3 ms·
>>The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a
by enraged_camel 7y ago
>>The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.
This assumption did not work out for the Confederacy in the Civil War. What makes you think it would work today?
- linuxftw 7y agoThe Confederate generals surrendered to keep the country from endless guerilla warfare. This is why the Confederates weren't executed for treason, etc, because everyone wanted to end the fighting at that point.
- enraged_camel 7y agoThe Confederate generals surrendered because they realized that, with Lee himself surrendering, they had zero chance of prevailing, and any continuation of hostilities would result in the North invading the Confederate states and shooting/hanging not just the generals themselves, but all the civilian leaders who supported them. It wasn't to "keep the country from endless guerilla warfare", but rather an act of simple self-preservation. While there was a fair amount of war wariness among the public, continued resistance by the Confederacy was not something the North would have tolerated, especially since they clearly had the upper hand at that point.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoSherman burning everything had a lot to do with making guerrilla warfare undesirable in the south (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea). It isn't something that we would dare try in the Middle East, at least with the hearts and minds doctrine. (destroying your enemy is easy, doing so without destroying everyone else is another matter)