We are just not the Roman Army.

[Joe for Clark]

I think our issues as americans really go back to that basic lack of understanding.

We should never fight limited wars - we are just not very good at it. I always thought that was the main lesson we needed to learn from Viet Nam. We don't conquer, we liberate and go home. That the dirty little truth is war should not be limited - it is war for god's sake. We have to either go in totally or not at all. That is our strength. Because in that rare instance that we do have to go to war, we as a society have no questions about what we have to do - and we get it done.

It makes this "stupid war" so very painful to me. It is without a doubt the worst strategic blunder in our history - and all this from a man who was "supposed" to have gone to war in Viet Nam.

Jesus, he can't even read elementary school history books without screwing up.

Joe

[Redstone]

1. No, fuck "limited." We shouldn't fight STUPID wars. Which is to say we shouldn't

fight ANY war EVER, unless we are attacked.

We could have gone into Iraq with our entire fucking Army, every last pair of boots, and it still would have been wrong.

It still would have been for nothing.

Redstone

[Joe for Clark]

2. Redstone -

There have been wars we had to fight - and there probably will be in the future.

You say unless we are attacked. Well, Germany didn't attack us - you have any doubt we had to go after them with everything we had??

The Iraq war wasn't wrong because it was linmited war. It was wrong because it was wrong.

We don't disagree Redstone. But I will equally say - the US will never win a war that is a limited war. We just don't think that way as a society. It is either right or wrong.

Joe

[NNN0LHI]

3. Germany declared war on us. Iraq never did n/t

[Joe for Clark]

6. That is right. And Japan attacked us.

What does that have to do with anything?

Joe

[Bad Penny]

8. er...because Germany and Japan were allies...devoted to fascist rule of the world...

maybe?

[Joe for Clark]

11. Japan was not facist - they were imperialists.

And, it should present itself to you readily - it is not necessarily the country that attacks you that should be the only concern.

Joe

[Bad Penny]

40. fascism...imperialism ... tomato...tomahto

[Redstone]

14. Good points. As long as you have the disclaimer about Iraq, we agree.

Redstone

[Joe for Clark]

19. We agree.

[Xithras]

4. There are only two types of "effective" war

Wars of liberation, and wars of colonization. Wars of occupation are always doomed to failure.

When you're liberating, the people are happy to see you. You're typically driving out an oppressing force, and as such the people see you as saviors. WWI and WWI pretty well covered these. Even within Germany and Japan we were, for the most part, liberators. The Soviets were out for vengeance, and the Germans couldn't wait to surrender to the western Allies and escape Russia's wrath. Japan was also facing the very real possibility of a double invasion from the Russians and the Chinese (who wanted to avenge Nanking and other atrocities). While we weren't exactly liberators, we did act as protectors.

Wars of colonization are far more brutal, but have been fought throughout human history with devastating effectiveness. Wars of colonization either drive the existing occupants completely out, or destroy their fighting power by killing their men and subjugating their women. Resistance is destroyed because the people who would resist are gone. The Romans Empire engaged in wars of colonization, the European powers engaged in them here in North America, and they still rage on today in places like Darfur.

Wars of occupation are a different beast altogether, and can never be effective in the longer term. When your enemy can sleep in his own bed at night while your soldiers sleep in cots, when your enemy has a never-ending supply of new recruits, and when your enemy has the support of the population at large, there is no chance that you can occupy their land indefinitely. This has been proven in every single colonial state in world history. If you look at the history books, "effective" occupations like those in Italy after WWII were only effective because they were so brief. The occupying forces left before resistance could become organized enough to do any real damage.

[Joe for Clark]

7. Worked for Rome for about 800 years.

They were not the only ones.

Joe

[Lex]

10. Romans allowed their conquered to be Roman citizens

eventually and that is a one big difference.

[Joe for Clark]

12. True - but this was only allowed if they were obedient to

Rome. SO I think enslaved is a better reference.

Joe

[Lex]

13. Their Roman citizenship was as full as any other Roman

and entitled them to the same perks of citizenship as a 'true' Romans.

I'm not saying it was a wonderful thing, but in any event many historians have said that fact (the bestowing of Roman citizenship) was what kept the Roman Empire strong for so many hundreds of years.

