5 ms·

I wonder if really winning a war and properly suppressing its people long term just requires a level of barbarism towards its populous that countries can no lon

I wonder if really winning a war and properly suppressing its people long term just requires a level of barbarism towards its populous that countries can no longer do? It certainly seems that the "winning hearts and minds" approach didn't really accomplish anything.

sudosysgen 5y ago
I don't think this is true. Wars have been successful at those goals without the hundreds of thousands or millions of souls lost to unsuccessful wars. There was no real hearts and minds in, say, Afghanistan. A real hearts and minds campaign would see at least as much on improving the quality of life as in destruction, yet in Afghanistan or Iraq, enough money was spent that the US could have provided every single family with a car, modern electronics, built a brand new house, and more - what was spent in Afghanistan was 350 000$ for each Afghan family! And yet the average Afghan saw war, devastation, death, and famine. The level of material investment is so bad that, adjusted for inflation, the average Afghan was significantly richer during the Soviet-Afghan war as during U.S. occupation. I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that real effort was spent on hearts and minds when so much money was spent on war when the living condition of the average Afghan only got worse. If you want hearts and minds, you need to materially and significantly improve the life of whoever you are occupying at the bare minimum. You can't impoverish a population that's already massively impoverished and claim that you're doing hearts and minds.
- bjenkins358 5y ago
  2.3 trillion (US spending https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-afghanistan-2001-2022 https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-b... ) / 40 million (Afghan population https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/afghanistan-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/afghanistan-popu...) = $57,500. Which is still 8x the most typical salary of $7,000 USD a year ( https://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/afghanistan https://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/afghanistan ).
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    I said per family, not per person - the average Afghan household has 6-7 people. GDP per capita of Afghanistan is ~500$/head, the vast majority don't have a salary at all.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  You really do have to ask what might have happened if the US had just said "give us Bin Laden, we'll buy everyone a house and a car". It's staggering how much the war ended up costing in money, time, and lives.
Animats 5y ago
We are now finding that out. Ukraine with most of the people dead may be an acceptable outcome to Putin. Mariupol with most of the people dead is happening right now.
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"Mariupol with most of the people dead is happening right now" I have zero sympathy to that rabid dog Putin. However your "most of the people dead" is total BS. Check the numbers on Wikipedia - casualties vs population [0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol
  - Animats 5y ago
    Not for lack of trying. Drone video of Mariupol yesterday.[1] Some people got out in time. Some didn't. At least 100,000 are stuck with no escape route.[2] The city is surrounded and being shelled by both ground artillery and naval vessels. There's no body count yet. The siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg today) is the closest historical parallel. [1] https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-23-22/index.html https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-ne... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/23/first-thing-100000-civilians-trapped-mariupol-with-no-safe-route-out-ukraine?msclkid=ee9fc04cab0b11ec8eb33749f45e66a8 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/23/first-thing-...
    - FpUser 5y ago
      >"Not for lack of trying" Trying does not count. Actual results do. Siege of the Leningrad had lasted 900 days with the body count of 1.5 million people. Judging by the way things going in Ukraine this whole Putin's war should be over pretty soon and not to his liking.
excitom 5y ago
I think the example of the Mongol conquests supports your point about the success of barbarism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...
FpUser 5y ago
>"winning hearts and minds" approach didn't really accomplish anything. Agent orange, Mỹ Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, hundreds of thousands of dead, millions of maimed, displaced, financially ruined, starved (check heartwarming reply of Madeleine Albright in regards to 500,000 kids dead by starvation and desease). Well the list can go on and on. I fail to see even a trace of "winning hearts and minds" approach here.
Swizec 5y ago
On the contrary, Rome was able to conquer most of Europe thanks to its hearts and minds approach. You can rule yourself, keep doing your thing, get some nice roads and towns, move on with life. All you have to do is swear allegiance to Rome and pay some taxes. No more than that. You didn't even have to change your religion if you didn't want to. If you said no, that's when the pain started of course. You can conquer people by force, but you can't occupy by force. Occupation only works with hearts and minds.
- fivefifty 5y ago
  That's really not how it worked, the conquered people mostly obeyed the Roman rule not because they were won over with hearts and minds but because otherwise the Romans were absolutely brutal and cruel in their punishment against any kind of uprising or disobedience. Rebellions and insurgencies broke out all over the place and were usually brutally crushed typically with great bloodshed on both sides and any survivors and their families typically suffering one of the many cruel and unusual punishments the Romans favoured.

