Comments by "vk2ig" (@vk2ig) on "The Forgotten American POW - The Only US Servicewoman Captured by the Germans" video.
-
9
-
8
-
@banditkeef3864 That's an excellent question, and I'd be interested to read an answer which disproves your statement. But I suspect such an answer won't be clear cut.
The Korean War and Vietnam War were fought to stop the spread of communism (and thus the influence of China and the USSR) in the Far East. Some argue that this was to protect the USA, but given no ICBMs were installed in North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia it's arguable that there was no real threat to the USA. (The USSR learnt its lesson from the Cuban Missile Crisis that deploying ICBMs outside its territory was a ticket to a lot of trouble.)
The Invasion of Iraq was dressed up as protecting freedom ("We have to get those WMDs!") but in reality it was to fought to secure the oil supply for the USA - American presidents know that they don't survive long if the cost of filling a SUV's gas tank rises. Securing the oil supply could be construed as protecting the USA's way of life, and (by a somewhat dubious extension of that) its freedom.
Afghanistan was arguably intended to get Osama Bin Laden. But the likelihood of him (and Al Qaeda) being able to launch more attacks on US soil after 9/11 were vanishingly small due to heightened security, awareness, etc. The war achieved the zapping of OBL, but it didn't eliminate Al Qaeda, so that threat - in its post 9/11 context of reduced effectiveness - remains.
Finally; it can be easily and successfully argued that maintaining a standing military force is the means of protecting freedom. However; that force doesn't need to go to war to achieve its aims - it just needs to exist and be demonstrably competent.
4
-
1