US vs Iraq/Islam = Napoleon vs Spain/Catholicism?

[Darth Wong]

Imagine a strong liberal nation that threw off monarchism, moving against a country with a grossly inferior military force. The latter country labours under the oppression of religious fanaticism, and contains many liberals who would much rather live under the invader's rule. The invader wants to liberate the people and install a puppet government which is run by people he trusts. The defenders have inferior forces but they seamlessly mix regulars and irregulars. The regular forces retreat to "safe havens" while the irregulars do most of the fighting, but they support the irregulars in order to bolster them against the technically superior invaders. Does this sound familiar?

Of course it should; it's Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Spain, which led to a long and bloody occupation in which some 200,000 French soldiers were killed over a six-year period, 75% by irregular forces, ie- militias.

Is this what we have to look forward to?

[jegs2]

I don't think so, Mike. For one, Iraq's regime is held together by one dictator -- Saddam. When he falls, so do his hard-line supporters. Secondly, I don't think it's Bush's plan to install a dictatorship, but rather to set up a democratically-elected government (after an expensive rebuilding and restructuring effort) within Iraq. There are definitely some similarities militarily, but I don't foresee the political situation developing as did the other scenario.

[Sea Skimmer]

The French had to face constant fighting with a fairly large conventional military force. That complicates things greatly; take a look at the ARVN's problems in 1972 for a more recent example.

[Ted]

I don't think so, Mike. For one, Iraq's regime is held together by one dictator -- Saddam. When he falls, so do his hard-line supporters. Secondly, I don't think it's Bush's plan to install a dictatorship, but rather to set up a democratically-elected government (after an expensive rebuilding and restructuring effort)

Which means a dictator until Bush says they can have elections.

It will probably be a lot like Spain, considering the people in Iraq were/are much like the Spanish in terms of being a very hardy folk, Iraq having veterans of the Iran-Iraq war, a very liberal spread of guns throughout the country. Though Iraq doesn't have the mass of caves and mountains that Spain is.

[Dark Hellion]

Why does everyone think the U.S. will install a puppet government. We are under far to close of international scrutiny to do something so brazen. We may manipulate the government to give us many benifits, but it will be democratic and will give the Iraqi people untold freedoms and liberties. We may be after it for the oil (and come on, who doesn't want to pay $5 less to fill up) but to state that no benifit can come to the Iraqi's is somewhat irresponsible and dishonest.

[Stormbringer]

Is this what we have to look forward to?

I doubt it. Saddam Hussien has systematically oppressed, abused and tormented his population. Once he's gone I doubt anyone will fight for his restoration and as long as we don't fuck up the reconstruction I doubt we'll have a massive uprising against any provisional government.

[Nathan F]

and to a blatant threadjack:

Dark Hellion

Like your sig, lol.

[Darth Wong]

Is this what we have to look forward to?

I doubt it. Saddam Hussien has systematically oppressed, abused and tormented his population.

And how is that significantly different than early 19th century Spain?

Once he's gone I doubt anyone will fight for his restoration and as long as we don't fuck up the reconstruction I doubt we'll have a massive uprising against any provisional government.

That's pretty much what Napoleon thought too.

[Stormbringer]

And how is that significantly different than early 19th century Spain?

It's not that different. The thing is had Napolean proven himself as bad as the Spanish in many respects.

The US is not there to permanently annex Iraq and their people know we've got a better (better not perfect) track record.

That's pretty much what Napoleon thought too.

And he fucked it up.

[Darth Wong]

And how is that significantly different than early 19th century Spain?

It's not that different. The thing is had Napolean proven himself as bad as the Spanish in many respects.

The US is not there to permanently annex Iraq and their people know we've got a better (better not perfect) track record.

What makes you think their people believe that? They seem downright hostile to me.

That's pretty much what Napoleon thought too.

And he fucked it up.

