Where will the US have it's next war?

[cgymike]

That country seems to be engaged in a war at most of the time in it's history. Afghanistan is going to be wound down by the end of 2014 so what's next? Iran? Syria?

Of course there is the war on terror but can that really be called a war in it's own right? (a secondary issue)...

Is the reason America engages in war so often because it's a prerequisite for their political agenda on earth (the exportation of democracy loosely put). What some call Imperialism? 'America must remain a beacon of Democracy to all those who seek freedom' blah blah...the so-called stable transitioning of countries to democracy and so forth. Isn't the imposition of the american political system on others a restriction in itself indeed a constraint for those countries for which the US seeks to "liberate" in giving them self-determination??

OK folks keep it civil and correct me as you must but let's have a good discussion.

[Adrock-JD]

Syria doesn't have oil, so we don't give a shit.

The rest is in regards to Iran, which does have oil and sits on a strategic water way for the shipment of oil.

From what I've gathered, and these aren't my opinions, neither are they the only opinions of leaders and experts:

Iran could destabilize the region if they build nukes and countries like Saudi Arabia have all but begged us to strike them, but they aren't there yet (possibly up to 2 years or more out) and sabotage seems to be delaying them for now. Besides, most U.S. experts agree that striking Iran's facilities would merely delay them from building nukes. Sanctions have been tried for decades and they don't work. Only a ground invasion (occupation) could prevent them from continuing and a ground invasion isn't likely anytime soon.

Israel isn't capable of taking on Iran by itself. They could do a first strike but the potential costs to them aren't worth the small gains. They are surrounded by Arab states just waiting for an excuse like that to go after them.

It's worth noting most experts agree that the 1991 gulf war and invasion of Iraq solidified the Iranian's decision to build nuclear weapons. It scared the shit out of them. The subsequent Iraq and Afghanistan wars haven't helped either.

[Benvolio]

No, cgymike, helping people to achieve Democracy is not imposing a system upon anyone. It gives the people the ability to decide for themselves. What they do with it is up to them.
As for the next war, I cannot see us engaging Iran in a ground war. Obama is allowing them to develop nuclear weapons. I am not saying we should try to stop them. There is no good answer.
But what will Iran do with them? That will probably determine where the next war will be. If they use nuclear weapons, it is probable that the only effective defense is an all out nuclear retaliation.

[rareboy]

Canada.

[loki81]

I'd like to think that after the Iraq/Afghanistan clusterfuck, we're done with ground invasions at least for the near future.

I could potentially see strikes against Iran and Syria, though, and perhaps US involvement with securing the peninsula should North Korea ever collapse (a potential flashpoint with China)

[HenryReardon]

Of course there is the war on terror but can that really be called a war in it's own right? (a secondary issue)...

OK folks keep it civil and correct me as you must but let's have a good discussion.

1. you asked to be corrected, so let me tell you that when its is used as a possessive, there is no apostophe.

2. the war on terror is very much a war. If you fail to understand that then you haven't a clue about what is going on in the world.

3. if Obama continues his attack on all things American, the next war may well be a civil war, or perhaps a military coup.

[JockBoy87]

That country seems to be engaged in a war at most of the time in it's history. Afghanistan is going to be wound down by the end of 2014 so what's next? Iran? Syria?

Not even close.

The United States has committed troops to war combat for 51 out of 236 years of de facto independence, or about 20% of the time.

We also have Canada to thank for assistance in wars throughout the 20th century, including both world wars, Korea, and Afghanistan.

OK folks keep it civil and correct me as you must but let's have a good discussion.

I don't think starting an anti-American trolling thread with a baiting remark is "civil," but then your reputation precedes you.

[cgymike]

Canada.

Zero chance. I have a greater chance of walking on alpha centauri tomorrow than that...

[Durango95]

I think with the current administration it is anyone's guess. The guy in the White House is a military illiterate. He repeatedly goes against military advise for no reason whatsoever. The current foreign policy is ineffective, naive and illiterate as well. Deaths of coalition soldiers skyrocketed under the current administration since 2008. The current administration has killed more soldiers which were deployed in Afghanistan in 4 years than the former administration did in 8 years. One can only conclude wherever the war is it will make no sense logically and cause the death of as many American servicemen as possible. As far as spreading democracy across the world, if is an exercise in futility to try to attempt to install democracy in the middle east. They don't understand it. They don't want it. They will destroy any attempt at it.

[JayHawk]

Africa will be the next place we have troop involvement. Unless something extraordinary occurs.

The involvement will follow world outcry at the atrocities committed in the lawless regions. What atrocity will catch the attention of the western world I have no idea yet.

This administration has successfully and purposefully extracted us from conflict and will not start another unless pushed into it by forces beyond our control. Such as a successful attack like 9/11.

It is much more likely that the 'fighting' will occur electronically and not in the public eye and not with people. Cyber is the next battlefield.

[Laufey]

The US will be a part of a war against Iran sometime this year.