[Joe for Clark]

16. I see you understand - oh, they had the same rights -except

if they ever rose against the empire. They were not free.

You know the difference goes back to our roots. We americans, we really DO believe that when government becomes too opressive it is the right of our people to throw them out.

I think we would do it. You think the people in Gaul ever considered it a possibility??

That concept makes us who we are. Makes us great. And by definition, we could never be an occupier - it is not in us to do.

Joe

[Kelly Rupert]

20. That's pretty much what citizenship means anywhere, I think.

Historically, there have been very few states that have agreed to an uprising. Hell, in this great nation of ours, we had half the country rise up against the empire before, and they were put down ruthlessly. A fundamental prerequisite of any country is effective monopoly of power.

[Joe for Clark]

23. NO - if you had lands then, you were forced to swear

allegiance to Rome - if you didn't, they took the lands. If you did, and you changed your mind - they took the lands. And they had legions to back that up.
There were no elections - they had no voice at all in the senate in Rome.

You did what they told you to do, and if you didn't you paid - the truth is, if they woke up on the wrong side of the bed you could pay.

They were enslaved alright -

We get Diebold machines - they got beheaded.

Joe

[Kelly Rupert]

25. Yes, which is the case anywhere.

If you do not swear allegiance to America in practice--if you decide you'd rather not pay taxes, say--the government is going to take your land. That is the case in any effective country anywhere. You cannot rebel, and you must submit to the directives the government gives you.

Roman rule was really quite fair, all things considered. It was hardly as brutal as you imply. And I highly doubt they'd behead you for no reason--beheading was actually one of the more-honorable forms of death.

[Joe for Clark]

29. Come on Kelly -

Absolutely - the Romans were barbarians - and if you pissed them off they would in fact kill your family, sell your lands and all that.

The thing about them that is striking now to me - is the absolute discipline they had in carrying out an occupation - they were masters.

You could have paid your taxes Kelly - if you were a threat to the empire - you disappeared.

It was not rare BC 100 to AD 300 - not at all.

Joe

[Kelly Rupert]

35. Uh...huh. The Romans were barbarians.

How dare they barbarically extend the rule of law, citizenship, and courts to every corner of the Empire? You're going to have to start providing citations if you want to start claiming that the Romans (and Byzantines after them) didn't believe in rule of law.

[Joe for Clark]

36. Kelly, I know you mean well.

You ever see the movie -"Gladiators" - It is certainly a fictionalized account, but none-the-less pretty accurate.

People that did become threats were treated that way. Really.

Those people were sure not free as we understand it.

You say rule of law - I suppose that could be, but only if it was to the benefit of the people dictating the law.

They were indeed a very disciplined force, the Romans. But they were occupiers.

Joe

[Xithras]

27. Rome's wars were wars of colonization, not occupation.

When the Romans invaded, they didn't simply act as occupiers. The lands they moved into became parts of the empire. Those with the ability and desire to resist them were slaughtered outright, and EVERY invasion was followed by widescale settlement of the occupied lands by people from elsewhere in the empire (typically the families of the soldiers who participated in the invasions). As women held few rights in ancient Rome, the newly widowed women in the conquered lands usually found themselves married to single Roman settlers in order to support themselves and protect their children.

The Romans also were very intent on practicing cultural colonization among the native people in the lands they conquered. The Roman language and customs became the de facto standard for business, government, and legal arrangements. In most cases, the "native" cultures were eradicated or heavily hybridized in only a few decades. Within a generation or two the people generally stopped thinking of themselves as "Gallic", and instead saw themselves as Romans who lived in Gaul.

Rome practiced cultural and demographic colonization, not occupation.

[Joe for Clark]

32. Don't justify Rome.

Rome's actions were only to the benefit of Rome.

And they had an army that was truly horrific.

You know, our army did horrific things in the 20th century - but not for profit. They did - hell it was a class concept to them.

The american army would do what they had to - to end an horrific phase in the world. They paid dearly for that.

The Romans did it for profit.

It is a very bad business, war - very bad. And the difference is, the americans saw it as bad but necessary - to the Romans it was a profession.

SO all in all - god bless the US army, cause I know they mean to do the right thing.

Joe

[bananas]

5. Not sure what you mean by a "limited" war

Before we went in, everyone was saying we needed about a half million troops for the occupation, if we did Iraq might be a success right now.

