Why Do We Repeat The Mistakes Of The Past

[Big Guy]

I believe that the study of history is the study of human nature. Since I require at least one reference for an OP then:

https://history.hanover.edu/why.php

It has always fascinated me that we do not seem to learn from the mistakes of others. I believe that one of the main reasons that those in the West will accept democracy with all of the personal decision restrictions that it mandates is because we are educated. We have seen the result and consequences of other means of social structure and interaction.

Yet, we still get ourselves mired into military fiascos. There is really nothing new on this earth as to how man reacts under different conditions.

If you believe as I do that all men are created equal and wired basically the same, then given a group of humans are being challenged, in a particular set of conditions, we can anticipate the results of different approaches to solving this challenge by looking back to see how man reacted in the past to those different approaches.

History is ripe with situations where one nation invades another with the intent to change things, perhaps to occupy, perhaps just to burn and loot. The end is always the same - the inhabitants will eventually take back control and any changes will be temporary.

What irks me the most is when one nation does exactly the same to another nation that had been unsuccessfully done in the past and yet expect different results. I believe that Afghanistan is the best example. This poor nation had been invaded and conquered many times before it declared itself a republic. Then the Soviet Union invaded. One of the most powerful militaries in the world got its butt kicked and they backed out. So the United States decided that history was faulty and that the USA will win the day!!! Well guess what, what happened to the Soviet invasion also happened to the American invasion.

And people were surprised?

The Americans seem very slow at learning:

In Vietnam, the powerful American forces attacked. Their "enemy" actually lived where the attack was taking place and "disappeared" into the population - because they were the population. When the Americans retreated, the enemy dug up their uniforms and rifles and the war continued - until the greatest army in the world declared victory and ran before things got even worse for them.

So in Iraq, the Americans attack and the enemy disappears into the population because they are part of the population. So the Americans march into the capital with flags flying and trumpets playing. Little by little the local nationals take back their country. The Americans continue their stupidity in the Middle East. Some not-so-bright countries (including Canada) join the Americans in continuing their proven to be unsuccessful approach and then wonder why we are getting our assets handed back to us.

Now in Somalia, we should invade and ... Oh, we already tried that and lost - Pity.

Stupid people do not learn from their mistakes, smarter people learn from their mistakes and really smart people learn from other peoples mistakes.

We should spend a little more time on history books and less time on flying flags.

[TimG]

It is easy to criticize failed interventions.

The real issue is what are the real choices?

Do nothing like Syria? Result chaos and a lot of refugees.

Provide limited air support like Lybia? Result chaos and fewer refugees.

Invade like Iraq? Result chaos and few refugees.

Now Russia is going into Syria and will likely do all of the things that will outrage western bleeding hearts. But since it is not being done by the US it will be acceptable in their eyes. IOW, injustice is fine with us as long as we don't get our hands dirty and we can sit comfortably on the sidelines and pontificate.

Edited September 23, 2015 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

The Americans have learned from others' mistakes...don't disarm and become irrelevant.

[Moonlight Graham]

Do nothing like Syria? Result chaos and a lot of refugees.

Provide limited air support like Lybia? Result chaos and fewer refugees.

Invade like Iraq? Result chaos and few refugees.

Oh yes, these are the real facts right Tim? And things are this simple, right? What a ridiculous analysis.

Do nothing in Syria? We're dropping bombs there, the West is supporting "friendly" rebel groups to support the toppling of Assad when it has been Assad's forces who are responsible for the large majority of the violence/deaths in Syria in defending against these rebels, not to mention creating the power vacuum in Iraq that led to the creation of ISIS. Few refugees in Iraq? Since when does millions = few? Not to mention millions internally displaced, and hundreds of thousands dead.

So by your analysis, there's going to be chaos in the region no matter what, and more we intervene, the better the region will be. I'm getting that right? What a load of nonsense. Most everything foreigners including the West have touched in the ME has turned to sh*t and come back to bite us in the ass. The Mosaddegh coup created the Ayatollahs, the Soviets in Afghanistan created the mujahadeen, the 1991 Gulf War created al-Qaeda, the 2003 Iraq invasion created ISIS, to only mention a few.

