Up and Comings
Hey, tomorrow is Ash Wednesday. That means it's already time for lent and I almost didn't realize it. Welcome back no-meat-Fridays.
Yay world views! So today's interesting article was about Prince Andrew and some things he had to say about American Tactics.
Alright, so in my mind America is the successor to two empires: Rome and Britain. Rome because at one point it was a Democracy/Empire and Britain because that's where we get our European roots.
Lessons to learn from Rome: Democracies are not incredibly effective at ruling over large areas of land, don't just elect the rich to high office, don't let the generals have their armies swear loyalty to themselves.
Lessons to learn from Britain: Don't promise the same land to the Arabs, Jews and France, don't be dicks to those you colonize, and above all: know when colonization is over.
I find it particularly interesting that Prince Andrew served in the Falklands War. Be warned America: When we start to fade out into the sunset, there will be some upstart nation that no one takes seriously and they will try to take one of our holdings. We either let them succeed and our Empire is now a joke (See Spain or we can at least hold on to some authority and world status (see Britain).
Looking at the type of military force each of the Empires had, it tells a lot about what kind of Empire they are able to run. Look at Rome: Vast amounts of well trained, diciplined, greedy, bloodthirsty soldiers who are working to just get a piece of land for when/if they are able to retire. An army like that looks to it's generals to take care of them. The generals look to new lands to conquer. Look at Britain: in a world where the oceans have become the new lanes of trade and transport, we have a small island becoming the world's naval power. Of course their land will be more spread out and go across the face of the world.
Now let's look at America: Democracy has a unique situation with fighting wars because the people that go to war look to the people at home for the say so, not the generals or the Emperor/Monarch. Theoretically, the people are the ones who decide whether the war is worth fighting. It is the people that determines when it is time to go back home. For long, drawn out occupations, we are not very well suited. Let's look at our wars where we went into other countries:
War of 1812: Burn down the Canadian Parliament, retreat back to America. As far as I know, the Canadian nation is not the 51st state.
Barbary Pirate Wars: Kick some pirate booty, go back home.
Mexican/American War: Invade Mexico City, go back home with a bunch of new states. Here lies a long term American occupation. However, it is not just the armies that do the occupying but the droves of settlers. This and the Indian Wars I would consider occupations, but they were only successful because we sent our own people their to live and incorporate it into our own nation.
Spanish American War: We hang onto Guam, Puerto Rico and for a while the Philippines. But we gave Cuba it's independence. If you can call these occupations, they required little excess military action because we used the lands for bases anyway.
WWI and WWII: America the Great Liberator. We are extremely good at this. Go in, liberate, go back home.
Korea: Honestly, they call it the forgotten war and to be honest, I don't know to much about it. Case in point, we draw a line, get some cheap cars and go home.
Vietnam: Here's where we see why America in long term ideological wars with no allies is detrimental. We also see how the American people do have the power to alter the course of a war.
Desert Storm: The best example of what our armies should be doing: Go in, stabilize, go back home.
Afghanistan and Iraq: We liberate and find ourselves in a precarious situation. The people we have over there are not trained for long term occupation. We aren't used to these tactics which most of us can't even conceive, but can only fear. We may have used Guerrilla Warfare against the British in the Revolution, but not to these extremes. Not to mention that bit of culture gap and the fact that most people see us as greedy oil-barons (then again, oil prices have gone up not down).
The point I'm trying to make is that we can't just think Best Technological Army = Best Ready-For-Everything Army. And what the people in Washington need to realize is that in this day and age we are moving from analog to digital. Roads for Rome, Seas for Britain, Technology for America? But even if that we are moving farther away from the technological center of the Universe. We no longer desire to manifest our destiny. Now we either be defeatist or make some necessary changes.
Yay world views! So today's interesting article was about Prince Andrew and some things he had to say about American Tactics.
Alright, so in my mind America is the successor to two empires: Rome and Britain. Rome because at one point it was a Democracy/Empire and Britain because that's where we get our European roots.
Lessons to learn from Rome: Democracies are not incredibly effective at ruling over large areas of land, don't just elect the rich to high office, don't let the generals have their armies swear loyalty to themselves.
Lessons to learn from Britain: Don't promise the same land to the Arabs, Jews and France, don't be dicks to those you colonize, and above all: know when colonization is over.
I find it particularly interesting that Prince Andrew served in the Falklands War. Be warned America: When we start to fade out into the sunset, there will be some upstart nation that no one takes seriously and they will try to take one of our holdings. We either let them succeed and our Empire is now a joke (See Spain or we can at least hold on to some authority and world status (see Britain).
Looking at the type of military force each of the Empires had, it tells a lot about what kind of Empire they are able to run. Look at Rome: Vast amounts of well trained, diciplined, greedy, bloodthirsty soldiers who are working to just get a piece of land for when/if they are able to retire. An army like that looks to it's generals to take care of them. The generals look to new lands to conquer. Look at Britain: in a world where the oceans have become the new lanes of trade and transport, we have a small island becoming the world's naval power. Of course their land will be more spread out and go across the face of the world.
Now let's look at America: Democracy has a unique situation with fighting wars because the people that go to war look to the people at home for the say so, not the generals or the Emperor/Monarch. Theoretically, the people are the ones who decide whether the war is worth fighting. It is the people that determines when it is time to go back home. For long, drawn out occupations, we are not very well suited. Let's look at our wars where we went into other countries:
War of 1812: Burn down the Canadian Parliament, retreat back to America. As far as I know, the Canadian nation is not the 51st state.
Barbary Pirate Wars: Kick some pirate booty, go back home.
Mexican/American War: Invade Mexico City, go back home with a bunch of new states. Here lies a long term American occupation. However, it is not just the armies that do the occupying but the droves of settlers. This and the Indian Wars I would consider occupations, but they were only successful because we sent our own people their to live and incorporate it into our own nation.
Spanish American War: We hang onto Guam, Puerto Rico and for a while the Philippines. But we gave Cuba it's independence. If you can call these occupations, they required little excess military action because we used the lands for bases anyway.
WWI and WWII: America the Great Liberator. We are extremely good at this. Go in, liberate, go back home.
Korea: Honestly, they call it the forgotten war and to be honest, I don't know to much about it. Case in point, we draw a line, get some cheap cars and go home.
Vietnam: Here's where we see why America in long term ideological wars with no allies is detrimental. We also see how the American people do have the power to alter the course of a war.
Desert Storm: The best example of what our armies should be doing: Go in, stabilize, go back home.
Afghanistan and Iraq: We liberate and find ourselves in a precarious situation. The people we have over there are not trained for long term occupation. We aren't used to these tactics which most of us can't even conceive, but can only fear. We may have used Guerrilla Warfare against the British in the Revolution, but not to these extremes. Not to mention that bit of culture gap and the fact that most people see us as greedy oil-barons (then again, oil prices have gone up not down).
The point I'm trying to make is that we can't just think Best Technological Army = Best Ready-For-Everything Army. And what the people in Washington need to realize is that in this day and age we are moving from analog to digital. Roads for Rome, Seas for Britain, Technology for America? But even if that we are moving farther away from the technological center of the Universe. We no longer desire to manifest our destiny. Now we either be defeatist or make some necessary changes.