undefined | Better HN

0 pointscolanderman14y ago0 comments

the "wars" we're involved in now could be solved more cost-effectively by literally paying our enemies not to fight.

Thereby creating a nation of people dependent on our aid, who, when we cease sending aid due to budget constraints, will likely decide to start a war anyway. coughNorth Koreacough

Not saying that line of reasoning is totally invalid, but it's definitely not so clear-cut that you can use it in an analogy.

0 comments

8 comments · 2 top-level

redthrowaway14y ago· 4 in thread

The intervention in Libya cost about $2.7BB[1]. With things heating up in Syria, and the need to further isolate Iran, we could be looking at another "low-intensity" operation there in support of the pro-democracy dissidents. Now, what would be more cost-effective: a similar campaign in Syria, or paying Assad $1BB to fuck off to Venezuela and stay there, and a further $1BB distributed to military commanders to get them to agree to cede power to an elected government? Yes it's dirty, but so is bombing the crap out of Damascus.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_L...

pemulis14y ago

The total wealth of the Assad regime and their associates is in the hundreds of billions. You would have to pay them several trillion dollars at a minimum, though I doubt even that would be enough to convince them to leave.

fennecfoxen14y ago

I don't know - you don't necessarily have to compete with the hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth; you just need to be able to compete with the expectations of their wealth after you roll in your tanks and attempt to crush them. This is presumably a lower value, iff you have a credible threat to actually go in there and crush them with your tanks (which takes military expertise, expenditure, and the political will to pull it off).

In the current state of the US, however, the political will for new military action is fairly minimal, for better or for worse.

1 more reply

huxley14y ago

Citation needed, sounds a bit tinfoily.

Not that I agree with the idea of paying off people, but Syria's total GDP is only about US$60 billion, hard to imagine that it would take "trillions".

1 more reply

cousin_it14y ago

1) How do you convince Assad that the US won't just send some Marines to kill him after he agrees to go to Venezuela? Even if the US president gives some sort of personal guarantee, what stops the next president from violating it?

2) What if the national leader you're trying to pay off believes himself to be a true partiot and refuses to surrender his country to US interests?

Cushman14y ago· 2 in thread

You're gonna need a really strong argument to convince me that, all else being equal, building things is more damaging to a nation than blowing things up.

dillona14y ago

He's not talking about building things, at least I don't think.

One of the most effective things that has been done to slow down America's middle-eastern conflicts is paying people not to fight. When I say that, I don't mean building schools and hospitals. I mean giving people cash money in exchange for them not shooting our men and women.

Cushman14y ago

In one sense, yes; in another sense, if I'm paying somebody to not blow up convoys, they're going to do something else. That might as well be building a school.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

8 comments · 2 top-level

redthrowaway14y ago· 4 in thread

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_L...

pemulis14y ago

fennecfoxen14y ago

In the current state of the US, however, the political will for new military action is fairly minimal, for better or for worse.

1 more reply

huxley14y ago

Citation needed, sounds a bit tinfoily.

Not that I agree with the idea of paying off people, but Syria's total GDP is only about US$60 billion, hard to imagine that it would take "trillions".

1 more reply

cousin_it14y ago

2) What if the national leader you're trying to pay off believes himself to be a true partiot and refuses to surrender his country to US interests?

Cushman14y ago· 2 in thread

You're gonna need a really strong argument to convince me that, all else being equal, building things is more damaging to a nation than blowing things up.

dillona14y ago

He's not talking about building things, at least I don't think.

Cushman14y ago

In one sense, yes; in another sense, if I'm paying somebody to not blow up convoys, they're going to do something else. That might as well be building a school.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse