As my theme for today is "half way lucid comments that I have left on other 'blogs", let me round off with my comment over at C-at-W regarding recent Russia/Georgia/South Ossetia unpleasantness*:
"... what the cold warriors forget (on the Russian side and in the West) is The First Rule of Warfare**, that has held pretty well for the last hundred years.
It's quite simple.
Millitarily, it is a piece of piss to invade another country, especially if you're big and they're small.***
Politically and economically, it is impossible to hold on to occupied territories in the long run. The cost of doing so - in money, in lives, in unhappy families of soldiers who've died, in the drain on the economy to support the military spending, the terrorist attacks that you provoke in your own country, the international opprobrium, the trade sanctions, the ignominy of the ultimate withdrawal - always exceeds any short term benefits.
So whatever Russia hoped to gain from smashing up Georgia (and I can sort of sympathise with them) will be outweighed by the long run costs of occupying Georgia. The same applies to the USA and Iraq, BTW. Or Israel and the West Bank. Etc etc.
So sooner or later they will withdraw. And every rouble they waste on that war is a rouble less they can spend on attacking us (in this case, attacking us by proxy via the Islamofascist bastards in Iran).
And they'll have learned their lesson ... for a decade or two before the next power mad shithead in the Kremlin (or in the White House - or the Knesset - or in Tehran or Pyongyang for that matter) - does it again."
* As you may have noticed, this is a topic that does not overly interest me. So far I have restricted myself to posting Denis Cooper's fine fisking of Dave The Chameleon's sub-GSCE drivel.
** I once expounded The First Rule Of Warfare to a history teacher chum and he hummed-and-hahed. A month later, he told me that he quoted this handy rule-of-thumb in his lessons.
*** UPDATE. Make that "Militarily, it is usually a piece of piss, especially if you're big and they're small, but even then, the large country can get its arse kicked e.g. Russia v Finland".
UPDATE, UPDATE. Having now taken the trouble to read up on The Winter War, I conclude that Russia got its arse severely kicked and failed miserably in its original objective, but managed to grab a small slice of S.E. Finland which is still controls to this day. This still fits the overall generalisation that 'invading other countries is a bad idea'.
No argument taken to a finish
50 minutes ago
9 comments:
My one number 1 rule is: "Know thy enemy".
I disagree. Russia v. Finland or Russia v. Japan, the underdog won.
"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace" wins.
An Indian once remarked that the reason that the British could conquer India with such tiny armies was that "they don't betray each other". That option will not be available to the USA as long as the New York Times exists.
Don't you count the Iraq permanent bases and the oil acquisition as a profit.
And consider the 'new' biological warfare - eg the invasion of england and subsequent super procreation of assorted groups. You may have noticed them.
England is a small country in this respect.
S, Russia invaded Finland during WW2 and got their butts kicked. That's as predicted by FRW. Russia v Japan is too long ago.
CJ, no. We could have had their oil anyway ... by buying it. If you are alluding to Islamic invasion of UK by stealth, that is another topic. That is down to our gummint betraying us and off topic.
There is a difference between conflict and war, and I think you need to separate the two.
The war in Iraq lasted 21 days, the conflict is still on going, so I would say the first rule of war is to try and avoid going to war, which in Saddam's case we tried for 10 years or so.
Deariemes comment is exactly right, Vietnam war was lost in America not on the battlefield, in 2004 the American public choose to fight and that is why they are going to win the conflict in Iraq as well as the war.
Comparing Iraq to Georgia is a non started, Russia has always had problems in that area and dealt with it by quick hit and run wars followed by intimidation, Iraq is a different thing altogether, we are trying to remould the middle east, or at least going back to the pack to try and get a better set of cards.
PB, the distinction between 'war' and 'conflict' is a useful one.
I don't necessarily agree that the US were winning 'militarily' in Vietnam, but I do agree that the retreat was ultimately dictated by domestic pressures, which I referred to in my sentence starting "The cost of doing so ...".
Iraq will end up as a complete shambles, on that I must hotly disagree.
A friend of mine in India used to supply the US army in Iraq with Indian nationals to work in their bases, now Iraqis have taken their places, Ill let you know what its like when I get back from a 2 week trip in Oct along with some of my geologist friends.
Re USSR -v- Finland - the USSR won. An expensive (and humiliating) victory but a victory all the same: Finland ceded the territory that the USSR demanded.
Post a Comment