gonna happen. I 100% guarantee it. Sooner or later, Nukes will be brought into the picture. My money is on Russia, Iran and Israel exchanging.

Hamas and their ardent supporters need to be wiped of the face of the earth. There is no rehabilitating that. There just isn't.

[gcode]

is in the article I linked, which shows the UN report where 153 countries back a halt, and says 70% of Palestinian's that have been killed are women and children?

As a young boy, my family toured the UN during a stop in NYC on the way to a foreign assignment in the oil patch.
My father, only a few years home from the Korean War, spoke of the UN with reverence and hope.
It's one of my strongest memories as a very young boy.
65 years later, the UN is a corrupt and bloated cesspool for fat cats from 3rd world shitholes, living large in NYC on the largess of the American taxpayer.
The UN is a shining example of good intentions gone bad... and the blood enemy of free people anywhere in the world.