sudosysgen 5y ago

I don't think this is true. Wars have been successful at those goals without the hundreds of thousands or millions of souls lost to unsuccessful wars. There was no real hearts and minds in, say, Afghanistan. A real hearts and minds campaign would see at least as much on improving the quality of life as in destruction, yet in Afghanistan or Iraq, enough money was spent that the US could have provided every single family with a car, modern electronics, built a brand new house, and more - what was spent in Afghanistan was 350 000$ for each Afghan family! And yet the average Afghan saw war, devastation, death, and famine. The level of material investment is so bad that, adjusted for inflation, the average Afghan was significantly richer during the Soviet-Afghan war as during U.S. occupation. I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that real effort was spent on hearts and minds when so much money was spent on war when the living condition of the average Afghan only got worse. If you want hearts and minds, you need to materially and significantly improve the life of whoever you are occupying at the bare minimum. You can't impoverish a population that's already massively impoverished and claim that you're doing hearts and minds.

bjenkins358 5y ago
2.3 trillion (US spending https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-afghanistan-2001-2022 https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-b... ) / 40 million (Afghan population https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/afghanistan-population https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/afghanistan-popu...) = $57,500. Which is still 8x the most typical salary of $7,000 USD a year ( https://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/afghanistan https://www.averagesalarysurvey.com/afghanistan ).
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  I said per family, not per person - the average Afghan household has 6-7 people. GDP per capita of Afghanistan is ~500$/head, the vast majority don't have a salary at all.
lordnacho 5y ago
You really do have to ask what might have happened if the US had just said "give us Bin Laden, we'll buy everyone a house and a car". It's staggering how much the war ended up costing in money, time, and lives.

Animats 5y ago

We are now finding that out. Ukraine with most of the people dead may be an acceptable outcome to Putin. Mariupol with most of the people dead is happening right now.

FpUser 5y ago
>"Mariupol with most of the people dead is happening right now" I have zero sympathy to that rabid dog Putin. However your "most of the people dead" is total BS. Check the numbers on Wikipedia - casualties vs population [0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol
- Animats 5y ago
  Not for lack of trying. Drone video of Mariupol yesterday.[1] Some people got out in time. Some didn't. At least 100,000 are stuck with no escape route.[2] The city is surrounded and being shelled by both ground artillery and naval vessels. There's no body count yet. The siege of Leningrad (St. Petersburg today) is the closest historical parallel. [1] https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-23-22/index.html https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-ne... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/23/first-thing-100000-civilians-trapped-mariupol-with-no-safe-route-out-ukraine?msclkid=ee9fc04cab0b11ec8eb33749f45e66a8 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/23/first-thing-...
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"Not for lack of trying" Trying does not count. Actual results do. Siege of the Leningrad had lasted 900 days with the body count of 1.5 million people. Judging by the way things going in Ukraine this whole Putin's war should be over pretty soon and not to his liking.

excitom 5y ago

I think the example of the Mongol conquests supports your point about the success of barbarism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_under_the_Mongol_E...

FpUser 5y ago

>"winning hearts and minds" approach didn't really accomplish anything. Agent orange, Mỹ Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, hundreds of thousands of dead, millions of maimed, displaced, financially ruined, starved (check heartwarming reply of Madeleine Albright in regards to 500,000 kids dead by starvation and desease). Well the list can go on and on. I fail to see even a trace of "winning hearts and minds" approach here.

Swizec 5y ago

On the contrary, Rome was able to conquer most of Europe thanks to its hearts and minds approach. You can rule yourself, keep doing your thing, get some nice roads and towns, move on with life. All you have to do is swear allegiance to Rome and pay some taxes. No more than that. You didn't even have to change your religion if you didn't want to. If you said no, that's when the pain started of course. You can conquer people by force, but you can't occupy by force. Occupation only works with hearts and minds.

fivefifty 5y ago
That's really not how it worked, the conquered people mostly obeyed the Roman rule not because they were won over with hearts and minds but because otherwise the Romans were absolutely brutal and cruel in their punishment against any kind of uprising or disobedience. Rebellions and insurgencies broke out all over the place and were usually brutally crushed typically with great bloodshed on both sides and any survivors and their families typically suffering one of the many cruel and unusual punishments the Romans favoured.