[Munqi]

Why is it that the British and French empires both occupied land for hundreds of years without any problems but two of the worlds largest armies (Soviet Union and America) cant even win a country like Afghanistan?

What has changed so dramatically?

[Nicholai]

The British and the French were the only ones with large, well-equipped standing armies at the time.

They had the guns, no one else.

It's not too hard for an Afghani to smuggle an American-made sub machine gun across the Pakistani boarder under the cover of night through the mountains in 2008, but in 1910, there were no machine guns to smuggle in the first place...

When Iraq became a British protectorate in 1922, did the Iraqi civilians have much access to guns or ammunition? Possibly the wealthy, but the vast majority could only revolt with torch and shovel. Technology has opened the window for perpetual, and incremental guerrilla warfare.

The availability of regional media has also made it possible to propagate on an unprecedented scale. Discourse and revolt took place on a village scale in 1922. Now, we can see the uprise of entire provinces and ethnic groups within a matter of days thanks to the television...

I remember watching a video of the Brits in around 1930 sit down with a few Iraqi gentlemen to discuss their oil reserves. The British gentlemen then sat up and placed a large lamb (stuffed with rice) in between the Iraqis. The narrator in the background then stated, "If Iraqi oil continues to flow to our British Empire, the Iraqi people should except much more goat and rice for a long time to come."

I had to laugh. They treated the Iraqis like children...

[Munqi]

I find it hard to believe that rival empires never armed eachothers colonies. Surely the soviets werent the first ones to come up with that idea?


Didnt the french sell guns to americans during the american revolution btw?

[smallpoxgirl]

I think one thing that's changed is nationalism. The British and the Americans' were able to conquer the Americas because the people didn't stand together. Each tribe was looking out for itself and didn't appreciate the importance of working together to keep out the invaders. Contrast that with the Mujahadeen, or the Viet Cong.

There's been big changes in how conquering forces see themselves. The current leading world powers have as a big part of their legacy and self conception, the conquering of Nazi Germany. As such, when they invade a place, it's necessary for them to couch it in terms of liberation. If the US was willing to kill off two thirds of the population of Iraq and enslave the rest, we could probably control the situation. In order to portray ourselves as liberators, we have to have a degree of restraint that impedes conquest.

Today, places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are already part of the "global economy" so the payoff for conquering them isn't as great. It's not that you are suddenly able to market products that were otherwise wholly unavailable. You might get them more cheaply or get better access to them, but it's not like conquering the country is the only way to get them.

The final difference goes along with the second and third, and that's that imperial nations today are far more risk averse. The people are pampered. The rewards of conquest are less and people are less motivated towards conquest if their motivation is to liberate people who clearly don't want to be liberated. Consequently there's more hue and cry from the home country about smaller losses and conquest becomes harder to implement.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'I') think one thing that's changed is nationalism. The British and the Americans' were able to conquer the Americas because the people didn't stand together.

[comprehensive]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Munqi', 'W')hy is it that the British and French empires both occupied land for hundreds of years without any problems but two of the worlds largest armies (Soviet Union and America) cant even win a country like Afghanistan? What has changed so dramatically?

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('comprehensive', 'T')hink outside the box, mate, the occupying forces cause the skirmishes on purpose. Have to keep the funding coming, wot? Then there are always think tanks to paint a solution and explain to us why things happan and sound wise. If there is no fighting and resistance, the contractors would be sent home, they see too it. Iraq caught contractors shooting up the civilians, and it was in all the papers, and you still can't see it.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'I') think one thing that's changed is nationalism. The British and the Americans' were able to conquer the Americas because the people didn't stand together.

[comprehensive]

Good one, mate. Hit it right on the head, dinit?

Very vulnerable to revenge, ya meant.

Boys vids I watched from there have said publicly they have orders to shoot anyone in range if IED is found.
And when ye force some of the young ones who lost granny and pappy to "get revenge", become a street fighter, it is self sustaining, you'll be in the trenches a long time. Many intelligent writers have said just being there will make it all worse. And so it shall.

[HEADER_RACK]

I think it boils down to trying to bring a humane aspect into an inhumane practice. Trying to wage war without the brutality and the killing of innocents trying to adhere to rules of humanity while at the same time trying to achieve the same goals without those restraints. It just doesn't work the same.

Cruelty to men and to the lower animals as well, which would have passed unnoticed a century ago, now shocks the sensibilities and is regarded as wicked and degrading- Elihu Root

What was fine in war in 1914 and before is not so fine in 2008.

[Madpaddy]

Some of the posters have touched on it. The big difference between modern guerilla warfare and previous conflicts is technology.

Modern communications allow the guerillas to be co-ordinated militarily and the media gives the guerilla an outlet to portray his cause to the world. At the same time, media presence forces the occupying force to adopt much more lenient tactics than would otherwise be the case, in general.

Take for example the 1798 revolution in Ireland against the British. The rebellion failed and up to 50000 Irishmen were hung in retaliation. The next rebellion of consequence didn't take place for another 118 years. Such retaliation is inconceivable today.

The level of acceptable losses for armies in the past was also much higher than it is today again as there was no media back in the home country to inform the populace of losses on foreign fields. The only media was newspapers which most people were unable to read. That being said, the Spanish guerilla war against Napoleons forces in the early 1800s was highly effective as was the US war of independence against the British. When Richard III invaded Ireland in the 13th century, his army was decimated by guerilla warfare. SPG summed it up well,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he final difference goes along with the second and third, and that's that imperial nations today are far more risk averse. The people are pampered. The rewards of conquest are less and people are less motivated towards conquest if their motivation is to liberate people who clearly don't want to be liberated. Consequently there's more hue and cry from the home country about smaller losses and conquest becomes harder to implement.

[comprehensive]

So, what is this war about? I havn't understood that yet.

[eastbay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('comprehensive', 'S')o, what is this war about? Would electing a different party make a difference on how many die?

If so then just the attitude of the party is what kills people.

That is pretty sad.

ergo propter hoc.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HEADER_RACK', 'I') think it boils down to trying to bring a humane aspect into an inhumane practice.

[Madpaddy]

Good post Twilight,

I had a lecture recently in our military college that basically concluded that modern terrorism/ guerilla warfare was enabled by the invention of dynamite.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', 'G')ood post Twilight,

I had a lecture recently in our military college that basically concluded that modern terrorism/ guerilla warfare was enabled by the invention of dynamite.

[Madpaddy]

oh the irony, PMS

[Ludi]

I'm missing the irony of the man who invented dynamite trying to redeem himself by giving his estate as awards to those who promote peace....


But I'm kind of dense....

[HEADER_RACK]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HEADER_RACK', 'I') think it boils down to trying to bring a humane aspect into an inhumane practice.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HEADER_RACK', 'G')uerrilla warfare works because there is a will to fight with a hope of success. You have to remove both those ideals of thought. Most times to do that requires acts of extreme brutality that most commanders aren't willing to carry out.