How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2013, 04:26 PM
Question How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
This is something that I've been curious about. I think in many ways the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has parallels to the war in Vietnam, and in some ways Korean war and even WWII. Like the war in Vietnam it is a war that does not have popular support from Americans, and I would think the populations of other counties' participants share this general opposition. Unlike the war in Vietnam, though the service members generally have a lot more support that those of the Vietnam era. Like the Korean war it is largely forgotten. It has been going on so long that people just don't care anymore. They've heard about it for over a decade, and their just tired of hearing about it. It's rarely a topic on the news these days, and most people don't care anymore. It's a forgotten war. Like The World Wars most European nations have been very involved in the war for a very long time. Everyone from the Irish to the Turks have troops stationed in Afghanistan. How will future historians talk of the wars, or will they talk about it at all?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 10:14 PM
RE: How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
Well the "War on Terror" doesn't include Nam' and Korea considering those were wars against Communism.
But yea I think they'll be similarly shown to that of Vietnam. The people were overwhelmingly supportive at the beginning and then over several years the popularity diminished until it wasn't politically suitable to keep fighting.

I think though that it's still hard to predict, unless you actually follow and are well informed in the whole middle east situation, as to what historians will write. I think it depends on what happens once the troops leave. If the current established governments in Iraq and Afghanistan remain and start to rebuild their destroyed countries, then maybe American invasion will be portrayed as a not so bad thing. But if terrorists just take over again like what a lot of people think will happen, well then it's hard to argue that the whole thing wasn't just a waste of time, money and human life.

It's all about the result.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 11:58 PM
RE: How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
(22-05-2013 10:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Well the "War on Terror" doesn't include Nam' and Korea considering those were wars against Communism.
But yea I think they'll be similarly shown to that of Vietnam. The people were overwhelmingly supportive at the beginning and then over several years the popularity diminished until it wasn't politically suitable to keep fighting.

I think though that it's still hard to predict, unless you actually follow and are well informed in the whole middle east situation, as to what historians will write. I think it depends on what happens once the troops leave. If the current established governments in Iraq and Afghanistan remain and start to rebuild their destroyed countries, then maybe American invasion will be portrayed as a not so bad thing. But if terrorists just take over again like what a lot of people think will happen, well then it's hard to argue that the whole thing wasn't just a waste of time, money and human life.

It's all about the result.

In part we have already seen the fruits of our labor. As soon as we pulled out of Iraq everything went to shit immediately thereafter. Violent bloody chaos. If we ever leave Afghanistan I fear we will have the same result. Regardless of our fruits I'd personally say it was a mistake, but I don't always agree with the historians. When children are being taught about the wars in elementary and high school I predict something similar to what I learned of Vietnam, minus the hippie movement and counter counter culture because not as many people care anymore. Protests on the war have grown fewer and further between as the years have trodden forward, at least in America. I haven't seen a news story on a war protest in several years anyhow. At least we were never spit on. We've been supported in large part, and I've only been accused of being immoral a handful of times. I'm shamed to say it has been by Libertarians as often as it's been by Democrats. Oh well, fuck 'em both.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 12:20 AM
RE: How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
Dark Light, I have to ask, if you don't mind, what is your position on our choices in pursuing this war on terror? From your posts I assume you are/were enlisted and served (thank you, by the way). I myself hold to a fairly libertarian view when it comes to the US foreign policy, and don't hold much optimism for a good outcome unless things change and fast.

But I am interested to hear from someone intimately involved and on a forum such as this.

"It's a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”
― نجيب محفوظ, Sugar Street
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 01:30 AM
RE: How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
Historian won't say anything about the "war on terror". There won't be any evidence of a war on terror. The U.S. decades ago up to now has supported terrorist organizations from ones in Miami directed towards cuba to sunni extremists (alqaeda) from afghanistan to today in libya and Syria. The U.S. with it's drone war isn't even targeting or going after terrorists due to most of the victimes of drone strikes having nothing to do with terrorist organizations. There won't be any evidence of a war on terror to speak of. The war on terror will be in the dustbin of forgotten bullshit along with the war on christmas.

