Quote (thesnipa @ 8 Jan 2020 23:04)
net loss, yes. massive net loss, idk.
impending conflict with Iran gives the US the ability to shift forces deployed in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc elsewhere to non-combat readiness roles. basically, we could use impending conflict as a way to pull out from other areas.
While I don't support wholesale pullouts and creating power vacuums, from the perspective some people have for non-interventionism this could be seen as a win given some outcomes.
Other than that in terms of real cost it's:
1. damages from the embassy attack
2. cost to kill the general
3. damages from retaliatory attacks on bases
4. deployment loses
pretty sure that fort bragg is neither in syria, iraq, nor in afghanistan. sending thousands of
additional troops into the middle east would require some serious mental gymnastics to spin as win for 'non-interventionists'...
also, if you want to talk exclusively about the economic cost, i'd give you that the loss is probably not a 'massive' (i thought you didn't care about semantics?), but i made it clear in my post that this has obviously more than just direct economic costs (iran resuming their nuclear weapons program, terrorist recruitment...).
Quote (thesnipa @ 8 Jan 2020 23:04)
I don't see this as massive, at least not in the context of potential worst case scenarios. Also this is causing a counter narrative that congress should take back control and debate any potential conflict with Iran, which may spotlight illegal droning campaigns in Yemen. This Iran situation could actually result in less troops in active combat and increased oversight by the legislature. I wouldn't hold my breath, but it could at least further illustrate how much power the legislative branch has lost in terms of wars.
ah, i guess that's where our misunderstanding is. my argument was not status quo vs. worst case scenario, but situation now vs. situation before trump took office / soleimani assasination.