The History of Western War

The Terrorists certainly think they can win the war against the USA.
They may be right, or they may push hard enough for the USA to fight like it was WWII again - bombing industry, giving artillery and air support to the front line troops, and demolishing out enemies ability to fight.
Kill enough enemies and eventually you run out of them.

The Terrorist are fighting the same kind age old Guerillia warfare that nearly everyone did, starting at least with the ancient Germans doing the Battle of Teutoborg Forest. The major difference is that todays Terrorist have the capacity to conduct limited attacks on the territory of their foes.
 
The Terrorists certainly think they can win the war against the USA.
They may be right, or they may push hard enough for the USA to fight like it was WWII again - bombing industry, giving artillery and air support to the front line troops, and demolishing out enemies ability to fight.
Kill enough enemies and eventually you run out of them.

The Terrorist are fighting the same kind age old Guerillia warfare that nearly everyone did, starting at least with the ancient Germans doing the Battle of Teutoborg Forest. The major difference is that todays Terrorist have the capacity to conduct limited attacks on the territory of their foes.

They are also, through technology, able to spread their message beyond normal spheres of influence, and to magnify their force via WMDs.
 
The Terrorists certainly think they can win the war against the USA.
They may be right, or they may push hard enough for the USA to fight like it was WWII again - bombing industry, giving artillery and air support to the front line troops, and demolishing out enemies ability to fight.
Kill enough enemies and eventually you run out of them.

I think the followers believe this; however, I credit the leaders with having a better grip on reality. I don't think they seriously believe they can destroy a superpower like the United States. I think their goals are more grounded:

  • discredit American influence in general,
  • specifically discredit home governments who sponsor American presence, or
  • specifically discredit those in power of their home region in order to gain power even if there is no American presence.

Our problem is that we approach these things with a conventional warfare mentality in terms of seizing and controlling key military objectives or measuring success in political terms. This type of warfare is not new; but the limitation we've imposed on ourselves is. Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan, Atilla the Hun and others used effective yet brutal methods to suppress rebellion and resistance. I'm not advocating that the US adapt similar policies; but I am pointing out that we are, in essence, attempting to win a street fight by following the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

It's quite a quandary we find ourselves in: championing the cause of human rights and democracy in a situation that history has shown requires ruthless brutality and oppression. We think we can send in the troops, destroy a few "key targets," then back off and call it a day. To make matters even more complicated, it is no secret to our enemies that our policies are greatly affected by what the civilians think. We spend a tremendous amount of effort hand-wringing over how captured terrorists are treated and forget that these terrorists would not hesitate to blow up a day care center purely for the shock value in advancing their cause. We have a President who makes it a point to apologize for US conduct rather than pledge violent consequences for those who would contemplate future attacks. This gives the terrorists the advantage of casting doubt on our combat effectiveness by claiming that we bombed a mosque filled with worshipers instead of the headquarters of a top al Qaida figure.

I don't know the solution. I don't advocate the massacre of innocent civilians as a means to suppress resistance. However, this type of warfare requires certain actions that go against the values we hold near and dear to our hearts.
 
"We who created the Western way of war are very reluctant to resort to it due to post-modern cynicism, while those who didn't create it are very eager to apply it due to pre-modern zealotry."

Where is he right, and where is he wrong?


That is a very nice quote.

I love Hanson, not only is he a hard headed historical realist but he is a very good writer as well, as the quote reveals.

He is America's Thucydides.

Where as Gore Vidal is America’s Tacitus.

I would love to see the two nude jello wrestle but only at an Ivy League University for decorum’s sake.

:clap2:
I'm sure Vidal would enjoy wrestling another nude guy in jello as much as being "America's Tacitus."
 
Number 2 works well, for instance India is a democracy as a result.

Nations and cultures will act on each other, compete with each other, fight each other.

There is no such thing as isolationism.

Maybe no isolationism in the purest sence, but China comes pretty damn close.
 
I would argue that this desire to end warfare in decisive battles developed as European society evolved away from an honor society.

It is a Myth that European Society was ever an "Honor" society (whatever that means).


:eusa_think:

:eusa_think:

I'm trying to wrack my brain for what I'd consided an "Honor" society, and suppose your example of aboriginal Afganis (or any other aboriginals, e.g. Hawaiians, Sioux, Zulus, Eskimos) seem to fill the bill.......

The European Equivalents would be............Celts?