Israel will start it and then the US will be "forced" to enter once it goes messy.

There is too much tension in the region for them to be able to do airstrikes on their nuclear facilities without it leading to a war.

War is big business in the US with powerful people pushing for it. This is the main reason why it will continue to go to wars on a regular basis.

[maxpowr9]

Africa will be the next place we have troop involvement. Unless something extraordinary occurs.

The involvement will follow world outcry at the atrocities committed in the lawless regions. What atrocity will catch the attention of the western world I have no idea yet.

This administration has successfully and purposefully extracted us from conflict and will not start another unless pushed into it by forces beyond our control. Such as a successful attack like 9/11.

It is much more likely that the 'fighting' will occur electronically and not in the public eye and not with people. Cyber is the next battlefield.

We have little interest in Mali so Africa is out of the question.

I think cyberwars with China and the reversion of manufacturing to the US may happen. China is already a "transfer station" for much of the world and said pollution will catch up with them in the next decade or so.

[Laufey]

China and the US are too dependent on each other to want to go to war against each other.

[maxpowr9]

China and the US are too dependent on each other to want to go to war against each other.

Directly, yes. North Korea is essentially a puppet state of China now and they use them whenever they get pissed at the USA.

[JayHawk]

We have little interest in Mali so Africa is out of the question.

I think cyberwars with China and the reversion of manufacturing to the US may happen. China is already a "transfer station" for much of the world and said pollution will catch up with them in the next decade or so.

We have little interest in WW Five so China is out of the question.

Mali is the french deal that we fully supported. We didn't have 'interest' because this current admin has the desire to extract and not involve. We did plenty but the french did the work. The way we would like many things to go.

I am pretty sure we didn't stand up the fourth fleet for South America and AFRICOM for Africa because we have little interest. Europe is handling most its own issues wth nudging from us when necessary. Russia and China are entrenched. ASEAN prefers the delicate balance that borders on belligerence but doesn't actually go to war. South America needs to stand up on its own and has the ability potentially so soft hands work better there. Africa is a complete fucking mess. So armed influence is going to occur there. Add to the fact that SA and AF are the only places left with real and exploitable resources and you have the winners.

[JayHawk]

Directly, yes. North Korea is essentially a puppet state of China now and they use them whenever they get pissed at the USA.

NK is getting more beligernat than even China desires. The little IL is going to get a throat check from China soon enough.

[GiancarloC]

I think with the current administration it is anyone's guess. The guy in the White House is a military illiterate. He repeatedly goes against military advise for no reason whatsoever. The current foreign policy is ineffective, naive and illiterate as well.

More inventions I see... no proof as I expect with this argument. And his foreign policy is ineffective? Helping topple Qaddafi with minimal effort? It's easy to spout off accusations and a whole lot more difficult to back them up. What's this military advice he repeatedly goes against? I haven't seen it yet. Was it not helping the French in Mali? The Americans in fact are, but they are limited because of the present nature of the government in Bamako.

Deaths of coalition soldiers skyrocketed under the current administration since 2008. The current administration has killed more soldiers which were deployed in Afghanistan in 4 years than the former administration did in 8 years. One can only conclude wherever the war is it will make no sense logically and cause the death of as many American servicemen as possible. As far as spreading democracy across the world, if is an exercise in futility to try to attempt to install democracy in the middle east. They don't understand it. They don't want it. They will destroy any attempt at it.

Absolute baloney. What happened in Afghanistan was already a mess. The prior administration ignored it so they can start a stupid little war in Iraq (where the US had no business being). The US has drawn down its forces in Afghanistan under the Obama administration. And I would ask for sources but I'll doubt I will get any. Thanks for all the unsupported statements... have any more illogical criticisms to post?

The real naive viewpoints aren't the ones in the White House, but rather the ones espoused by the right wing on here who want us to send soldiers to every part of the world. Absolutely silly logic with no real proof behind it.

And then spouting off bullshit like "the present administration's foreign policy is naive"... yeah, and what's the alternative here? Have any real suggestions as to what could be implemented? Oh no wait... it's just another swing and miss at Obama. A long line of swings and misses since the failure of your party in the election.

[rareboy]

I think with the current administration it is anyone's guess. The guy in the White House is a military illiterate. He repeatedly goes against military advise for no reason whatsoever. The current foreign policy is ineffective, naive and illiterate as well. Deaths of coalition soldiers skyrocketed under the current administration since 2008. The current administration has killed more soldiers which were deployed in Afghanistan in 4 years than the former administration did in 8 years. One can only conclude wherever the war is it will make no sense logically and cause the death of as many American servicemen as possible. As far as spreading democracy across the world, if is an exercise in futility to try to attempt to install democracy in the middle east. They don't understand it. They don't want it. They will destroy any attempt at it.

http://icasualties.org/

Interesting that while you focus on 'skyrocketing' casualties in Afghanistan, the dramatic drop in casualites in Iraq gets no mention at all.

Who is the illiterate here?