And Bush is infallible? How do we know we're not walking into the same morass? The analogy isn't perfect, but it's uncomfortably close. Religious fanaticism and nationalism are powerful things. This war has come to symbolize Arab pride; I don't know what kind of news you get down there, but our newspapers print revealing interviews with people in Jordan, Syria etc. who see this war as an opportunity to show that Arabs are not the pathetic pushovers that Americans have been describing for many years. It is an opportunity to reclaim lost Arab pride. These people are starting to worship Saddam as a hero, not because he's a good man but because he stands against America. How do you know you wouldn't face years of hatred if you finally smash him?

[irishmick79]

No comparison at all. In Spain, the british were doing everything they could to support uprisings against france, and sending in military troops to resist the french.

The US most likely would not have to contend with the competing military goals of another great power in the world today.

[Darth Wong]

No comparison at all. In Spain, the british were doing everything they could to support uprisings against france, and sending in military troops to resist the french.

The US most likely would not have to contend with the competing military goals of another great power in the world today.

There is no country out there who would support popular uprisings in Iraq? *chuckle* I guess you must have blacked out the entire Middle East from your map.

[irishmick79]

It's one thing to support uprisings in name. It's another to support uprisings by actually sending expeditions into said country, which is what Britain did with Spain against france. I don't think that too many nations nowadays would be willing to actively support uprisings against an American sponsored Iraqi regime with their own troops.

[Darth Wong]

It's one thing to support uprisings in name. It's another to support uprisings by actually sending expeditions into said country, which is what Britain did with Spain against france. I don't think that too many nations nowadays would be willing to actively support uprisings against an American sponsored Iraqi regime with their own troops.

They don't have to. Napoleon was willing to absorb two hundred thousand dead, but the Americans would have much lower tolerance for body counts. A steady stream of terrorists trained only to cause low-level havoc by killing individual soldiers here and there would be a serious problem, and it would not require a huge outlay of resources.

[Stormbringer]

What makes you think their people believe that? They seem downright hostile to me.

From the news I've seen that's not the cases. It seems to me they're simply keeping their heads down and hoping like hell that it's over soon.

If you mean the military resistance? Then yes, they're putting up a fight. But given the relatively air campaign and the fact that Saddam clearly took great pains to force his troops to fight that's not suprising.

Righto, so how do we know we're not walking into the same morass? The analogy isn't perfect, but it's uncomfortably close. Religious fanaticism and nationalism are powerful things.

We don't. What we should do is actually support them and actually do what we promised and rebuild their country and then let them decide what they want to do.

Iraq is fairly secular and the people have no love for Saddam Hussien. If we actually let them run their country we should be able to avoid that kind of morass.

This war has come to symbolize Arab pride; I don't know what kind of news you get down there, but our newspapers print revealing interviews with people in Jordan, Syria etc. who see this war as an opportunity to show that Arabs are not the pathetic pushovers that Americans have been describing for many years. It is an opportunity to reclaim lost Arab pride.

(Emphasis mine)

They're just foriegn blowhards. They've spouted similar crap about the Palestinian cause with no actual result. I find the reports of several of the ex-human sheilds that the Iraq people were eager to see Saddam gone and are eager to see a war if it means they'll be free.

These people are starting to worship Saddam as a hero, not because he's a good man but because he stands against America. How do you know you wouldn't face years of hatred if you finally smash him?

Again, foriegn blowhard mostly. Half of them are the sort of jihad crazies that already hate us. Any retalitation by them will most likely be no different than the terrorism threat we already face.

And if we actually keep our promise and rebuild Iraq we aren't likely to face thousands and thousands of partisans out for our blood.

[Darth Wong]

What makes you think their people believe that? They seem downright hostile to me.

From the news I've seen that's not the cases. It seems to me they're simply keeping their heads down and hoping like hell that it's over soon.

I've seen pictures of old women picking up guns and vowing to fight the invaders. I've seen articles written by field correspondents who said that even when they manage to speak to Iraqis away from their government "shadows", the story doesn't really change that much. Saddam has a huge swath of his population convinced that Bush is invading in order to seize control of the country for its oil.

