There's no way this is America's last invasion or nation-building project, but I appreciate someone in power even suggesting it could and should end. (Christ what a low bar...)

  • PlantsRstillCool [des/pair]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Honestly I think this is good for Biden. The memory of the total fuckup of the leaving Afganistan will fade and people will just remember that Biden ended the 20 year war

    • fuckwit [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      When the fucking New York Crimes has a subheader saying he 'vehemently defends the exit despite the death of 13 service members'. on their frontpage it's honestly really hard not to take his side against every faction of this shit ass country attacking him for the one good thing a US president has done in 40 years.

      • PlantsRstillCool [des/pair]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Countercounterpoint: America really likes blowing shit up and dominating other countries. Afganistan stopped being "fun" a long time ago tho

        They'll be happy for whatever war they start next tho I'm sure

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]M
      ·
      3 years ago

      South America again most likely. Easier to get to and resupply. China is too big of a fish now

    • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      when america goes after china, I'm expecting proxy wars or trade wars. Only one of those is profitable, so proxy wars it is. likely in Africa. China has much better production capacity, so I don;t see the US winning.

  • blobjim [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    All it means is they're going mask-off. "We are done with nation building, it isn't our job to fix what we broke!" This is just acknowledging their updated policy which was set before they destroyed Libya (and did no nation building).

    • fuckwit [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      When did Bush say nation building is over? When he started two wars in one term?

      • SolidaritySplodarity [they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        Bush was famously against nation-building in his 2000 campaign. He promised a domestic focus with "compassionate conservativism". This is the quote most people point to: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war."

        Check out this C-SPAN video to get yourself some jokerification cackles: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4315725/user-clip-george-w-bush-nation-building

        • eduardog3000 [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          To Biden's credit (🤢) he's actually doing it while in office, whereas George Bush just said it to get elected.

          Not that he's necessarily gonna keep doing it. We could be at war with Iran in a year, who knows.

          • SolidaritySplodarity [they/them]
            ·
            3 years ago

            Sure but also it's just a sentiment. It can easily be discarded with any number of pretenses. Americans are bloodthirsty and Biden has a weird but still imperialist past on foreign policy.

            Not saying you should expect Iraq Part 2: This Time it's North Korea. I just wouldn't put much stock in these words.

            • fuckwit [none/use name]
              ·
              edit-2
              3 years ago

              i mean it’s not sentiment when he literally just withdrew.

              Won’t deny that further imperialism can happen but a bit much to equivocate what Bush did with this.

              • SolidaritySplodarity [they/them]
                ·
                3 years ago

                The comparable betrayal would be for Biden et al to invade another country under the premise of transforming it into a preferable one via occupation and institution of a new government. We won't know that he has failed this comparison until after his term.

                Biden's words aren't, "we just left a nation", it's a generalization about doing no more nation-building.

  • Abraxiel
    ·
    3 years ago

    Probably just move more towards hiring PMCs through a few proxies.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]M
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Hint hint: that already happened.

      Most of the military activities (at least support and transpo) were handled by PMC by the mid to late 10's

      American soldiers mostly just sat around at bases

      • Abraxiel
        ·
        3 years ago

        I mean more specifically that PMCs will be used without any official sanction by the US Government.

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]M
          ·
          edit-2
          3 years ago

          That was always the plan. Private military is way cheaper than a national army.

          That being said it'll always be on the state's dime because paying for security ruins profits so the burden must be offloaded on the workers.

    • fuckwit [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      'move towards'? That's been going on for 2 decades, nothing will stop that. At least this is positive symbolic move.

  • Satanic_Mills [comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Roman Emperor declares the 'era of nation building is over' following the disorderly execution of the planned withdrawal from Germania.

    The action is the result of long-term consequences, driven by internal contradictions and imperial rivalries with the resurgent Sasanian Empire.

    Cynical commentators noted that the Empire would simply continue to meddle in the region through foederati and client kingdoms rather than through legionaries.