[Big Guy]

It is easy to criticize failed interventions.

The real issue is what are the real choices?

Do nothing like Syria? Result chaos and a lot of refugees.

Provide limited air support like Lybia? Result chaos and fewer refugees.

Invade like Iraq? Result chaos and few refugees.

Now Russia is going into Syria and will likely do all of the things that will outrage western bleeding hearts. But since it is not being done by the US it will be acceptable in their eyes. IOW, injustice is fine with us as long as we don't get our hands dirty and we can sit comfortably on the sidelines and pontificate.

I am not criticizing any one nation. For every action there are consequences. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but when I heard that the USA was going into Afghanistan and Iraq I was dumbfounded. I have to assume that with all of the talent and intelligent people that the West has, that somebody would have asked - "remember what happened in Vietnam - what is different here?" and "after we take out Saddam, what then?".

I do not understand why we are surprised that at this point in time, ISIS, with about 40,000 raggedy Ann turbaned fighters is winning the war. On the other side is the United States, Canada and 60 other nations:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/mobilizing-the-world-up-to-62-nations-and-groups-have-joined-coalition-against-isis

Why have we read wrong on Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya ...?

Do our leaders have such disdain for these people that they figure we can just railroad them into compliance with our wants?

The idea of invading a country and then losing a guerrilla war is as common in history as a change in government.

Why cannot we get it right?

Edited September 23, 2015 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

...Do our leaders have such disdain for these people that they figure we can just railroad them into compliance with our wants?

Yes...see "Kosovo War". Canada bombed people to protect their human rights.

[TimG]

I have to assume that with all of the talent and intelligent people that the West has, that somebody would have asked - "remember what happened in Vietnam - what is different here?" and "after we take out Saddam, what then?".

You keep forgetting the hugely successful examples of Germany and Japan where the US and Allies moved in, imposed a new government structure and occupied the countries for decades. You also forget South Korea which is huge success based on its own merits even if the blight of North Korea still exists.

The fact is that, given the right circumstances, an external force disposing the existing leaders and setting up democratic structures does work. The question is why hasn't it worked recently?

[Topaz]

Do you really think taking out Hussein was a good idea and some of the other country leaders? Just look at the mess the ME is in and since there more of them than us, it wasn't a good idea.

[Big Guy]

You keep forgetting the hugely successful examples of Germany and Japan where the US and Allies moved in, imposed a new government structure and occupied the countries for decades. You also forget South Korea which is huge success based on its own merits even if the blight of North Korea still exists.

The fact is that, given the right circumstances, an external force disposing the existing leaders and setting up democratic structures does work. The question is why hasn't it worked recently?

You may be correct - but these were both educated populations. Neither had the results of WWII to learn from and these were world wars. In recent cases we are invading countries who have no idea of how a democracy works, populations of illiterate and innumerate citizens.

I believe that a democracy is a very sophisticated form of government. We have to be convinced that to attain stable and fair government, we must give up many personal freedoms to those who are elected. Often, those who we have given power over us have been elected with less than half the votes. That is very far from feudalism, fascism, communism et al. We are prepared to accept that because we have seen from history that this is the best kind of social order for educated people.

We know if one nation invades another nation and the people of that invaded nation do not support the invaders then a guerilla war will cause the invaders to lose. Yet we keep doing it.

We know that dropping bombs and accepting "collateral damage" of innocents in the area is a mistake. We may accept the "collateral damage" but the occupants certainly do not. All we do is create more enemies and martyrs. Yet we keep doing it.

We try to impose the structure of a democracy in areas completely incapable and populations completely ignorant of and familiar with the concept. Yet we keep doing it.

We know that the basic priority of any human is survival for themselves and their family. We know that a person will look for safety far before looking for freedom or justice. Yet we invade and disrupt and create conditions where millions of people are forced to flee. Forced to leave and settle anywhere they perceive safer. Yet we keep doing it.

My point is that an educated nation, with the worlds most powerful military, has to have leadership which has to know and anticipate the consequences of their aggressive actions. There is nothing that has happened, from the rise of ISIS to the refugee crisis, that could not have been anticipated. It has happened often in the past. Yet we keep doing it.

I remember that Bay of Pigs fiasco where the USA landed a number of "freedom fighters " on a beach in Cuba expecting the locals to join in and lead a march and liberation of Havana. They landed, the locals told them to go home and when they did not, reported them to the local Cuban militia which wiped them out. Yet we pull the same stunts in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya et al.

I guess the next move will be to invade Iran and expect the Iranians to switch sides and give Tehran to the invaders. Lotsa luck!

We are being played like a fine fine fiddle by those who appear clueless with no appreciation of the lessons of history.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

...I remember that Bay of Pigs fiasco where the USA landed a number of "freedom fighters " on a beach in Cuba expecting the locals to join in and lead a march and liberation of Havana. They landed, the locals told them to go home.....

...and then many thousands of the locals would flee to Florida....still do.

[August1991]

History is ripe with situations where one nation invades another with the intent to change things, perhaps to occupy, perhaps just to burn and loot. The end is always the same - the inhabitants will eventually take back control and any changes will be temporary.

I disagree.

Japan in 1945?

The Soviets invaded South Vietnam in 1975. (Who eventually won the Cold War?)

Eisenhower "invaded" France in 1944, and won.

=====

Big Guy, I reckon that you're confusing correlation with causation, and you're mistaken in thinking of Napoleon or Hitler.

I suggest that you think again about "good" and "bad".

Edited September 26, 2015 by August1991

[TimG]

You may be correct - but these were both educated populations. Neither had the results of WWII to learn from and these were world wars. In recent cases we are invading countries who have no idea of how a democracy works, populations of illiterate and innumerate citizens.

India manages pretty well and shows that literacy is not necessary for a functional democracy. Nor is homogeneity given the different ethnic groups in the country. South Korea was also a pretty nasty dictatorship until the mid 80s but the intervention and occupation protected the society long enough for a democracy to develop.

I believe that a democracy is a very sophisticated form of government.

I have come around to the belief that not all cultures are capable of supporting a democracy, however, the requirements are not sophistication or education. My feeling is a question of social trust. Societies organized along tribal lines are simply not capable of trusting people from another tribe to look after their interests which makes it impossible for a democracy to function.

It is also worth remembering that idea that military intervention to get rid of bad governments has had support from left and right wing politicians. For example, the duty to protect developed in the 90s is purely a left wing notion. That said, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have shown pretty conclusively that military force and billions poured into aid is no guarantee of a positive outcome. Yet we are now forced with a refugee mess because no one intervened in Syria. So it appears we are damned if we do or damned if we don't.

Personally, I think we need to stop second guessing ourselves. Military interventions are messy and may fail but there are times when they are preferable to the alternatives. That said, if we choose to get involved we need to be committed for a long time to ensure a society is reconstructed after the conflict ends.

Edited September 26, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

So by your analysis, there's going to be chaos in the region no matter what, and more we intervene, the better the region will be.

Nope. I am saying that we can't avoid the problem. Ignoring it will mean it just comes to us. Intervention may not help but it keeps the problem within the country. Frankly, the problem in the ME is the culture of the societies there and a bad outcome is likely a foregone conclusion whether we are involved or not.

[August1991]

Sorry, TimG. I realize now that you had made my same point earlier.

[Moonlight Graham]

You keep forgetting the hugely successful examples of Germany and Japan where the US and Allies moved in, imposed a new government structure and occupied the countries for decades...The fact is that, given the right circumstances, an external force disposing the existing leaders and setting up democratic structures does work. The question is why hasn't it worked recently?

That is a great question. I think the reasons are complex and various. First, we didn't really impose a new government structure on Germany, they were a democracy before Hitler's dictatorship. The US also dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan, I'm sure that was a factor in no will among the Japanese for a prolonged insurgency. They both seemed to have much more homogenous societies than many countries in the middle-east (and Africa), where foreigners decided their country's borders, not themselves. Their politics & law also aren't guided by religion like in these Islamic societies.

[Moonlight Graham]

India manages pretty well and shows that literacy is not necessary for a functional democracy. Nor is homogeneity given the different ethnic groups in the country.

India is another interesting case as you say. But remember that India split into Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh with huge population flows of tens of millions of people between each based on ethnic groups because these people wanted to practice their religions/cultures in peace. And there's still conflict ie: disputes over Kashmir.

[Moonlight Graham]

That said, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have shown pretty conclusively that military force and billions poured into aid is no guarantee of a positive outcome. Yet we are now forced with a refugee mess because no one intervened in Syria. So it appears we are damned if we do or damned if we don't.

But we did intervene in Syria. The US is still dedicated to the toppling of Assad regime and has spent lots of money supporting "moderate" rebel groups. Canada and the US are also dropping bombs on ISIS in Syria and Iraq. US, Canada and Russia aren't involved there to restore peace or ensure democracy, they're there to ensure that a regime friendly to their own regional interests wins. Assad is a Russian ally, but isn't an ally for the US (and the West), because they align with Iran (who we're unfriendly since 1979...how dare they overthrow our puppet!)

We have to remember that Syria is a civil war, as it is in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and as it was in Vietnam. Germany and Japan during WWII were not civil wars.

Nope. I am saying that we can't avoid the problem. Ignoring it will mean it just comes to us.

How does "Ignoring it will mean it just comes to us"? How will it come to us? By not ignoring it, it came to us. Fact: ISIS didn't attack Canada until we attacked them. The Ottawa/Quebec terror attacks in Oct. 2014 came only 2 weeks after Parliament passed the vote to conduct airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq. That's no coincidence. Al-Qaeda also attacked the West mainly over our military presence in the middle-east.

Intervention may not help but it keeps the problem within the country.

How so? The US/UK started the Iraq War, and that has spread into Syria and Libya (where ISIS operates). Afghanistan spread into Pakistan etc. and al-Qaeda is all over the ME and North Africa since we booted them out of Afghanistan.

Frankly, the problem in the ME is the culture of the societies there and a bad outcome is likely a foregone conclusion whether we are involved or not.

Exactly. So why be involved there when we can choose not to be? ISIS isn't going to defeat Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel any time soon. The ME is a hornet's nest, if you swat at them you'll be stung but if you leave them alone they'll largely leave you alone.

[TimG]

How so? The US/UK started the Iraq War, and that has spread into Syria and Libya (where ISIS operates). Afghanistan spread into Pakistan etc. and al-Qaeda is all over the ME and North Africa since we booted them out of Afghanistan.

The Arab spring would have happened eventually whether the US went into Iraq or not. When that happened a civil war in Iraq was a probable outcome as it is in Syria today. ISIS in one form or another would have appeared anyways.

Exactly. So why be involved there when we can choose not to be? ISIS isn't going to defeat Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel any time soon. The ME is a hornet's nest, if you swat at them you'll be stung but if you leave them alone they'll largely leave you alone.

The US left Afghanistan alone and it was used as a base for the 9/11 attacks. Whether we like it or not these conflicts affect us and unless you also advocating that we close our doors to refugees we need to find a way to help end these conflicts. The only question is how can we use our knowledge of past failures to do in a way that makes things better. Edited September 28, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

Now Russia is going into Syria and will likely do all of the things that will outrage western bleeding hearts.

Why shouldn't Russia be the one to go in? Assad is their bastard after all. We should have been on their case to go clean up after themselves years ago.

Except, that would have frightened western warhawks.

[TimG]

Why shouldn't Russia be the one to go in? Assad is their bastard after all. We should have been on their case to go clean up after themselves years ago.

You do realize that Russia going in means all kinds of 'war crimes' will be committed to restore order that would send western chattering classes into a tizzie if they were committed by US troops? An if Russia succeeds it will should draw the ire of all those Islamists (at according to the chattering classes), right?. My guess is it won't because the Islamists would be mad at the West no matter what it does because they need an enemy to spread their control and the West is the most convenient boogyman. Edited September 28, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

You do realize that Russia going in means all kinds of 'war crimes' will be committed to restore old that would send western chattering classes into a tizzie if they were committed by US troops.