Iraq is fairly secular and the people have no love for Saddam Hussien. If we actually let them run their country we should be able to avoid that kind of morass.

What if the first thing they do is vote in a government which promises to kick the infidels out of the country, seize all of the assets of the American corporations who have been awarded "postwar rebuilding contracts", and rebuild its military?

They're just foriegn blowhards. They've spouted similar crap about the Palestinian cause with no actual result.

No results? Years of terrorism and repeated attacks on American and Israeli military and civilian targets are no actual result? The Israelis are apparently willing to live with endless terrorism. Are you?

And if we actually keep our promise and rebuild Iraq we aren't likely to face thousands and thousands of partisans out for our blood.

This leads to an interesting question: what if the American economy slides into a recession after the war? When Bush goes to ask for monstrous amounts of money from the American taxpayers to rebuild Iraq, will he get it?

[irishmick79]

They don't have to. Napoleon was willing to absorb two hundred thousand dead, but the Americans would have much lower tolerance for body counts. A steady stream of terrorists trained only to cause low-level havoc by killing individual soldiers here and there would be a serious problem, and it would not require a huge outlay of resources.

You're stretching here. In Spain, the Spanish uprisings had serious support from British expeditionary forces generally led by the greatest English general of the period, the Duke of Wellington. The British were able to use their presence on the Iberian peninsula in order to fan the flames of rebellion against the French, and to keep the spanish armies sustained when fighting the French. Either way you cut it, the spanish rebels recieved significant outside sponsorship from the english, both in arms shipments and in contributions of regular English army soldiers. That played a HUGE role in Napoleon's downfall on the peninsula.

In no way can you draw a comparison to America's situation in the gulf, because there is currently NO significant military force outside Iraq's own forces that directly counters the US military deployment the way britian countered Frances deployment in Spain. The lack of an outside counter acting power against the united states invalidates your comparison between Napoleon's experience in Spain and the present situation in the gulf.

Granted, you may be on to something with the low threshold of casualties argument, but the comparison between Napoleon and the USA is a bad one.

[Stormbringer]

I've seen pictures of old women picking up guns and vowing to fight the invaders. I've seen articles written by field correspondents who said that even when they manage to speak to Iraqis away from their government "shadows", the story doesn't really change that much. Saddam has a huge swath of his population convinced that Bush is invading in order to seize control of the country for its oil.

And there have been plenty of interveiws that have shown the contrary. Only time will tell what will come of it.

What if the first thing they do is vote in a government which promises to kick the infidels out of the country, seize all of the assets of the American corporations who have been awarded "postwar rebuilding contracts", and rebuild its military?

Than that becomes a very big problem. What will happen then I don't know at all.

No results? Years of terrorism and repeated attacks on American and Israeli military and civilian targets are no actual result? The Israelis are apparently willing to live with endless terrorism. Are you?

Those foriegn blowhards that you referenced yap all they want to about Palestine but frankly have done jack shit. Those "Arab brothers" contribute less as a whole than the US charitable organizations.

This leads to an interesting question: what if the American economy slides into a recession after the war? When Bush goes to ask for monstrous amounts of money from the American taxpayers to rebuild Iraq, will he get it?

The oil trust fund. The proposal Bush and Blair have made a number of times is to put the Iraqi oil into a UN administered trust fund to help finance the rebuilding efforts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The only way the Muslim world can defeat us is to imitate Turkey - to develop the secular, capitalist, and democratic institutions which support armies capable of facing western armies in the field - and if they do that and beat us, I'll be quite pleased personally, at least, because we'll have won the ideological war even if our national interests are lost in the process.

I don't think the comparison with Spain is valid, because Spain was supported by Britain, which had the economic power to contest with France, and naval dominance, which allowed it to use that power to support the Spanish populace at will. No such countervailing force to support the Arab world exists, nor could forseeably exist for the first half of the 21st century.

