The Fantasy of the Invincible Resistance

[jordan179]

Recently, in a thread started by polynarch (http://polyanarch.livejournal.com/320745.html), deadpansev expressed the opinion that America could safely have stayed out of World War II, without fear of what a victorious Axis might have done later to America, because (quoting deadpansev, with the spelling cleaned up):

Comments

[banner]

People forget that when we fought Japan and Germany we conducted 'all out war'. Something which we have NOT conducted yet. Mainly because our politicians are too wimpy to do it. Anyone who thinks we can not win in Afghanistan needs to ask this question: Is it within our power to Kill every person in that country?

The answer is of course 'Yes'. And that's what all out war is, you Kill everyone until they all unconditionally surrender. You do not send in a small force and try to make nice to the natives, you send in everything and you indiscriminately kill and kill and destroy until they have no power to resist and then you execute everyone who doesn't bow down to you or who you think will be a problem.

[yamamanama]

I swear Germany tried that on the Soviet Union and it didn't work out very well.

[actonrf]

Ah, but Germany was not fighting just the Soviet Union.

[operations]

They also invaded in the fucking fall instead of spring. Waiting 6 months to Blitzkrieg in the Spring would have made for some drastically different history books.

[melvin_udall]

it struck me that all of it be boiled down to "When a country is invaded, it generates a Resistance, and that Resistance will inevitably win in the end, so no country can ever really be conquered." It is this argument which I propose to examine.

I'll reserve my comment now to say that if that's the argument it's incredibly stupid.

For one thing we aren't trying to conquer Afghanistan. If we were we'd be done and rebuilding by now, as we should be.

[prader]

All we have to do is want to win in Afghanistan, and be willing as a nation to accept what that means, and we'd be conducting mop-up exercises within six months. That's why what is actually happening is so frustrating.

[melvin_udall]

Absolutely.

Well, that ties for frustrating with the lack of recognition of the now obvious evidence that the majority of Democrats don't give a damn about dead soldiers, dead civilians or unjust goals in war. They were all tools the Left used to bash Republicans (as they are now using 9/11 responders). With a Democrat in charge the majority of Democrat voters are content to quietly sit by as we suffer more casualties in one year than we did in several, while we spend more money than previously and while suffering greater debt, and while we have even more evidence our bribed allies aren't allies.

[mrbogey]

Excellent argument. You never disappoint.

Edit: sorry sick and typing on a mobile phone. I corrected my error

[actonrf]

So much for the myth of an invincible Afghanistan resistance or we cannot win. It seem it about support of powerful allies. Ditto with our involvement in Vietnam.

[ford_prefect42]

Yeah..... Consider the current negotiating status of the aztec empire, or the Incan. Or for that matter the United states of Iroquois. Come visit the lovely Carthage, or stop in in imperial japan. Admire the thriving zulu tribe, or the saxon territories. Have a look at Baathist Iraq.

Those that make the "invincible resistnace" argument are looking only at the *extremely* narrow definitions of "conquer", and extremely recent events.

[tagryn]

There's also Algeria and the Philippines as modern examples of resistance movements which failed: although their ultimate aims of independence were achieved, it was only after the resistance movements had been crushed. Hmmm, I suppose the VietCong fits under that as well.