Languish.org

Trump has four years, has a record of wanting to push people around and establish he's the top dog, and seems enamoured with US military might.

As well, military conflict tends to cause the US to rally around their president, at least to some extent, so it may well seem politically expedient for the president to fight a war.

What, in you view, is the most likely place Trump's first war* will happen?

Please feel free to elaborate on the where and why.

*by war I mean any military conflict where ground troops are committed in numbers greater than a few thousand and continually engaged in combat for more than a few weeks, rather than a purely air based campaign (i.e. Panama, Grenada, Desrt Storm 1 and 2, Afghanistan qualify but the bombing runs in Syria and Libya do not f. ex.)

None

Wild Card vote - Civil War.

Quote from: 11B4V on January 30, 2017, 08:45:35 AM
None

Why do you think that?

I can't see any war with boots on the ground involved, unless there's another 9/11-like event involved. The political cost is way too heavy.

Quote from: 11B4V on January 30, 2017, 08:45:35 AM
None

Agreed.  All hat, no cattle.  He'll launch some air raid someplace in retaliation for an attack, then announce that it was a total, overwhelming success, declare complete victory, and that will be the end of it.  This may happen three or four times.  Trump has no interest in fighting wars.  They would cramp his style.

Quote from: grumbler on January 30, 2017, 08:51:30 AM

Quote from: 11B4V on January 30, 2017, 08:45:35 AM
None

Agreed.  All hat, no cattle.  He'll launch some air raid someplace in retaliation for an attack, then announce that it was a total, overwhelming success, declare complete victory, and that will be the end of it.  This may happen three or four times.  Trump has no interest in fighting wars.  They would cramp his style.

I hope you are right.

The danger however is that he tries that with someone who isn't willing to just call it a day after a couple rounds of bombing. Like China. Or North Korea.

I think, ultimately, Trump is a massive pussy. He would back down if the Chinese or the Russians or whatever made a serious stand against him.

I can see Bannon pushing for massive nuclear exchange though, so it's 50-50.

Quote from: Grey Fox on January 30, 2017, 08:45:38 AM
Wild Card vote - Civil War.

Like I said, if we get in a civil war, we're taking you all with us.  :menace:

California!

I voted middle-east, because I thought it would include airstrikes&such.  But if we exclude airstrikes and special forces operations against government targets, than it would be China.

He will push China until they retaliate, and I think they understand his policies as good as he does.  It might even play in Putin's favour that the US and China engage in a warmer war together.  It'll give him lots of leeway to pursue some interests toward the Baltic States.

None. He sucks the cocks of foreign leaders, he doesn't fight them.

Quote from: The Brain on January 30, 2017, 11:20:53 AM
None. He sucks the cocks of foreign leaders, he doesn't fight them.

Don't let him hear you say that, or he might go to war with Sweden. :uffda:

I think he could escalate the war against ISIS in a repetition of The Surge. So I voted the first option.

Some out of the way place like Yemen, to deflect attention.

When we reflect on the American people, it must be recognized that they are so many, yet their living space is so small. The people need more land to live, or they will suffocate. There is but one answer: a homeland that extends into Alberta.

BC too. CC needs his second amendment rights.

Falklands

Quote from: Josephus on January 30, 2017, 01:35:20 PM
Falklands

I think it's more likely to be an Independent Scotland, specifically those bolshey people who objected to his chintzy golf course.   :bowler:

I can think of a bunch of possibilities when it comes to Trump "starting" wars, mainly due to a lack of American leadership.

I bet you can.

Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2017, 03:56:38 PM
I bet you can.

"Pakistan just attacked India, Mr. President."
"Is Trump Towers Mumbai, the latest addition in a new level of luxury for the Mumbai skyline, OK?"

Probably China.  We're already more or less eyeball to eyeball in the South China Sea, and if an incident were happen such as the spy plane ramming, I can easily imagine Donaldo cranking up the belligerence to 11. Escalation, maybe some shots fired, then who knows.  North Korea is #2, but he might not be able to find it on the map and is not as emotionally invested in outpeeing NK.

Quote from: Zanza on January 30, 2017, 12:00:49 PM
I think he could escalate the war against ISIS in a repetition of The Surge. So I voted the first option.

People in his administration are already talking about this.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2017, 04:08:04 PM
Probably China.  We're already more or less eyeball to eyeball in the South China Sea, and if an incident were happen such as the spy plane ramming, I can easily imagine Donaldo cranking up the belligerence to 11. Escalation, maybe some shots fired, then who knows.  North Korea is #2, but he might not be able to find it on the map and is not as emotionally invested in outpeeing NK.

Flynn is gung-ho for glassing Tehran.  I don't know how much influence he has, but it is worth thinking about, if Trump decides that the Iranian deal is too good to allow to stand.

Will Trump's first war also be his last war?

