5 ms·

Yeah, that's a good point: if force absolutely needs to be done, let it be swift and to the point. Drawing out a foreign war, and then griping about casualties,

Yeah, that's a good point: if force absolutely needs to be done, let it be swift and to the point. Drawing out a foreign war, and then griping about casualties, is no way to keep the peace. Let alone the unknown intentions of said war.

Animats 10y ago
War doesn't work like that any more. "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Zedong. The enemy today is distributed amongst people you don't want to kill. Nobody stands up a big army in one place any more, unless they have absolute air superiority. The last one to try was Saddam Hussein. The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Eco points out that the resistance movement was more of a political exercise in keeping opposition alive than a military success. That was also true of the French Resistance. The efforts of the French Resistance before D-Day didn't accomplish much. They were supported by the Allies primarily so that they could do some key attacks on D-Day to confuse the situation and maintain the deception that the attack was at Calais. The most important function of the Resistance was that they provided the core of the French government once it was back in power. "The Third Republic has never ceased to exist" - de Gaulle.
- benbenolson 10y ago
  Fair point. Surely my solution would not work against such an enemy, since there is no "head" to attack swiftly.
- kiba 10y ago
  I was thinking more about the insurgency the Americans had to fight more than invasion. The answer is still the same, have clear objectives, devote the necessary resource and expertise, and accept casualty in the pursuit of those goal. If we are unwilling to do those kind of things, then we have no business in waging a counterinsurgency.
  - Animats 10y ago
    The usual buzzwords don't help. Read "Nation Building is an Oxymoron", from Parameters.[1] [1] http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring_2016/10_Mason.pdf http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/is...
- syngrog66 10y ago
  great comment, sir. I'm one of those geeks who is into history as much as computer science so I get a particular pleasure in stumbling across contributions like this here on HN. on a related note, that's a huge factor in why I'd vote Hillary over Trump. I don't think Hillary is a perfect person or candidate, but when I compare to Trump, well, the latter pushes too many of my "disaster-in-the-making" buttons. I increasingly try to think of the next 5 years, the next 20, the kind of world that's better for children, grandchildren, etc. And a big factor in informing that, for me, is to look back on history, whether recent or ancient.
- douche 10y ago
  > The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Bingo. Then they mustered out the veteran legionaries there on the now-mostly-depopulated land, simultaneously exporting their own restive, landless population, and installing both a colony of Roman culture, and a permanent garrison.

Animats 10y ago

War doesn't work like that any more. "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Zedong. The enemy today is distributed amongst people you don't want to kill. Nobody stands up a big army in one place any more, unless they have absolute air superiority. The last one to try was Saddam Hussein. The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Eco points out that the resistance movement was more of a political exercise in keeping opposition alive than a military success. That was also true of the French Resistance. The efforts of the French Resistance before D-Day didn't accomplish much. They were supported by the Allies primarily so that they could do some key attacks on D-Day to confuse the situation and maintain the deception that the attack was at Calais. The most important function of the Resistance was that they provided the core of the French government once it was back in power. "The Third Republic has never ceased to exist" - de Gaulle.

benbenolson 10y ago
Fair point. Surely my solution would not work against such an enemy, since there is no "head" to attack swiftly.
kiba 10y ago
I was thinking more about the insurgency the Americans had to fight more than invasion. The answer is still the same, have clear objectives, devote the necessary resource and expertise, and accept casualty in the pursuit of those goal. If we are unwilling to do those kind of things, then we have no business in waging a counterinsurgency.
- Animats 10y ago
  The usual buzzwords don't help. Read "Nation Building is an Oxymoron", from Parameters.[1] [1] http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring_2016/10_Mason.pdf http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/is...
syngrog66 10y ago
great comment, sir. I'm one of those geeks who is into history as much as computer science so I get a particular pleasure in stumbling across contributions like this here on HN. on a related note, that's a huge factor in why I'd vote Hillary over Trump. I don't think Hillary is a perfect person or candidate, but when I compare to Trump, well, the latter pushes too many of my "disaster-in-the-making" buttons. I increasingly try to think of the next 5 years, the next 20, the kind of world that's better for children, grandchildren, etc. And a big factor in informing that, for me, is to look back on history, whether recent or ancient.
douche 10y ago
> The Roman Empire had a solution to this. If a province became too rebellious, they went in with the legions and killed everybody. Today this is considered overkill. Bingo. Then they mustered out the veteran legionaries there on the now-mostly-depopulated land, simultaneously exporting their own restive, landless population, and installing both a colony of Roman culture, and a permanent garrison.