I'm beginning to think wars are unwinnable

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Barnabas
That is not something sure, there are no proofs of hebrews emigrating from egypt into canaan, many people now think hebrews were cannaanites themselves.

I have been taught that Jews were outlanders (they even considered themselves as being new to the land in their most ancient mythological narratives) but they sort of mixed with the Canaanites who already lived there. Also they appeared to have had a relatively peaceful coexistence with them and having a lot of common customs and traditions. Later on though, the Filistines caused tensions to rise.


On topic: The only way to conquer land is, I believe, to import masses of your own people into the newly acquired territory. For example the Han Chinese, the Arabs or the Russians have done this succesfully. If this is not done then the territory is merely subjugated for a certain amount of time.
You can conquer through war, legal migration, cultural influence or other means. War's the easiest and the quickest way to do it though, but also the hardest to sustain.
Moroccan immigration in Belgium for example has completely transformed our population atm. They concentrate in certain towns, and in about 15-20 years, more than 50% of the primary/secondary school students in the city nearest to my village will be of Moroccan extraction, because they breed like hell, and on top of that they import Moroccans to marry, old relatives etc.
=> Tbh not something I am looking forward to (I'm no racist! ) but that's another discussion

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Darius871 So you're seriously suggesting the US couldn't use non-brutal methods to turn Tonga into a permanent colonial possession if it wanted to?

Only if a large majority of Tongans didn't mind our being there. If a significant percentage (I'd say 40%+) didn't want the U.S. to rule there, then we'd face armed resistance that would have to be supressed in order to restore order. The candy and flowers approach won't work when there's significant armed resistance, no matter how small the territory to be occupied.

[Slade Wilson]

Its easy to forget these nations like veitnam, middle east, etc, have long histories of foreign occupation. The USA isnt the first to try installing puppet governments in these countries. As in afghanistan 1980, the natives simply continued the war against the foreigners

I look to the nazi occupation of france to see how its done. The (french) population was not massacred and while there was some 'resistance', there was nothing at all like we see in iraq today.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Slade Wilson I look to the nazi occupation of france to see how its done. The (french) population was not massacred and while there was some 'resistance', there was nothing at all like we see in iraq today.

Much of that had to do with the will of the French. It's arguable that the French hated the Germans less than the Iraqis hate the U.S. France was suffering an identity crisis throughout the 30s. Many on the French right were sympathetic to the various Fascist regimes, hating the French left worse than they hated the Nazis. Remember the slogan "Better Hitler than Blum?" Furthermore, the French had a much better socio-political infrastructure than does Iraq, complete with a developed social elite (Petain and friends) willing to cooperate with Hitler, and that structure survived through the war and into the occupation intact. In the end, many French would rather passively submit (or actively collaborate) than fight.

There's also the unquantifiable element of the cultural similarity between the French and Germans. They did have a 1500+ year history of a shared cultural experience, being members of western European Christendom and part of the western cultural and philosophical tradition. I don't want to overstate this, as there were obviously many differences and historical grievances between the French and the Germans, but the fact that they shared some common ground must have made it easier for many French to accept German occupation.

Another factor to consider is the extent that the conqueror's attitude towards the conquered plays a role in the ease of the occupation. Many Germans despised the French, but they also held some degree of respect for France and French culture. Even Germano-supremecists like the Nazis had a conflicted view on the French- there seemed to be an outward projection of Germannic superiority, but one coupled with an underlying sense of cultural jealousy or inferiority. France had been the European power for centuries, one that heavily influenced Germany.

The U.S.-Iraqi situation is far different. In general, IMO, we just see the Iraqis as backwards barbarians undeserving of our respect. This haugtiness towards the Iraqis probably damages our ability to persuade Iraqis to follow us.

Even the langauge barrier applies differently in the two situations: I'm sure that there were more German soldiers who could speak French than there are Americans who can speak Arabic, and I'm sure that there were more French civilians who could speak German than there are Iraqis who can speak English. That alone would probably increase the relative difficulty of the U.S. occupation as compared to the German occpation.

Overall, the differences between the U.S. and Iraq are (in comparison to those between the French and Germans) vast, and they lead to a greater degree of alienation between occupier and occupied. I'd imagine that it would be more difficult to passively accept the overlordship of a very alien culture.

Ultimately, I don't know what relevant lessons can you draw from the Franco-German relationship that could apply to the U.S.-Iraqi relationship. They're very different for a variety of reasons, some of which I've touched on. (There was also the reality that the French were aware that the Germans were fully willing to violently supress any uprising and enact reprisals against civillian populations, something that the U.S. won't do. That fear probably inspired French fence-sitters to stay in line.)

IMO, the lessons of Vichy France can't be applied to the U.S. situation in Iraq. Iraq is much more like subsequent colonial wars, and I think that lessons drawn from those types of wars would be much more apt.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Traianvs

Originally posted by Barnabas
That is not something sure, there are no proofs of hebrews emigrating from egypt into canaan, many people now think hebrews were cannaanites themselves.

I have been taught that Jews were outlanders (they even considered themselves as being new to the land in their most ancient mythological narratives) but they sort of mixed with the Canaanites who already lived there. Also they appeared to have had a relatively peaceful coexistence with them and having a lot of common customs and traditions. Later on though, the Filistines caused tensions to rise.

The Jewish narrative is that Abraham was a stranger, but Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's children were all born there. Jacob's children married Canaanites. When the people of Israel left Egypt they were "a mixed multitude" all of Canaanite descent.