Quote from: mongers on January 30, 2017, 05:04:57 PM
Will Trump's first war also be his last war?

Or our last war  :ph34r:

You'll never make it to Valhalla with that attitude.

china won't mess with trump's america in any substantial way, because why risk him throwing america at them? they'll probably test the waters in unsubstantial ways to see how committed he is, and when he uses a sledgehammer to swat them away, they'll know he's the Real Deal not to be messed with

Quote from: grumbler on January 30, 2017, 04:30:47 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 30, 2017, 04:08:04 PM
Probably China.  We're already more or less eyeball to eyeball in the South China Sea, and if an incident were happen such as the spy plane ramming, I can easily imagine Donaldo cranking up the belligerence to 11. Escalation, maybe some shots fired, then who knows.  North Korea is #2, but he might not be able to find it on the map and is not as emotionally invested in outpeeing NK.

Flynn is gung-ho for glassing Tehran.  I don't know how much influence he has, but it is worth thinking about, if Trump decides that the Iranian deal is too good to allow to stand.

Yeah, I agree that the Trump Circle of Trust^TM is squarely in the Islam Must Be Destroyed!!!!1111One camp, but it would be so much easier to accidentally stumble into a war with China.  This crew's inability to "speak Chinese" in the diplomatic sense and Der Furor's need for dick measuring, combined with China's inexperience at brinksmanship and its penchant for scripted expectations from its opponents when it comes to international crises, and you can easily have an Uh-Oh.

Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2017, 10:09:46 AM
California!

Those secessionist bastards will never know what hit them.

I am confused. I thought Trump was already fighting some wars. And it looks like more involvement in Syria and the Middle East is in our near future. Joy.

I fear what happens when the North Koreans start calling him names.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2017, 06:46:51 PM
I fear what happens when the North Koreans start calling him names.

World War Tweet, man. 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2017, 06:47:59 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2017, 06:46:51 PM
I fear what happens when the North Koreans start calling him names.

World War Tweet, man.

I wouldn't want to be Tim.  Well I wouldn't want to be Tim anyway, but I suppose wouldn't want to be where Tim is.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2017, 06:49:32 PM
I wouldn't want to be Tim.  Well I wouldn't want to be Tim anyway, but I suppose wouldn't want to be where Tim is.

He'd be fine.  People like Tim always walk away from the rubble without a scratch.

Quote from: Zanza on January 30, 2017, 12:00:49 PM
I think he could escalate the war against ISIS in a repetition of The Surge. So I voted the first option.

That's the most likely, given that we're already fighting ISIS on a lower level.  But I don't expect that he'll actually get us into any wars.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 30, 2017, 06:47:59 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 30, 2017, 06:46:51 PM
I fear what happens when the North Koreans start calling him names.

World War Tweet, man. 

Don't make me laugh like that.  Bad, bad man.

I don't think Trump wants to be in any wars. He talks about how the US has been in too many wars over the past decade or so. Too much waste and expense for too little success. But he does talk about taking on ISIS in a much heavier way than Obama, so we may see more involvement not only in the Mid East but also other places where ISIS is such as in Africa. We do have troops, bases and special forces there now as do other nations and Trump may expand on that. But I hope he'll work with Arab/Muslim nations to do more to take on ISIS and take on much of it as he has also talked about that.

Quote from: KRonn on January 31, 2017, 03:06:46 PM
I don't think Trump wants to be in any wars. He talks about how the US has been in too many wars over the past decade or so. Too much waste and expense for too little success. But he does talk about taking on ISIS in a much heavier way than Obama, so we may see more involvement not only in the Mid East but also other places where ISIS is such as in Africa. We do have troops, bases and special forces there now as do other nations and Trump may expand on that. But I hope he'll work with Arab/Muslim nations to do more to take on ISIS and take on much of it as he has also talked about that.

I am pretty sure most of what we have been doing is working with Arab/Muslim nations to take on ISIS. But they always have their own interests at heart. We will see what he does.

What Trump wants in this department is mostly beside the point. I don't think we have ever had a President go into office eager to start or get involved in a war. Well...ok maybe Polk.

Maybe airstrikes on remaining ISIS positions in Libya. Maybe bombing Sudan a little. I can't think of any other non-allied Middle Eastern countries that fit the bill. I'm sure I'm just being uncreative.

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2017, 03:09:43 PM

Quote from: KRonn on January 31, 2017, 03:06:46 PM
I don't think Trump wants to be in any wars. He talks about how the US has been in too many wars over the past decade or so. Too much waste and expense for too little success. But he does talk about taking on ISIS in a much heavier way than Obama, so we may see more involvement not only in the Mid East but also other places where ISIS is such as in Africa. We do have troops, bases and special forces there now as do other nations and Trump may expand on that. But I hope he'll work with Arab/Muslim nations to do more to take on ISIS and take on much of it as he has also talked about that.

I am pretty sure most of what we have been doing is working with Arab/Muslim nations to take on ISIS. But they always have their own interests at heart. We will see what he does.

What Trump wants in this department is mostly beside the point. I don't think we have ever had a President go into office eager to start or get involved in a war. Well...ok maybe Polk.

Bush took on Iraq, Obama took on Libya. Both questionable especially in the after thought. I think there are apparent lessons from those that many now see, so I think/hope Trump also sees it as he's talked about it. But things get tricky and can force the hand of any President so we may see Trump also taking such actions. Especially regarding ISIS which is one of his priorities. I just think, from what he's said, that he's a lot less inclined to get involved in new large, unilateral conflicts.

Quote from: KRonn on January 31, 2017, 03:29:18 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2017, 03:09:43 PM

Quote from: KRonn on January 31, 2017, 03:06:46 PM
I don't think Trump wants to be in any wars. He talks about how the US has been in too many wars over the past decade or so. Too much waste and expense for too little success. But he does talk about taking on ISIS in a much heavier way than Obama, so we may see more involvement not only in the Mid East but also other places where ISIS is such as in Africa. We do have troops, bases and special forces there now as do other nations and Trump may expand on that. But I hope he'll work with Arab/Muslim nations to do more to take on ISIS and take on much of it as he has also talked about that.

I am pretty sure most of what we have been doing is working with Arab/Muslim nations to take on ISIS. But they always have their own interests at heart. We will see what he does.

What Trump wants in this department is mostly beside the point. I don't think we have ever had a President go into office eager to start or get involved in a war. Well...ok maybe Polk.

Bush took on Iraq, Obama took on Libya. Both questionable especially in the after thought. I think there are apparent lessons from those that many now see, so I think/hope Trump also sees it as he's talked about it. But things get tricky and can force the hand of any President so we may see Trump also taking such actions. Especially regarding ISIS which is one of his priorities. I just think, from what he's said, that he's a lot less inclined to get involved in new large, unilateral conflicts.

Libya was already happening so not really comparable to Iraq. The lesson to be learned is that there can be no good outcome without people to support on the ground. Such a prospect still does not exist so it is unlikely a good outcome will be forthcoming. Only a possibly less bad outcome might. But it is hard to know. I have my doubts Trump has the expertise to really get the best outcome out of a middle eastern policy, nor do I think he is capable of finding the people capable of wisely advising him. I could certainly be wrong. I hope I am.

Whether or not he is inclined to get involved in a new large, unilateral conflict entirely depends on what the justifications for that conflict might be. Again I don't think Bush went into office planning on launching an invasion of any place, in fact he consistently promised to do just the opposite. But things change. Circumstances change. Who knows what directions Trump will be pulled. He does not seem to be a man taken with restraint and caution thus far.

You seem to have great faith in his judgment. I hope it is rewarded.

Trump railed against the conflicts that have been going on while others continue to push for more intervention, dems and repubs. McCain and some others seemed to want intervention in Syria early on, Hillary and others pushed hard for Libya. Others for a lot of boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq against ISIS, at least earlier before Russia got so involved.

And you're right though, we'll see what Trump does because he's not always going to have the option to shape events, usually will have the to react to events like the former presidents.  I don't necessarily have lots of faith in Trump, just going by what he has said, and that could change. Remember Bush talking about not doing nation building? That idea went right out the window quite quickly with Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know I am kind of a dick about this, but I don't look at Libya and see failure at all.

I see success. The goal was not to create a Libyan utopia, and we should know that.

The goal was to stop Qadafi from using his military to remain in power. Goal accomplished.

We don't fucking own every single thing that is going to happen after that - that goal alone is worthy of consideration based on the cirumstances. It is a minimal intervention into an ongoing revolution to better allow the people to have a great ability to influence their form of government.

If there is a clearly defined goal that is reasonably achieved with reasonable expectations of first order (or even second order) outcomes, then we can and should act.

If the choice is as simple as "Is there a greater chance for a positive outcome if we deny Qadafi the ability to butcher his people?" and the answer is "Yes", it may be the case that the "greater chance for a positive outcome" is moving the chances for a good outcome from 10% to 30%. It still might be likely that the outcome is still not great. Or it might be that the outcome is just "pretty bad" instead of "fucking horrible".

But this idea that if we do anything, we somehow own any result other than turning the country in question into the next West Germany (and if that happens, we sure as hell won't be getting credit for it!) is paralyzing. Why bother doing anything, since we know the results is going to be some flavor of bad?

I sorta miss Mummar.  :(

Quote from: Ed Anger on January 31, 2017, 08:56:56 PM
I sorta miss Mummar.  :(

The ISIS guys lack his sense of style and panache. Unfortunately so did his sons.