As an Afghanistan Veteran, the General is spot on. Many Afghanistan Veterans feel betrayed by the actions that unfolded. It all went up in smoke before our very eyes.
Fo political parties need to do a better job of developing young political leaders to have the requisite historical perspective and analytical tools to properly gauge national and international risks and rewards? Do we need a cursus honorum that weeds out undeserving and unable statesmen?
Whatever it takes!! Whatever it takes to secure our own nation. Whatever it takes to put our military on our southern border and shut this game down. Whatever it takes to get out of Eastern Europe, it's not our country!!!!! Whatever it takes is not a given and we're not buying it
You know that the US, UK and Russia signed a treaty for them to give up a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons. Are you suggesting that the US should break that, as if you are then nothing that the US signs will be believed. Your country will get the same level of trust with agreements that Russia has. Where no one believes it. That is why the UK has been providing weapons and funding. It has been leading the way in giving more advanced tech too. US needs to up its game.
Given the abject failure of US military adventures over the last few decades, isn't a return to isolationism/America First a reasonable response? How many chances do the foreign policy and defense establishment get? A system should not reward failure and excuse it simply because "real interventionism has never been tried."
The issues with the campaigns were no plan for after the fact. They set goals which they accomplished. However they had no plan for what to do then. That is not the military's fault, that's the administration's fault for not setting a goal.
A return to isolationism may be A response to military failures, but it is certainly not the CORRECT response. Isolationism did NOT produce favorable outcomes in World War I or World War II. It would also clearly be wrong, both morally and economically, to write off places like Israel, Taiwan, or Ukraine, simply because the US might not have the will to stay as long as it takes to win the war AND the peace.
An argument to your idea of an isolationist America being a reasonable course of action is this: when the United States tried out isolationism in the past, two world wars occured. Now, I do not mean to say that if the United States had not been isolationist during that period of time that there would not have been any world wars. What I believe instead is that if we were more active in international affairs during that time, and threw our hat into the ring, so to speak, then a lot of what happened could have been avoided. This is not a novel idea either. Churchill had much the same view on the United States and its isolationist tendencies in the early 20th century. We can be diplomatic and throw our weight around in that arena. You can't do that under a policy of isolationism.
It doesn’t. Nor should. But for a historical perspective we don’t own Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Philippines, Greece, Egypt…Korea…Grenada, Panama either. There are times when helping aspirational people (who aspire to be, if not like us, then friends with us), is in our long term interest. Sometimes. Russia wants nothing to do with us, ever. They are about themselves, even at our cost. Just a thought.
The solutions of a reimagined military are required. It would be great if society could reimagine itself, at pace, but it can't or in some areas won't. If we take European arms and munitions manufacturing as an example of where the two meet, can you imagine the political leadership being the ones taking the initiative there? To put it a different way, are the questions and the scenario McMasters described to you new? If they are why? Is there anything he said that wasn't discernible years ago, like in the Munk debate between Bannon and Frum in back 2018?
Because of a treaty the US signed to get Ukraine to give up a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons. Russia, the US, and the UK signed it. That's why. If you don't, then why would any other country trust anything that you say.
Crimea American dream ... Just a dream.. mc master bedroom preference.. don't teach student how to take what it's not yours but how to fight Nobel for your country.. and Russia eather Ukraine it's not your country.. objective please..
I often listen to podcasts with people I disagree with ; but with " McMaster " I agree 90%
As an Afghanistan Veteran, the General is spot on. Many Afghanistan Veterans feel betrayed by the actions that unfolded. It all went up in smoke before our very eyes.
I’m with this guy👍
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Fo political parties need to do a better job of developing young political leaders to have the requisite historical perspective and analytical tools to properly gauge national and international risks and rewards? Do we need a cursus honorum that weeds out undeserving and unable statesmen?
Whatever it takes!! Whatever it takes to secure our own nation. Whatever it takes to put our military on our southern border and shut this game down. Whatever it takes to get out of Eastern Europe, it's not our country!!!!! Whatever it takes is not a given and we're not buying it
You know that the US, UK and Russia signed a treaty for them to give up a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons. Are you suggesting that the US should break that, as if you are then nothing that the US signs will be believed. Your country will get the same level of trust with agreements that Russia has. Where no one believes it. That is why the UK has been providing weapons and funding. It has been leading the way in giving more advanced tech too. US needs to up its game.
Where are you
What a pity we f things up so often in the west…
Given the abject failure of US military adventures over the last few decades, isn't a return to isolationism/America First a reasonable response? How many chances do the foreign policy and defense establishment get? A system should not reward failure and excuse it simply because "real interventionism has never been tried."
The issues with the campaigns were no plan for after the fact. They set goals which they accomplished. However they had no plan for what to do then. That is not the military's fault, that's the administration's fault for not setting a goal.
A return to isolationism may be A response to military failures, but it is certainly not the CORRECT response. Isolationism did NOT produce favorable outcomes in World War I or World War II. It would also clearly be wrong, both morally and economically, to write off places like Israel, Taiwan, or Ukraine, simply because the US might not have the will to stay as long as it takes to win the war AND the peace.
An argument to your idea of an isolationist America being a reasonable course of action is this: when the United States tried out isolationism in the past, two world wars occured. Now, I do not mean to say that if the United States had not been isolationist during that period of time that there would not have been any world wars. What I believe instead is that if we were more active in international affairs during that time, and threw our hat into the ring, so to speak, then a lot of what happened could have been avoided. This is not a novel idea either. Churchill had much the same view on the United States and its isolationist tendencies in the early 20th century. We can be diplomatic and throw our weight around in that arena. You can't do that under a policy of isolationism.
❤
But why does it always have to be military solutions. It's not US DoD responsibility. But cpukd be included. We don't own Ukraine!
But Ukraine kinda owns us. Because it wants to be on our side of the table not on the Chinese one.
those who have hammer, tend to want to use it. simple as that. also europe not buying hammer understandably angers US. but that is besides point.
It doesn’t. Nor should. But for a historical perspective we don’t own Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Philippines, Greece, Egypt…Korea…Grenada, Panama either. There are times when helping aspirational people (who aspire to be, if not like us, then friends with us), is in our long term interest. Sometimes. Russia wants nothing to do with us, ever. They are about themselves, even at our cost. Just a thought.
The solutions of a reimagined military are required. It would be great if society could reimagine itself, at pace, but it can't or in some areas won't. If we take European arms and munitions manufacturing as an example of where the two meet, can you imagine the political leadership being the ones taking the initiative there? To put it a different way, are the questions and the scenario McMasters described to you new? If they are why? Is there anything he said that wasn't discernible years ago, like in the Munk debate between Bannon and Frum in back 2018?
Because of a treaty the US signed to get Ukraine to give up a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons. Russia, the US, and the UK signed it. That's why. If you don't, then why would any other country trust anything that you say.
Crimea American dream ... Just a dream.. mc master bedroom preference.. don't teach student how to take what it's not yours but how to fight Nobel for your country.. and Russia eather Ukraine it's not your country.. objective please..