Their presence in Canaan would be like Canadians in England: speaking dialects of the same language. Only the Hebrews were not quite as polite.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Only if a large majority of Tongans didn't mind our being there. If a significant percentage (I'd say 40%+) didn't want the U.S. to rule there, then we'd face armed resistance that would have to be supressed in order to restore order. The candy and flowers approach won't work when there's significant armed resistance, no matter how small the territory to be occupied.

How can you contend that 300,000 troops couldn't gradually suppress a mere 40,000 insurgents? Hell, there would be enough personnel on the archipelago to stare down each of its 100,000 occupants 24/7!

My only point is that we have to at least give some consideration to scale instead of making categorical statements.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871


How can you contend that 300,000 troops couldn't gradually suppress a mere 40,000 insurgents? Hell, there would be enough personnel on the archipelago to stare down each of its 100,000 occupants 24/7!

How would you triple (or quadruple) the population of a place exactly? Where would you house them, in the sea, in large boats? hard to stare from out in the ocean you know....

My only point is that we have to at least give some consideration to scale instead of making categorical statements.

certainly scale matters, the scale of the country doing the occupying, the scale of the territory being occupied and the population, and the distance in between.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by GePap
How would you triple (or quadruple) the population of a place exactly? Where would you house them, in the sea, in large boats? hard to stare from out in the ocean you know....

We're discussing a scenario where 300,000 troops are occupying a country of 100,000 people of which 40,000 (40%) are insurgents. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Edit: Nevermind, I guess what you mean is that the addition of troops quadruples the archipelago's population, but it's not exceedingly difficult to use tents and abandoned buildings temporarily while having barracks built.

Originally posted by GePap
certainly scale matters, the scale of the country doing the occupying, the scale of the territory being occupied and the population, and the distance in between.

That's my only point. Wycoff's post before was speaking categorically about any colonial occupation lacking brutal methods, which is clearly ridiculous because it entirely ignores questions of scale.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Darius871
That's my only point. Wycoff's post before was speaking categorically about any colonial occupation lacking brutal methods, which is clearly ridiculous because it entirely ignores questions of scale.

Except, what colonial occupation has worked long term without them?

Now, to be fair what constitutes "colonial" occupation is not yet defined, so this is a hard thing to say, but the reality is that a population could, without resorting to violence, resist and carry out actions that would prompt a reaction. Just think of Ghandi. In fact, that was his whole point, that passive resistance would break the colonialists.

Things like boycotts, general strikes, refusal to pay taxes, ignoring of laws set up by colonial master could all be undertaken and would undermine completely the ability of the colonial power to rule, even if not a single shot was fired. A colonial power would then have two basic options facing this opposition: cave in, or clap down, bringing in brutality.

Now, this form of resistance is actually much harder to create than just violence, as any idiot can get some disaffected young men (is there any other kind?), fill their heads with ideas, give them guns, and start something. It take real patience to mobilize the masses.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Darius871


How can you contend that 300,000 troops couldn't gradually suppress a mere 40,000 insurgents? Hell, there would be enough personnel on the archipelago to stare down each of its 100,000 occupants 24/7!

My only point is that we have to at least give some consideration to scale instead of making categorical statements.

Your point is tangental at best, since the occupation in question (Iraq) is a large scale occupation.

Regardless, I never said that 300,000 soldiers couldn't supress 40,000 insurgents. They could easily do it. In the case of Tonga, it might be possible to fully monitor every single Tongan at all times, but that sort of totalitarian domination of a society is scarcely better than slaughtering 20-40% of the population. If the U.S. is willing to do such a thing, then it could make Tonga an unwilling colony. If the Tongans were willing to violently resist the colonization attempt, then the U.S. colonization attempt would fail unless the U.S. was willing to act brutally or, in the very least, to turn the entire country into a constantly monitored police state.

As the second option isn't very practical for countries larger than Tonga, the first option seems to me to be the only real way for a country to colonize a population who is willing to violently resist on a large scale.

[Straybow]

Now, if only we could think of some strategic reason for taking Tonga...

[Kataphraktoi]

Recap of my own views;
Colonization means moving people of your own into areas relatively scarcely populated, not taking over already populated areas. Do you see insurgents fighting in america? No, the colonists got it right by annihilating or forcing the migration of, native americans. It all starts reasonable by buying land, then requiring indians to go into shrinking areas, then leave for far away lands and then eliminating the remnants. The only way to get truly useful land is to make the people there migrate somewhere else. Diversity is bad, splitting apart instead of building up. Different languages can create tension and conflict and people only feel really comfortable with similar people.

The only real reason to conquer more land is to hold some military objective, extract wealth, or try to make the land an extension of your valuable core holdings, in which case either the government(rulers) must change to be similar to the people(as in the Mughal empire) or the people must be replaced(as in America and Russia's central asia theater)

Most will agree ethnic cleansing is not an option, but what about defertilization?(whats the word i want?) (preventing population growth)
Is preventing women\families from having children as inhuman as ethnic cleansing? As long as there is no way to make the people in two areas identical i would agree, wars are unwinnable from the view of taking land and making it part of the motherland. Obviously these are actions western nations like america will not take for political reasons, so i find it likely america will continue its tradition of fighting hopeless guerilla wars.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi Most will agree ethnic cleansing is not an option, but what about defertilization?(whats the word i want?) (preventing population growth)
Is preventing women\families from having children as inhuman as ethnic cleansing?

Forcibly sterilizing a population because you want to populate that land with your own group is just another form of ethnic cleansing.

[Kataphraktoi]

Thats true but your not actually killing anyone, thus being easier form of ethnic cleansing to make excuses for. As well, since unborn children are not classed as humans that makes it easier for other excuses to arise.

Im making some assumption this is one of those threads you discuss things you dont advocate

[Kidlicious]

Fly planes into your skyscrapers and blame it on the enemy.