The Pentagon looks back to four great empires for tips

[katty]

...on how to rule the world

Commentary
more: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2008/07/dont-know-much-about-history.html

In the summer of 2002, the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA) published an 85-page monograph called "Military Advantage in History". Unusual for an office that is headed by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon's "futurist in chief," the study looks back to the past—way back. It examines four empires, or "pivotal hegemonic powers in history," to draw lessons about how the United States "should think about maintaining military advantage in the 21st century." Though unclassified, the study was held close to the vest; a stamp on the cover limits its dissemination without permission. Mother Jones obtained it only through a Freedom of Information Act request. Though the report is far from revelatory, it provides a window into a mindset that unselfconsciously envisions the United States as the successor to some of history's most powerful empires.

The study looks a little like a high school text book, devoting chapters to Alexander the Great, Imperial Rome, Genghis Khan, and Napoleonic France and citing texts by Sun Tzu, Livy, and Jared Diamond. It attempts to break down exactly how historic empires sustained their military might across continents and even centuries. The study posits that the historical examples offer "insights into what drives U.S. military advantage," as well as "where U.S. vulnerabilities may lie, and how the United States should think about maintaining its military advantage in the future." There is no one secret to world domination, however. The Mongols' military advantage was rooted in their "tactical and operational superiority"; the Macedonians' in the "exceptional leadership" of and "cult of personality" surrounding Alexander the Great; Napoleon's in "innovative operational concepts" and "information superiority"; and the Romans' in "robust tactical doctrine" and "strong domestic institutions" which were "designed to incorporate conquered peoples as the empire grew." In an extraordinary passage, the study cites the Roman experience—from over a millennium ago—as a precedent for America's long-term dominance: "The Roman model suggests that it is possible for the United States to maintain its military advantage for centuries if it remains capable of transforming its forces before an opponent can develop counter-capabilities.

[MadMaddie]

1. Ummm are these people really that stupid?

Alexander the Great, Imperial Rome, Genghis Khan, and Napoleonic France.....didn't all of these Empires eventually fail because of their warrior mentalities?

[katty]

2. yes, they are that stupid & greedy and yes: Empires have fallen

predictably, every time.

[MadMaddie]

3. You know what we don't hear about much is how

Russia banktrupted itself in Afghanastan...and we are doing the same thing in Iraq.

[katty]

5. yup, we sure are and do so every hour!

[izquierdista]

4. The Woman model

I'm glad they have settled on Wome as the model they want to emulate. Since the attacks on the heart of the empire have already begun, and there is already an appointed idiot in charge, we are well into the decline. However, with Americans being very competitive, I'm sure they can beat the Womans to the bottom, especially since the new Huns and Vandals - CEOs - are sacking the place of anything of value at this very minute.

[DCKit]

6. Pssssst!! Hey General Mitty. Empires don't last. n/t

[razors edge]

7. "Sparticus is coming!"

Seems to be the only lesson they have been able to digest and perfect.