3 ms·
No, as old Macchiavelli put it: if a country is hard to conquer, it will be easy to hold; if a country is easy to conquer, it is hard to hold. The reason is tha
by bewo001 11y ago
No, as old Macchiavelli put it: if a country is hard to conquer, it will be easy to hold; if a country is easy to conquer, it is hard to hold. The reason is that a united, highly organized country fights hard, but it won't fall apart into dozens of factions after being conquered. Unlike countries like Iraq or Afghanistan.
- vlehto 11y agoI'm holding a copy of Prince and happened to find that verse. It's about Ottoman imperium and feudal France. If there is a dictator and you simply become the new dictator, then keeping a country is easy. That would have been because none of the military leaders would have any loyalty among the people. But nationalism has happened since and it's questionable if this would hold anymore. If there is large number of Feudal lords, this makes taking France potentially easy as some of them would betray the king. But on the other hand they would have loyalty of the people with them. Times have changed, otherwise Iraq should be peace of cake now that Saddam is dead.
- bewo001 11y agoAfter Gulf War I, Saddam had to resort to brutal military actions to keep the various tribes from seceding. Afghanistan has been ruled by 'feudal lords' for a long time. Neither Iraqi nor Afghan soldiers were eager to die for their states, which were colonial constructs anyway. If the country you are invading implodes after a few days of fighting, you can expect trouble.