Drinking Beverage

next
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2013, 02:49 AM
RE: How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
(22-05-2013 11:58 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 10:14 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Well the "War on Terror" doesn't include Nam' and Korea considering those were wars against Communism.
But yea I think they'll be similarly shown to that of Vietnam. The people were overwhelmingly supportive at the beginning and then over several years the popularity diminished until it wasn't politically suitable to keep fighting.

I think though that it's still hard to predict, unless you actually follow and are well informed in the whole middle east situation, as to what historians will write. I think it depends on what happens once the troops leave. If the current established governments in Iraq and Afghanistan remain and start to rebuild their destroyed countries, then maybe American invasion will be portrayed as a not so bad thing. But if terrorists just take over again like what a lot of people think will happen, well then it's hard to argue that the whole thing wasn't just a waste of time, money and human life.

It's all about the result.

In part we have already seen the fruits of our labor. As soon as we pulled out of Iraq everything went to shit immediately thereafter. Violent bloody chaos. If we ever leave Afghanistan I fear we will have the same result. Regardless of our fruits I'd personally say it was a mistake, but I don't always agree with the historians. When children are being taught about the wars in elementary and high school I predict something similar to what I learned of Vietnam, minus the hippie movement and counter counter culture because not as many people care anymore. Protests on the war have grown fewer and further between as the years have trodden forward, at least in America. I haven't seen a news story on a war protest in several years anyhow. At least we were never spit on. We've been supported in large part, and I've only been accused of being immoral a handful of times. I'm shamed to say it has been by Libertarians as often as it's been by Democrats. Oh well, fuck 'em both.

Different mentality.
That idea that you may not support the war, but you should support the troops.
Which I think is a lesson learned from the end of Nam'. Afterall, it's not like you personally decided to invade Iraq or Afghanistan yet you are the one fighting and dieing (the troops art dieing, perhaps not you individually but you get what I mean)
And yea it would be liberals that say those things, liberals are like that.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2013, 03:39 AM
RE: How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
(23-05-2013 12:20 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Dark Light, I have to ask, if you don't mind, what is your position on our choices in pursuing this war on terror? From your posts I assume you are/were enlisted and served (thank you, by the way). I myself hold to a fairly libertarian view when it comes to the US foreign policy, and don't hold much optimism for a good outcome unless things change and fast.

But I am interested to hear from someone intimately involved and on a forum such as this.

I've posted my thoughts on this elsewhere last year, but I'll give you the short version. I consider myself to be very libertarian, and agree with the Libertarian Party (or LP) on most issues most of the time. I'd say that I personally regret that we ever declared a war on a tactic with no defined goal. I'd say the wars were illegal as a declaration of war from congress was never made and I think both George and Barrack should have been punished. Not only that but I think the wars were unjustified, immoral, damaging to us as service-members (as any war is), as a country financially, as a country morally, and to lowered the global opinion of our country as well. The best way to have a strong nation and spread influence is to have a nation that others wish to emulate, not through subjugation, threats, and backdoor dealings.

By the way I left active-duty though I'm still a reservist. I have mixed feelings about the military...I have feelings of pride, and of guilt, remorse and found memories. I wanted to leave, but I wanted to stay, hence reserves. No need to thank me, please.

@muffs,

I dunno if we as a society "learned our lesson" about how we treat veterans who participate in a war in which we don't necessarily agree with, I just think the culture has changed. We are more cynical, and perhaps realistic than the hippies were. That's my 2 cents anyhow.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2013, 06:12 AM
RE: How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
Cynical and realistic or.. desensitised?

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2013, 07:05 AM
RE: How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
(24-05-2013 06:12 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Cynical and realistic or.. desensitised?

Methinks all three.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 11:00 PM
Re: How Historians Will View the "War on Terror"
Already with the general academics mocking the ideas of the start of the Iraq War leads to show it will be written about in plenty of dark lights.

Hopefully in ways equal of that as the war on drugs, the war on terror will be something held in shame as a phoney effort proped up by fear and black&white views of evil.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The history of Jewish historians. I and I 8 317 20-09-2013 09:59 AM
Last Post: Chas
Forum Jump: