The same troops in the same town confronted with the same evidence that their presence was unwelcome all continued to blame and kill the locals.
Generally when occupying another country or supporting its government with your troops you only care what the frak the locals think in a very limited, well defined and may I say small sense.
If you have decided that all things considered you want your troops in a location that generally takes into account them not wanting you there. The most one can say to local opposition is “noted”.
The theory is that American military presence in Iraq is good for Iraqis because it helps them build democracy, or security, or their economy, or some combination. It’s moderately challenging to concede that the theory could be flawed.
Sure some selective application of violence might actually benefit the other, but that is not, nor is it ever, the real reason why anyone does it. This is especially true when one needs to invest non-trivial amounts of resources of effort.
Upvoted for bringing my attention to this. I didn’t feel so, but reading my response to the second comment I see how one can get that impression. I’ve edited that bit of the text while trying to keep its original meaning.
Does it come of any better?
Part of the reason I perhaps came off the wrong way might have been that I was mistaken thinking that not many people are geniuenly
fooled by the rational and are aware of a ulterior motive that makes it awfully convenient to “help” that particular group of people, unless they also seek to ensure universal adherence to their values.
In which case I also thought was obvious to most that when they cheer for “spreading democracy” or things like that what is happening on a basic level is satisfaction of the urge to convert the infidels not a rational judgement based on a unbiased consideration of what is best for them.
If it was the first part of my post that bothered you, perhaps I should emphasise that I don’t object to not caring what the locals think to a extent, I just object to not being honest to oneself about it. I also implicitly stated (small) that by the standards we apply to some other situations concerning government and violence, a occupying force cares a little bit less than one might first assume.
The new version does indeed seem better, though the second part of the post seems less clear and perhaps overly general now—I’m extremely confident that violence is applied in at least some cases primarily to help others.
″...a occupying force cares a little bit less than one might first assume”
I don’t mean to be overly critical of your imprecise language, but in this context I think it is important to note that a “force” does not care at all. More to the point, a military force comprises individuals who hold a whole range of opinions and who may act in ways that are contrary to those opinions.
Generally when occupying another country or supporting its government with your troops you only care what the frak the locals think in a very limited, well defined and may I say small sense.
If you have decided that all things considered you want your troops in a location that generally takes into account them not wanting you there. The most one can say to local opposition is “noted”.
Sure some selective application of violence might actually benefit the other, but that is not, nor is it ever, the real reason why anyone does it. This is especially true when one needs to invest non-trivial amounts of resources of effort.
This post basically boils down to “MOST PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND EASILY TRICKED, BUT I’M NOT.” Probably true, but do you have to be so overt about it?
Upvoted for bringing my attention to this. I didn’t feel so, but reading my response to the second comment I see how one can get that impression. I’ve edited that bit of the text while trying to keep its original meaning.
Does it come of any better?
Part of the reason I perhaps came off the wrong way might have been that I was mistaken thinking that not many people are geniuenly fooled by the rational and are aware of a ulterior motive that makes it awfully convenient to “help” that particular group of people, unless they also seek to ensure universal adherence to their values.
In which case I also thought was obvious to most that when they cheer for “spreading democracy” or things like that what is happening on a basic level is satisfaction of the urge to convert the infidels not a rational judgement based on a unbiased consideration of what is best for them.
If it was the first part of my post that bothered you, perhaps I should emphasise that I don’t object to not caring what the locals think to a extent, I just object to not being honest to oneself about it. I also implicitly stated (small) that by the standards we apply to some other situations concerning government and violence, a occupying force cares a little bit less than one might first assume.
The new version does indeed seem better, though the second part of the post seems less clear and perhaps overly general now—I’m extremely confident that violence is applied in at least some cases primarily to help others.
″...a occupying force cares a little bit less than one might first assume”
I don’t mean to be overly critical of your imprecise language, but in this context I think it is important to note that a “force” does not care at all. More to the point, a military force comprises individuals who hold a whole range of opinions and who may act in ways that are contrary to those opinions.