[tofRobbroolve]

Originally posted by Dis
The U.S. cannot win in Iraq. Have we come to a point where no other nation can conquer another?

[dubballey]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


I couldn't stop my-self sorry about that.

But seriously, America's problem are:
1. The inability to station large amount of troops and to sustain casualties. I mean twenty,fifty or even a hundred thousand are historicaly very low causality rates for a nation of 300 million but are inconceivable to the American public.
2. Lack of pragmatism.

Now to answer your question, I think America IS capable of doing that since it was in WW2, where they occupied Japan and Germany. But the public would have to perceive it as a war of self-defense. But WWII was different in so many ways. The cost of lives during occupation wasn't important since post-war German Nazi resistance wasn't that big and ended soon, and because so many had died DURING the war the few casualities afterwards didn't matter in public opinion. Also, no partisan civil war broke out in Germany, and even if they wanted, they had no financial input from outside to organize properly and buy weapons, etc., etc.

In one word: you can't generalize, but surely, nowadays I don't know what would have to happen so that the public would support large casuality numbers - which in turn is a big incentive for any resistance to increase American casualities.

[Gofthooxdix]

Or perhaps they can only if they use brutal military force to subjugate the population. Has this ever not been the case?

[preptarra]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Now to answer your question, I think America IS capable of doing that since it was in WW2, where they occupied Japan and Germany. But the public would have to perceive it as a war of self-defense. In WW2 they had the unconditional support of many other nations, and they were fighting against genuine aggressors.

I'm sure that if a nation - other than America, were to act as aggressively and boldly as Japan/Germany in WWII, then the world would rally against them sufficiently that they'd get a righteous ass-kicking.

The thing is, no nation would be stupid enough to do that now.

One possible conquest style in the future could probably go like this:

Quickly invade and take some land, taking land until it's clear that other nations will be compelled to intervene (basically, they figure out what's going on and prepare to mobilize!). Then stop taking land.
Flood the land with people and settle them in as quickly as possible.
Use brinkmanship diplomacy to prevent others interfering (taking it back).


There's a book series, um... "Tomorrow, When the War Began" by John Marsden. Storyline, is that Northern Australia gets invaded from the north, the plot is deliberately ambiguous on who is doing the invading (quite cleverly done, overall).
The reason for invasion: Land, to help relieve overpopulation (the aggressors having like 15x the population density of Australia). The invasion was done relatively bloodlessly and in a first-strike blitz style attack, with the goal of taking a lot of land, but not necessarily continuing after that. Just "Take X land" and claim "That's ours now!". Quickly shuffle in as many people as possible.
The brinkmanship, is in that reversing the invasion would be bloody and take a larger toll on human life than the invasion itself. Presumably there could also be the threat of nuclear weapon use (like "Interfere and it's MAD time!").
Spoiler:
A few countries did interfere, of course. In the story, New Zealand, backed covertly and even overtly by other powers such as USA (of course) made every effort to help the Australian resistance effort (basically, border struggle, I guess, since it became clear the aggressors would be keeping at least some land). Again there's brinkmanship diplomacy - the aggressors aren't really going to threaten to nuke New Zealand, it's raising the stakes too high when the stakes are low.

The agressors know they're going to get a lot of grief regardless so they can only afford to use the big threats sparingly. Threaten the nuclear powers with nukes, and fight the non-nuclear powers who get involved the old fashioned way.

Spoiler: One of the interesting things about that storyline is the teenage protagonists become bona-fide terrorists and one even blows herself up (she was a Christian, no less). It was written before 9/11 but was an interesting reflection anyway. Invade a country, and the locals are going to hate you, regardless of how it's justified.

Anyway I think such a conventional invasion, using Brinkmanship diplomacy, probably would be somewhat possible. Doesn't mean it would happen though, the way global communications are these days, the aggressors would become extremely unpopular extreme quickly.

[h4z1XBI7]

Of course the US can win wars. The simple question is what it the aim of the war.

if our invasion of Iraq had been purely to remove Saddam Hussin, with no interest in the aftermath, then we would have been able to claim complete victory in 6 weeks.


