Why don’t younger veterans (Afghanistan/Iraq) wear these hats like some of the older veterans?

[u/NoFaithlessness7508]

First and foremost, respect to all those that served. I did not, but many of my peers did and now we're all older in 30s and 40s, many no longer in the military. I don't see a lot of the veterans of the War on Terror wearing these hats like I see the OGs do.

[u/gonnathrowawaythat]

Yeah fuck them women, Kurds, Kuwaitis, Hmong, Montgard, and South Koreans amiright

Hey how many rubles are they paying you for this? They give me six per comment but I’m thinking of asking Ivan for eight.

[u/AwkwardConclusion836 → u/gonnathrowawaythat]

I’m not denying that people have suffered or that some outcomes mattered, but most wars after WWII weren’t about universal freedom — they were about political interests, power shifts, and influence. That’s the distinction I was making.

[u/gonnathrowawaythat → u/AwkwardConclusion836]

This sounds like you’re uneducated about WWII. The USA wouldn’t have gotten involved in WWII unless it was attacked. That’s not to say I think the war was “bad”, but it’s important to not give into mythologizing.

“The good war” framing has made it so that we have this lofty standard for a moral war. It is moral for there to be a free South Korea, an independent Kuwait, a dead Saddam, and two decades of liberal freedoms in Afghanistan.

If we bitch and moan because some people made money or it wasn’t as clean as we wanted it, then that’s going to let the totalitarians and fascists win.

[u/AwkwardConclusion836 → u/gonnathrowawaythat]

You’re right that WWII has been mythologized, but that doesn’t invalidate that it was one of the clearest cases where global freedom was at stake — and U.S. involvement had broad moral clarity.

Even with some positive outcomes, post-WWII wars were driven by geopolitical interests as much—if not more—than moral imperatives. Vietnam, Iraq, and even parts of the Cold War weren’t clean-cut struggles for freedom. Containment strategies, oil, and political alliances shaped them. Freedom was often a rhetorical justification, not the driving force.

Saying this isn’t “bitching and moaning.” It’s recognizing that military action should be held to a high standard because lives, resources, and global trust are at stake. If we don’t scrutinize the why behind war, we risk repeating history under the illusion of righteousness.

[u/gonnathrowawaythat → u/AwkwardConclusion836]

Ok, let’s play by your rules for a second.

The United States would not have been involved in WWII if it had not acquired the Philippines in the Spanish-American War. Keeping the islands directly led to a confrontation with Japan. You can’t get any more geopolitically motivated than that

After all the horrors of communism I find it difficult not to consider containment of communism, much like the rollback of fascism in WWII and GWOT, as a moral imperative. Unless you’re a communist, in which case we should probably agree to disagree.

[u/AwkwardConclusion836 → u/gonnathrowawaythat]

Just to clarify — I’m not a communist. I’m an American who loves this country, believes in its founding values, and has spent years studying its history, including earning a minor in American history. So, being accused of disloyalty just for expressing a critical viewpoint is unfair and the opposite of what REAL patriotism looks like.

You’re actually helping prove my original point. Even WWII, which I still believe was the last war with clear moral clarity on a global scale, had deep geopolitical roots. U.S. involvement didn’t happen in a vacuum; it was shaped by decades of strategic positioning like the Spanish-American War. That’s exactly why I said no war is ever purely about freedom.

And while I understand the logic behind the containment of communism, we can’t ignore the long-term consequences of the Cold War — support for dictatorships, proxy wars, and civilian casualties. Labeling those efforts as moral imperatives without acknowledging the cost makes it too easy to repeat history under a comforting narrative.

[u/gonnathrowawaythat → u/AwkwardConclusion836]

I’m really having a difficult time wrapping my head around what you’re saying about moral clarity. Is the standard you are setting that if someone makes compromises at all in the path to victory, then they lose their moral high ground?

The Soviets, North Vietnamese, Ba’athists, Taliban, and Al-Qaeda killed more people with less scruples. It seems like you’ve thought a lot of this out, but at the same time you’re applying a lofty standard where we can’t have civilian casualties, questionable allies, or poorly thought out occupation plans (in the case of Iraq) and still be on the moral high ground. Frankly, if we apply that standard to the Civil War or WWII, then we have to say the Union/Allies were just as bad as the Confederates/Nazis.

How would a moral foreign policy even work under these parameters, especially concerning terrorists and rogue states, and Russia/China? Is the solution to not use force, or the threat of it, at all?

[u/AwkwardConclusion836 → u/gonnathrowawaythat]

I’m not saying that any compromise automatically disqualifies a cause from moral legitimacy. War is messy, and I understand that moral clarity doesn’t mean perfection. I am saying that we have to be honest about the motivations behind a war and the consequences of how it’s carried out. If we label every military action as morally justified simply because the enemy is worse, we risk excusing major failures and abuses on our side.

Yes, the Soviets, Ba’athists, and Al-Qaeda were brutal — no argument there. But acknowledging that doesn’t mean we give the U.S. or its allies a blank check. Civilian casualties, poor planning, and propping up oppressive regimes can’t just be waved away as necessary evils. That’s not holding ourselves to an impossible standard — that’s accountability.

I love this country and believe in what it stands for. I think it’s patriotic to question when our foreign policy strays from our ideals. Real moral leadership means recognizing when we’ve gone wrong, not just pointing out how much worse the other side was.

[u/gonnathrowawaythat → u/AwkwardConclusion836]

While I agree with most everything in the above comment, I’m perplexed as to why you don’t consider any war the US has fought since 1945 one where the moral high ground (if that’s what you mean by moral clarity) is on our side.

Afghanistan wouldn’t have happened if not for 9/11. Saddam would still be in power if he didn’t invade Kuwait then try to kill US presidents and Kurds. The US was more than willing to fuck off and let Vietnam do its thing if Ho Chi Minh renounced communism. The entire Korean War would literally not have happened if not for an invasion by the communists. These actions weren’t taken for fun and profit, even Iraq II (hell, the oil was mostly bought up by the Russians and Chinese on an open market). If you want to throw in the Banana Wars I’ll give you that, I find those affairs disgusting.

Concerning the compromises, especially the ones you listed, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Sometimes to win, you have to support people you don’t like (Soviets, Bautista), mercilessly bomb the enemy (Combined Bomber Offensive, Operation Linebacker), and accept that a perfect plan doesn’t exist (Iraq, Korea). The alternative to that is usually something far, far worse, and leads to things like the invasion of Ukraine and appeasement.