CDZ Is the U.S. involved in too many wars?

[phoenyx]

A poll was done a few years ago by The Hill on the subject of this thread, and I decided to do a simpler one here. For anyone who'd like to go further than the poll, I'd like them to explain why they chose one answer over the others. For my part, I definitely believe the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but I'll hold off on explaining why, at least until asked.

**
An overwhelming number of voters believe the United States is involved in too many foreign conflicts and should pull back its troops, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.


Seventy-two percent of those polled said the United States is fighting in too many places, with only 16 percent saying the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level. Twelve percent said they weren’t sure.

Voters also do not think having U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country safer, according to the poll.
Thirty-seven percent said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan makes no impact on national security, while another 17 percent said it makes the United States less safe. By contrast, 36 percent said the United States is safer because forces are in Afghanistan.

The findings reflect a fatigue with war after a decade dominated by U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that are now unwinding. War fatigue was also highlighted by House votes last month on Afghanistan in which more Republicans than ever before supported withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Those findings were echoed when voters were asked about Iraq.

Forty percent said the military intervention in Iraq has made no difference when it comes to U.S. safety, compared to 32 percent who said the United States is safer because of it. Twenty percent said the country is less safe because of action in Iraq.
**

Source: The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places

 

[The Great Goose]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

 

[phoenyx]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

I'm glad that you agree that the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but how about lessening its dependence on foreign oil instead of 'conquering the oil wells'?

 

[The Great Goose]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

I'm glad that you agree that the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but how about lessening its dependence on foreign oil instead of 'conquering the oil wells'?

yeah like that's gonna happen.

 

[Tehon]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

What right does the US have to oil buried beneath foreign soil?

 

[320 Years of History]

I think the only context in which there can be "too many" or "too few" wars in which a nation is involved is that of whether the nation in question has the men, mettle and means to prosecute the quantity of wars in which it finds itself concurrently engaged. Otherwise, the question is whether the nation should or should not prosecute a given war, not how many it does prosecute.

 

[The Great Goose]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

What right does the US have to oil buried beneath foreign soil?

it doesn't but it's either that or take on the Fed and we all know how that works out.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You would think we would be at zero right now with the Nobel peace prize president, ironic we are in more wars today then in 2008

God forbid if hillary wins one too.

 

[phoenyx]

I think the only context in which there can be "too many" or "too few" wars in which a nation is involved is that of whether the nation in question has the men, mettle and means to prosecute the quantity of wars in which it finds itself concurrently engaged. Otherwise, the question is whether the nation should or should not prosecute a given war, not how many it does prosecute.

I wanted to make my question as general as possible, to encourage a wide debate. If I had narrowed it down to a particular war, the subject would only have focused on said particular war, without necessarily looking at the U.S.'s role in other wars. Even the definition of what constitutes a war is up for grabs. I particularly liked an article from mintpressnews published a little under 2 years ago. Here's ane excerpt:
**
The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word “war” was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State.

US Secretary of State John Kerry was at first reluctant:

“We’re engaged in a major counterterrorism operation,” he told CBS News on Sept. 11. “I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity… I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of counter terrorist activity.”

Kerry said similarly hedgy things during interviews on CNN and ABC.

By the next day, the Obama administration appeared more comfortable with the word war, yet hardly offered any more clarity. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, “The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

The problem is that our traditional definition of “war” is outdated, and so is our imagination of what war means.

World War II was the last time Congress officially declared war. Since then, the conflicts we’ve called “wars” — from Vietnam through to the second Iraq War — have actually been congressional “authorizations of military force.” And more recently, beginning with the War Powers Act of 1973, presidential war powers have expanded so much that, according to the Congressional Research Service, it’s no longer clear whether a president requires congressional authorization at all.

The recent US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will likely be the last time, in the foreseeable future, that the United States wages war in the way that’s most familiar to us: a lot of combat troops on the ground in a foreign country with lots of money and support and an ostensibly achievable objective.

US troop presence in Iraq peaked at 187,900 in 2008. In Afghanistan, it peaked in 2010 at 100,000. On paper, it looked like the United States was fighting two wars. But the reality was much more complicated, and it’s only gotten more complicated.

So how many wars is the US fighting right now? Somewhere between zero and 134...
**

Source: The US Is Now Involved In 134 Wars

 

[phoenyx]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

What right does the US have to oil buried beneath foreign soil?

it doesn't but it's either that or take on the Fed and we all know how that works out.

Personally, I think Andrew Jackson had the right idea on that count. This is one war that I think was well worth it...
The War Against the Bank [ushistory.org]

If it happened once, it can happen again...

 

[phoenyx]

You would think we would be at zero right now with the Nobel peace prize president, ironic we are in more wars today then in 2008

God forbid if hillary wins one too.

Technically, the U.S. hasn't been at war since World War II. The problem here is that congress gave the President the power to engage in wars without actually declaring them (that would require congressional approval). I had hoped that Bernie would win the democratic nomination. As things stand now, I've put my support behind Jill Stein. Pretty unlikely that she'll be anything other then a speed bump in the coming election, but I can't support Hillary, and I -definitely- can't support Trump.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You would think we would be at zero right now with the Nobel peace prize president, ironic we are in more wars today then in 2008

God forbid if hillary wins one too.

Technically, the U.S. hasn't been at war since World War II. The problem here is that congress gave the President the power to engage in wars without actually declaring them (that would require congressional approval). I had hoped that Bernie would win the democratic nomination. As things stand now, I've put my support behind Jill Stein. Pretty unlikely that she'll be anything other then a speed bump in the coming election, but I can't support Hillary, and I -definitely- can't support Trump.

True and congress will never declare another war again.


.

 

[320 Years of History]

Even the definition of what constitutes a war is up for grabs. I particularly liked an article from mintpressnews published a little under 2 years ago. Here's ane excerpt:
**
The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word “war” was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State.

You know, for all the clear distaste for everything having to do with Islamic State, I'd have thought by now that the U.S. Congress would have formally declared war on ISIS. I realize that gives ISIS a degree of legitimacy, which is part of what they want, but screw that. Declare the war and "legitimize" their asses into oblivion. LOL

So all this uncertainty about what is and is not a war is just BS in my mind. Declare the war and there won't be any question of whether we are at war.

​

Sadly, modern day Congresses are a bunch of spineless and manipulative sons of bitches, IMO. It seems to me they'd rather just not vote on things.

• SCOTUS appointment --> Why not just vote and be done?
• War on ISIS --> Vote to declare the war or don't, but at least hold the vote.

You know what Congress will vote on? More vacation days for themselves.

 

[Pilate]

I voted other because while I feel that we are involved in too many wars my main gripe is that they are very inconsequential, very poorly handled, and ultimately not even worth bothering with.

 

[phoenyx]

You would think we would be at zero right now with the Nobel peace prize president, ironic we are in more wars today then in 2008

God forbid if hillary wins one too.

Technically, the U.S. hasn't been at war since World War II. The problem here is that congress gave the President the power to engage in wars without actually declaring them (that would require congressional approval). I had hoped that Bernie would win the democratic nomination. As things stand now, I've put my support behind Jill Stein. Pretty unlikely that she'll be anything other then a speed bump in the coming election, but I can't support Hillary, and I -definitely- can't support Trump.

True and congress will never declare another war again.

You never know, Congress may one day wrest the power of waging war away the Presidency again, or atleast require him to declare it before calling on troops to wage it.

 

[Holos]

I have a question to all the participants of this thread.

What are the information sources you are using to answer the poll? How do you know there are wars happening?

 

[2aguy]

A poll was done a few years ago by The Hill on the subject of this thread, and I decided to do a simpler one here. For anyone who'd like to go further than the poll, I'd like them to explain why they chose one answer over the others. For my part, I definitely believe the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but I'll hold off on explaining why, at least until asked.

**
An overwhelming number of voters believe the United States is involved in too many foreign conflicts and should pull back its troops, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.


Seventy-two percent of those polled said the United States is fighting in too many places, with only 16 percent saying the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level. Twelve percent said they weren’t sure.

Voters also do not think having U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country safer, according to the poll.
Thirty-seven percent said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan makes no impact on national security, while another 17 percent said it makes the United States less safe. By contrast, 36 percent said the United States is safer because forces are in Afghanistan.

The findings reflect a fatigue with war after a decade dominated by U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that are now unwinding. War fatigue was also highlighted by House votes last month on Afghanistan in which more Republicans than ever before supported withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Those findings were echoed when voters were asked about Iraq.

Forty percent said the military intervention in Iraq has made no difference when it comes to U.S. safety, compared to 32 percent who said the United States is safer because of it. Twenty percent said the country is less safe because of action in Iraq.
**

Source: The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places

For this link to be any good it would have to lists the "conflicts" we are engaged in and why we are there....Iraq and Afganistan are part of the same effort.....so that is one.....

 

[2aguy]

You would think we would be at zero right now with the Nobel peace prize president, ironic we are in more wars today then in 2008

God forbid if hillary wins one too.

Technically, the U.S. hasn't been at war since World War II. The problem here is that congress gave the President the power to engage in wars without actually declaring them (that would require congressional approval). I had hoped that Bernie would win the democratic nomination. As things stand now, I've put my support behind Jill Stein. Pretty unlikely that she'll be anything other then a speed bump in the coming election, but I can't support Hillary, and I -definitely- can't support Trump.

True and congress will never declare another war again.

You never know, Congress may one day wrest the power of waging war away the Presidency again, or atleast require him to declare it before calling on troops to wage it.

We had an authorization for the use of force....the Constitution doesn't give a form for declaring war...so an authorization for the use of force works just as well.....

 

[Wyatt earp]

I have a question to all the participants of this thread.

What are the information sources you are using to answer the poll? How do you know there are wars happening?

It depends on what your definition of war is.

To me it is now when we have armed drones blowing up people in any country.

 

[Holos]

I have a question to all the participants of this thread.

What are the information sources you are using to answer the poll? How do you know there are wars happening?

It depends on what your definition of war is.

To me it is now when we have armed drones blowing up people in any country.

All those words after "have" (armed, drones, blowing, people, country) would require further definition for me to understand your perspective from my current position.