The problems with Iraq were legion, but the most basic ones were that the amdinistration was not truthful with the people about our long term aims, meaning they did not build sufficient political support for the actual costs, and they also greatly underestimated the cost. basically a total ****up.

Don't confuse Bush admin. incompetence for the ability of the US to achieve goals.

[tipoketpu]

I think you've missed the lesson, Dis.

Wars are still quite winnable. The U.S. military utterly demolished the Iraqi military forces.

Longterm colonial occupations by democratic western nations over peoples who don't want them there are, on the other hand, unwinnable in the modern era. Look at the past 60 years. The only way to keep control over a large group of people who don't want you there is to act truculently, and western societies don't want to do that. That's a big reason why the colonial empires fell apart.

We could pacify Iraq if we truly wanted to. All it would take is for us to act like Nazis. We could annex Iraq and massacre millions upon millions of Iraqis, stopping only when the remaining population is too terrified and small to retaliate. That approach, though, would go against everything that we stand for, and is a completely unacceptable option.

Gepap's right. The administration sold the Iraq project on this idealized fantasy that the people of the world loved us and wanted us to save them from themselves. If Bush & co. would have told the people what things would really be like-that conquering Iraq would leave us with a defacto colony and result in a long and probably futile occupation, then people wouldn't have supported it. (Furthermore some of these leaders (of the Wolfowitz variety) seem to be blind ideologues who actually believe the crap that they shoveled, which IMO is even worse than merely being a lying crook (of the Cheney variety))

Instead of presenting the American people with a realistic cost-benefit analysis of the situation, the leaders pulled on the American public's Wilsonian heartstrings, added in a strong dose of scare tactics and innuendo, and sold the vast majority of the population a utopian fairytale.

[legal-advicer]

How does one annex a nation, actually? In HOI, I just push the "Annex" button, and I'm done... Are there forms to fill?

[amannddo]

Victories are measured differently by various view points.

Some would call a victory just being able to leave a situation behind, while some would view as a disaster or failure.

I would say no one "wins" when one looks at the overall cost of a campaign/battle/conflict/war.

Perhaps a country could consider itself liberated from oppressors but then realize what a daunting task it is to rebuild and then sustain oneself from being over run by yet another aggressor.

Tough questions to answer, no real cookie cutter responses fit well here.

Gramps

[irrelaAnnekly]

War is not meant to be won.

[delnisfernan]

means nothing, but it sounds cool.

but if you are going to say something as outlandish as that, you need to follow up what the purpose of war really is.

As wars are large scale versions of gang fights, and I know of no gang that wants to lose. Their objective is to win to prove themselves superior in some way. You could possibly argue that they are sadists and just want to hurt and/or kill people and don't really care if they win. But that's a weak argument.

[SerycegeBunny]

Originally posted by Wycoff


What does that even mean? KBR Inc./Halliburton has received over $17 billion from the war.

"Mission Accomplished"

[comprar-espana]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
The only problem is, the Arabs are the ones who invaded first. The Jews just beat them back and then took the land. But the Jews took it from the Canaanites. Obviously both sides should get off that land pronto.

[lrtoinbert]

Originally posted by Darius871


That Kid often tries too hard to seem poignant. A six word sentence is trying too hard?

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

Originally posted by Darius871
Nah, just the way you say it with your eyes closed. They're only squinted.

[tilmprarnerit]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Longterm colonial occupations by democratic western nations over peoples who don't want them there are, on the other hand, unwinnable in the modern era. Look at the past 60 years. The only way to keep control over a large group of people who don't want you there is to act truculently, and western societies don't want to do that. That's a big reason why the colonial empires fell apart.

We could pacify Iraq if we truly wanted to. All it would take is for us to act like Nazis. We could annex Iraq and massacre millions upon millions of Iraqis, stopping only when the remaining population is too terrified and small to retaliate. That approach, though, would go against everything that we stand for, and is a completely unacceptable option. 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?

[thakitt]

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.

[soineeLom]

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.

[wepoiyub]

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.

[Ehlgamxf]

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.

[ViagraFeller]

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.