[Joe for Clark]

9. I have great doubt Iraq could have ever been won.

Limited war - examples. In Korea - fighter pilot engagements were broken off at the Yaloo River. You know, our pilots could go up and fight, but if they ran accross the river we were not supposed to pursue. In Viet Nam - the same was true about running into Cambodia. Deeper than that.

Here is the contrast - In WWII the american armies liberated about 16,000 towns and cities. This is true and they were liberated. But you know how they did it? It was really ugly.

We would scramble flights of fighter bombers up over a town. Then we would pull up with tanks and armour to the outskirts with loudspeakers. And they would say to the villagers, "You have five minutes to surrender" - and they would wait five minutes. If it was not surrendered - they would come in and level the town - kill absolutely every thing. Took about 30 minutes. SO you can understand, the next town would think twice before not surrendering. This is how they did it. That is total war. Hell of a commitment to make - consequently, we don't do it very often - thank god.

Joe

[Kelly Rupert]

17. If the initial invasion weren't a limited war

there would have been very few Iraqis left alive. In a total war, denial of resources is the only consideration.

Now, however, limited war isn't quite the right term. It's asymmetrical warfare. And there are two ways to win a guerilla war, and only two ways. You have to either become the ally of the overwhelming majority of the population in all areas, or you have to monopolize fear and terror. Unfortunately, we're too inept to do the first--and as a nation still have too many shreds of humanity remaining for the second. And so we can't win a guerilla war.

[Joe for Clark]

22. You don't have to kill everybody to win a "total war"

You have to convince them that they could be - there is a very big difference.

This war was lost before it ever started. Makes its doubly sad, don't you think??

Joe

[Kelly Rupert]

24. Of course you don't have to kill them all.

I'm saying that if we had fought the initial invasion using total-war tactics, the death toll would have been considerably higher.

[Joe for Clark]

28. Maybe it would have. But if it was so - maybe the casualties

would be a lot lighter now. You never really know -

Kelly, this war was wrong from the begining - I do not believe it EVER could have worked.

BUT - there is a truth about war - if it has to be done, holding back only makes it worse in the long run.

That if you do not have the mindset of an occupier - then do NOT be an occupier.

Obvious things to many of us - apparently not to some.

Joe

[mmonk]

15. Amen Joe.

I agree.

[Joe for Clark]

33. Hi mmonk -

It is nice to see you.

Joe

[mmonk]

37. You too as always.

[tabasco]

18. How about we stop trying to be an empire?

Let's get back to taking care of our people and stop trying to dominate the globe. The sooner we learn to live as an equal in the community of nations, the better.

If the Romans had been smarter, Italy would be a much larger country today. Think about that for awhile.

We already have a huge country but we are squandering her resources on wars for corporations. Time to get out of Iraq, catch Bin Laden, and take care of Americans.

[Joe for Clark]

21. The thing is - our empire is a concept -

And, frankly - no GOP administration EVER will free me from the ideal.

We really are the light of the world - just the way it is.

And also, but for America - the world would be in another dark age. And the rights that go with this were paid for in our blood.

We should have never gone into Iraq - and that is a fact. But does the world owe us a mulligan - they most certainly do.

Joe

[tabasco]

39. The light of the world? Have you travelled very much?

If you are talking about WWII and saving the world, we didn't do it singlehandedly. In fact, the much greater part of the war was fought by the Soviets. Study some history sometime.

You preach to me about blood being shed? Friend, I SAW that blood being shed, so don't preach to me. I put my ass on the line for this country and I want to see it become a better place, not the new Soviet Union, despised by the world.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I like the "not at all" option.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Joe for Clark]

30. It is the only sane option 99.999% of the time.

Great quote.

Joe

[Cleita]

31. For starters we should pick our wars more carefully.

Then maybe there wouldn't be a problem.

[leftofthedial]

34. bingo about it being the biggest blunder

the world will be paying the price for a millenium for the neocons' utter hubris

[mmonk]

38. It is very hard to conquer, hold, and occupy a country,

especially for any length of time these days. The world is much smaller through technology and travel and much more integrated together than in the past. This was a bad decision all around. I say this even though my father was part of the Army of Occupation during World War II, but many armies and governments were involved in that and in general, with the world's blessing.