Looking Good It Ain't

[don]

Re: Looking Good It Ain't

ASH,

Fair enough.

Don,

I hardly compare Grenada with Afghanistan.

The US has not been able to quell insurrections in fairly large population nations to my knowledge - the only example might be the Korean conflict.

On the debit side: Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan I, Somalia

True, the will is somewhat weaker due to the loss aversion. But then again, it is precisely this loss aversion that keeps the US continuing back to the next foreign adventure.

A good spanking would probably be remembered a lot better.

I was thinking of the proxies in Guatemalia, Nicaragua, Chile, direct intervention in the Dominican Republic, the scores of marine landings in Mexico, Central America, etc. Grenada, how disingenuous :p

[c1ue]

Re: Looking Good It Ain't

Don,

While there has been lots of US intervention in South and Central America, it has been primarily in the form of money, advisors, and supplies.

The United States hasn't had large formations of troops actively suppressing an insurgent population in this region to my knowledge; even the Spanish American war was primarily against a colonial occupier as opposed to - say - Shining Path in Peru or the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

The Nicaraguan and Cuban regimes show that the primary concern is to keep overt foreign influence out as opposed to impose literal colonial rule...although if corporations were included a la the Banana companies, the argument would be harder to support.

Your Chilean example was actually prototypical: supplying arms, money, training, and transport to a local tin pot dictator as opposed to occupying the country.

Contrast that with French occupation of Algeria, British colonial occupation of India, etc etc.

[audrey_girl]

Re: Looking Good It Ain't

Sure - check out the following:

http://www.amazon.com/Giap-Vietnam-P...1385735&sr=8-2

I often peruse the bio shelves of my local library and found this copy. There is a Uncle Ho bio that I am currently reading to avoid being depressed about the current state of affairs. In a way, Uncle Ho reminds me of Dr. Paul (one of my heros). The thing with Ho and Giap is that deep inside they knew they were on the right side of history and it was all a matter of holding on until they got there (no matter what). I like to think that in a way Dr. Paul is on the right side of history with his message of peace and freedom. Sorry for the long post -

btw - very much appreciate your posts

Regards

[ASH]

Re: Looking Good It Ain't

The United States hasn't had large formations of troops actively suppressing an insurgent population in this region to my knowledge; even the Spanish American war was primarily against a colonial occupier as opposed to - say - Shining Path in Peru or the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

We fought a long counter-insurgency against the Filipinos, rather ineptly, after the Spanish-American war. We "liberated" them from the Spanish, and then decided they were too pigmented to run their own affairs, and so turned them into a colony for a few decades. The main insurrection lasted from 1899 to mid-1902, but sporadic uprisings took place through about 1916. (These dates not from memory -- had to dig out Robert Asprey's War in the Shadows -- The Guerrilla in History.

Do we get any credit for pre-20th-century actions against low-tech indigenous peoples? I think our pacification of the Native Americans bears some resemblance to the early victories of the European colonial empires.

What about credit for occupations in which we didn't have to fight an insurgency, such as that of the Axis powers after WWII? I attribute some of this to the culture of Japan and Germany, but I think the terms we imposed and our conduct in occupation had something to do with it, too.

Still, as you say, we haven't much of a history holding down large populations with large armies. We didn't achieve much stature in the world until the 20th century, after the golden age of European colonialism, and during the Cold War we didn't use armies to compel obedience within our allied bloc.

[don]

Re: Looking Good It Ain't

We fought a long counter-insurgency against the Filipinos, rather ineptly, after the Spanish-American war. We "liberated" them from the Spanish, and then decided they were too pigmented to run their own affairs, and so turned them into a colony for a few decades. The main insurrection lasted from 1899 to mid-1902, but sporadic uprisings took place through about 1916. (These dates not from memory -- had to dig out Robert Asprey's War in the Shadows -- The Guerrilla in History.

Do we get any credit for pre-20th-century actions against low-tech indigenous peoples? I think our pacification of the Native Americans bears some resemblance to the early victories of the European colonial empires.

What about credit for occupations in which we didn't have to fight an insurgency, such as that of the Axis powers after WWII? I attribute some of this to the culture of Japan and Germany, but I think the terms we imposed and our conduct in occupation had something to do with it, too.

Still, as you say, we haven't much of a history holding down large populations with large armies. We didn't achieve much stature in the world until the 20th century, after the golden age of European colonialism, and during the Cold War we didn't use armies to compel obedience within our allied bloc.

At the Presidio in San Francisco there is an exhibit on the Philippines resistance and suppression. (There's a decent PDF background download at their site) I plan on going before it closes in February. There's also an excellent book on the European colonial wars, it was re-printed by the old agency press, Greenwood, some years ago. I'm not sure of the exact title but it may be Small or Little Wars (I don't mean the Corps current manual, etc) I have it but it's in storage. The US pioneered what became known as neo-colonialism. A very effective approach to recognizing the futility of re-imposing the old colonial admin structure on the emerging independent states following WW2. Better to co-op them instead. A great PR wedge against the old Euro powers as well.

[c1ue]

Re: Looking Good It Ain't

ASH,

The Phillipines may be a good example.

The problem is I have never been clear just how popular the Phillipines insurgency was.

From what I see in Wiki, the US actually had roughly the same number of troops as they were facing; not exactly an Iraq or Afghanistan situation.

On the American Indian side - this is more credible although the difference in armament went a lot further back then.

I fully grant you that modern insurgencies are very different than in the main colonial era.

Of course, Russia did pacify Chechnya - 150 to 1 odds helps. But you'll note success only came after effectively all of the military age insurgent fighters were killed.

So unless Obama is ready to whack 5M to 10M Afghans, I'm still not seeing a break in the superpower US track record.