So what? Our side's committed lots of war crimes in the region too.

Am I to believe western warhacks will go into a tizzy over Russian brutality? I doubt it, pissing themselves and hoping no one notices is more like it.

My guess is it won't because the Islamists would be mad at the West no matter what it does because they need an enemy to spread their control and the West is the most convenient boogyman.

My guess is that Islamists will see Russia's involvement as the start of a East West co-dominion over the Muslim world.

Edited September 28, 2015 by eyeball

[TimG]

So what? Our side's committed lots of war crimes in the region too.

Then why is so much media time spent on discussing these 'war crimes' if they are no big deal?

[eyeball]

Delete

Edited September 28, 2015 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Then why is so much media time spent on discussing these 'war crimes' if they are no big deal?

Because they're not a big deal anymore. The media is to busy wondering why bleeding-hearts don't get Islamophobia.

[WIP]

I believe that the study of history is the study of human nature. Since I require at least one reference for an OP then:

https://history.hanover.edu/why.php

It has always fascinated me that we do not seem to learn from the mistakes of others. I believe that one of the main reasons that those in the West will accept democracy with all of the personal decision restrictions that it mandates is because we are educated.

A quick look at your link reveals the first fatal flaw in history studies: the subject index has four chapters on European history, then it moves on to look at four centuries of American history, and Africa and Asia added as an afterthought! That tells us right there the major fatal flaw of western education...everything is presented from a Eurocentric viewpoint. The rest of the world is "discovered" even when other people have lived there and built civilizations of their own for thousands of years. And right to this day, a good case could be made that our present wars and geopolitical conflicts stem from the belief that the rest of the world has to think like us and adopt our cultural, political and philosophical viewpoints (values of the enlightenment).

Read something from an outsider looking in on the European/American experience, like Edward Said, and the enlightenment and its age of exploration and conquest looks to much of the rest of the world like a human plague descended on them and their lives were never the same afterwards!

If you believe as I do that all men are created equal and wired basically the same, then given a group of humans are being challenged, in a particular set of conditions, we can anticipate the results of different approaches to solving this challenge by looking back to see how man reacted in the past to those different approaches.

I don't want to be pedantic about it, but now is as good a time as any to stop assuming that using male terminology for entire groups "all men" need to be replaced with terms like everyone or all people. Whether it seems clunky or cumbersome right now, much of the reason is that we have to many legacies from times past in our culture when women didn't count for much outside of making babies and doing housework.

But, the big mistake I see here is treating nations as collectives of equal individuals all sharing in the decisions their nation makes. This doesn't even happen in the nations that have elections and pretend to be democracies! At least since recorded history began, nations have been ruled by small cliques with inordinate power to control the fates of thousands and millions of people within their nations. So, referencing the later portion of your post: is America slow in learning and making the same mistakes getting into costly, devastating wars, or is the whole process beyond the control of average Americans to begin with...and possibly even most of the elected leaders as well? Because warfaring is a very profitable business. Right now, today, America is the largest arms merchant in the world, and is still willing to sell weapons like landmines and clusterbombs to nations like Saudi Arabia....who are busy at work creating the next mass wave of refugees with their bombing campaign in Yemen.

The average American (and average Canadian) isn't much aware of the costs of war, the civilian costs (except possibly if the media connects the dots between the latest refugee crises with the wars), and especially the profiteering that goes on behind the scenes with the business of war, because 99% of our servile media is owned and controlled by corporations who earn most or part of their revenues from war. And I didn't even get to the main motivation for most of the wars the US instigates today: taking control of oil and other economic assets in countries that aren't playing ball with US-based institutions, and using the threat of military force to keep other debt-ridden economic colonies in line.

So, nothing can be done about stopping the foolishness of war as long as it is profitable for powerful ruling classes, and is actually essential for maintaining the global banking and commerce empire.