[Darth Wong]

The only way the Muslim world can defeat us is to imitate Turkey - to develop the secular, capitalist, and democratic institutions which support armies capable of facing western armies in the field - and if they do that and beat us, I'll be quite pleased personally, at least, because we'll have won the ideological war even if our national interests are lost in the process.

Defeat isn't the point; exceeding our tolerance for cost is the point.

I don't think the comparison with Spain is valid, because Spain was supported by Britain, which had the economic power to contest with France, and naval dominance, which allowed it to use that power to support the Spanish populace at will. No such countervailing force to support the Arab world exists, nor could forseeably exist for the first half of the 21st century.

The fact that the analogy is not perfect does not necessarily mean it cannot apply. America needs much less in the way of casualties to fold than France did, so supporters of Iraqi anti-Americanism would need much less in the way of resources. What if (horror of horrors) America faces years of continual terrorism as a result of this? There are weapons squirelled away all over Iraqi territory; if the Palestinians can do it, I don't see why the Iraqis can't.

[Crown]

The fact that the analogy is not perfect does not necessarily mean it cannot apply. America needs much less in the way of casualties to fold than France did, so supporters of Iraqi anti-Americanism would need much less in the way of resources. What if (horror of horrors) America faces years of continual terrorism as a result of this? There are weapons squirelled away all over Iraqi territory; if the Palestinians can do it, I don't see why the Iraqis can't.

Surely you jest my Lord. The war in Iraq will see a decline in terrorism, everyone knows that

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Surely you jest my Lord. The war in Iraq will see a decline in terrorism, everyone knows that

If we go by the war in Afghanistan, it will at least reduce terrorist recruiting. These people do respect displays of power. Remember that the Arab street also was a rage during the early part of the Afghan war, when things were stalemated in the north - Only to collapse with the Taliban opposition. The groundswell of opinion here, also, is going to last only as long as the question appears to be in doubt - Which it does to uneducated media types only, anyway (and bought traitors like Scott Ritter, but I digress).

[Illuminatus Primus]

And Bush is infallible? How do we know we're not walking into the same morass? The analogy isn't perfect, but it's uncomfortably close. Religious fanaticism and nationalism are powerful things. This war has come to symbolize Arab pride; I don't know what kind of news you get down there, but our newspapers print revealing interviews with people in Jordan, Syria etc. who see this war as an opportunity to show that Arabs are not the pathetic pushovers that Americans have been describing for many years. It is an opportunity to reclaim lost Arab pride. These people are starting to worship Saddam as a hero, not because he's a good man but because he stands against America. How do you know you wouldn't face years of hatred if you finally smash him?

One would think in this model, that losing would bolster this Arab pride, but crushing Saddam would break it's back in destroy its symbol.

[Darth Wong]

And Bush is infallible? How do we know we're not walking into the same morass? The analogy isn't perfect, but it's uncomfortably close. Religious fanaticism and nationalism are powerful things. This war has come to symbolize Arab pride; I don't know what kind of news you get down there, but our newspapers print revealing interviews with people in Jordan, Syria etc. who see this war as an opportunity to show that Arabs are not the pathetic pushovers that Americans have been describing for many years. It is an opportunity to reclaim lost Arab pride. These people are starting to worship Saddam as a hero, not because he's a good man but because he stands against America. How do you know you wouldn't face years of hatred if you finally smash him?

One would think in this model, that losing would bolster this Arab pride, but crushing Saddam would break it's back in destroy its symbol.

Simply by lasting more than a few days, Saddam has already breathed new life into Arab pride. Even if he falls, the fact that he put up a good fight will still send the same message. The fact that the Pentagon was forced to publicly admit that they underestimated the enemy will make their hearts beat faster. Their idiotic belief that God has blessed their weapons (bolstered by silly pictures like the one with the farmer and his Kalashnikov in front of an Apache that he'd supposedly downed single-handedly) will persist.

[kojikun]

yeah, "lets fight the american devils with our outdated automatic rifles while they bomb us with precision missiles from 200 miles away" sure. gods damnit if theres any more justification for taking over a country and educating them its that level of stupidity.