"We should have murdered an awful lot more people to achieve victory, we just didn't kill enough and destroy enough of a foreign country to achieve the peace of the grave we needed." What is wrong with people.https://twitter.com/GrayConnolly/status/1402166591588945926 …
-
These sorts of takes - beyond their moral deficiency - always underrate the strategic implications of such 'exemplary' violence: degraded will to continue in an appalled American populace and the diplomatic catastrophe that international reporting of such would cause.
Rome always gets used an example for the 'make a desert' method and as @GabrielDBaker notes, Roman mass violence did further their strategic objectives. But in COIN it was far more important that the Romans committed long-term. Time-limited COIN is very difficult, it turns out.
-
-
I should say *sometimes* furthered strategic objectives. But mass violence wasn't a shortcut to what we'd call COIN and the Romans just called 'governance.' If you want to do COIN, assume it will take 75 years. If you don't want to spend 75 years, come up with a new strategy.
-
Yeah, definitely a big "sometimes" for Rome. Plenty of backfires (e.g., preemptively massacring the maybe-disloyal population of Enna in the 2PW and pushing a bunch more communities towards Carthage), and violence "works" best when they're also winning militarily.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.