DAMN: NOW I READ post 16 including the Wikepedia definition:
From the viewpoint of anthropology, cultures of honour typically appear among nomadic peoples and herdsmen who carry their most valuable property with them and risk having it stolen, without having recourse to law enforcement or government.

I think we call this "Vigilanteism."
 
Last edited:
Military adventures aimed at occupying regions was conducted by colonialist/imperialist powers who either used the power of the state or that of private companies which were imperialist in themselves. The end of mercantilism and the beginning of capitalism may have signalled the end of the colonialist/imperialist imperative. Capitalists don't want to occupy a country, they want to secure resources and markets so the military operates to invade and overcome resistance to secure resources and the invading state tries to set up a client state that will supply resources and also a market for the capitalists' goods.
How do the Mongols and the Timurids fit into your colonialist model?

I'd expect a Mongol or Timurid to plunder and pillage as much as any imperial colony.
 
Maybe no isolationism in the purest sence, but China comes pretty damn close.

China did not get that large or encompass that many non Han ethnic minorities by being isolationist.

When she did try isolationist consolidation after ordering Cheng Ho back in the 15th century she started to fall behind the rest of the world intellectually and technologically, leaving her vulnerable to European exploitation.

Now China is anything but isolationist, in the 20th century she has fought almost every one of her neighbors, she is wiping out the culture of Tibet, she uses her economic power to act globally, everything from abetting genocide in Sudan to get resources, arresting Australia mining executives on trumped up charges to get better resource deals to sinking the Copenhagen conference.

China is anything but isolationist, growing less so by the day.

You either act in the world or the world acts on you.
 
Last edited:
Maybe no isolationism in the purest sence, but China comes pretty damn close.

China did not get that large or encompass that many non Han ethnic minorities by being isolationist.

When she did try isolationist consolidation after ordering Cheng Ho back in the 15th century she started to fall behind the rest of the world intellectually and technologically, leaving her vulnerable to European exploitation.

Now China is anything but isolationist, in the 20th century she has fought almost every one of her neighbors, she is wiping out the culture of Tibet, she uses her economic power to act globally, everything from abetting genocide in Sudan to get resources, arresting Australia mining executives on trumped up charges to get better resource deals to sinking the Copenhagen conference.

China is anything but isolationist, growing less so by the day.

You either act in the world or the world acts on you.

Correct: For about the last....30 years, China has been anything but isolationist.

But for the previous 1000 years, it was isolationist, with very infrequent exceptions.

Thus my point: "Maybe no isolationism in the purest sence, but China comes pretty damn close."

QED.
 
Military adventures aimed at occupying regions was conducted by colonialist/imperialist powers who either used the power of the state or that of private companies which were imperialist in themselves. The end of mercantilism and the beginning of capitalism may have signalled the end of the colonialist/imperialist imperative. Capitalists don't want to occupy a country, they want to secure resources and markets so the military operates to invade and overcome resistance to secure resources and the invading state tries to set up a client state that will supply resources and also a market for the capitalists' goods.
How do the Mongols and the Timurids fit into your colonialist model?

The Mongols don't - no idea who the Tumurids are but I would appreciate your views.
 
The Terrorists certainly think they can win the war against the USA.
They may be right, or they may push hard enough for the USA to fight like it was WWII again - bombing industry, giving artillery and air support to the front line troops, and demolishing out enemies ability to fight.
Kill enough enemies and eventually you run out of them.

One thing we all forget is that in one dimension at least, the terrorists are 'winning'. Just look at the financial resource the war on terrorism is sucking out of the USA and other Western allies.
 
The Terrorists certainly think they can win the war against the USA.
They may be right, or they may push hard enough for the USA to fight like it was WWII again - bombing industry, giving artillery and air support to the front line troops, and demolishing out enemies ability to fight.
Kill enough enemies and eventually you run out of them.

One thing we all forget is that in one dimension at least, the terrorists are 'winning'. Just look at the financial resource the war on terrorism is sucking out of the USA and other Western allies.

Another point is that these terrorists are not ignorant barbarians: Many (leaders) are the most educated members of their societies. They know how to hurt the west the most using leverage and the least force.

This is not wholly unprecedented in History.....Jews and Arabs were doing the same thing in British controlled Palestine, albeit on a smaller scale, which made it easier to control using conventional means.

World-wide terrorism now being fought is mobile: I bet OBL is driving a taxi in NYC right now.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top