This topic was posted , thanks Jacquerie.
Posted on 03/15/2015 3:30:15 PM PDT by Jacquerie
We've recently been told by Ivy League Idiots from Obama's State Department that the solution to defeating ISIS is to grant them small business start-up loans here in America. I thought Freepers might appreciate some foreign policy clarity. I found some in a five hundred year old Renaissance Italian treatise.
The following is Chapter VI of Book II to Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy:
Having discussed how the Romans proceeded in their expansion, we will now discuss how they proceeded in making war, and it will be seen with how much prudence they deviated in all the actions from the universal methods of others, in order to make their road to supreme greatness easy.
The intention of whoever makes war, whether by election or from ambition, is to acquire and maintain the acquisition, and to proceed in such a way so as to enrich themselves and not to impoverish the (conquered) country and his own country.
It is necessary, therefore, both in the acquisition and in the maintenance, to take care not to spend (too much), rather to do every thing for the usefulness of his people. Whoever wants to do all these things must hold to the Roman conduct and method, which was first to make the war short and sharp, as the French say, for coming into the field with large armies, they dispatched all the wars they had with the Latins, Samnites, and Tuscans, in the briefest time. And if all those things they did from the beginning of Rome up to the siege of the Veienti were to be noted, it will be seen that they were all dispatched some in six, some in ten, some in twenty days; for this was their usage.
As soon as war broke out, they went out with the armies to meet the enemy and quickly came to the engagement. Which, when they won it, the enemy ((so that their countryside should not be completely laid waste)) came to terms, and the Romans condemned them (to turn over) lands, which lands they converted into private possessions or consigned them to a colony, which, placed on the confines of those people, served as a guard to the Roman frontiers, with usefulness as well to those colonists who received those fields as to the people of Rome, who, without expense, maintained that guard. Nor could this method be more secure, more effectual, or more useful. For, as long as the enemy were not in the fields, that guard was enough; but as soon as they went out in force to oppress that Colony, the Romans also came out in force and came to an engagement with them, and having waged and won the battle, (and), having imposed heavier conditions on them, they returned home.
Thus, little by little, they came to acquire reputation over them and strength within themselves (their state). And they kept to this method up to the time of war when they changed the method of proceeding; which was after the siege of the Veienti, where, in order to be able to wage a long war, they ordered them to pay their soldiers, (and) which at first ((since it was not necessary as the wars were short)) they did not pay. And although the Romans gave them the money, and by virtue of which they were able to wage longer wars, and to keep them at a greater distance if necessity should keep them in the field longer, none the less they never varied from the original system of finishing them quickly, according to the place and time: nor did they ever vary from sending out of colonies.
For, in the first system, the ambition of the Consuls contributed in making the wars short ((in addition to the natural custom)), who, being elected for one year, and six months of that year in quarters, wanted to finish the war in order to (have a) triumph. In the sending of colonies there was usefulness to them and resultant great convenience. They (the Romans) made a good distribution of booty, with which they were not as liberal as they were at first, as much because it did not appear to them to be so necessary ((the soldiers receiving a stipend)), as also because the booty being larger, they planned to enrich themselves of it so that the public should not be constrained to undertake the enterprises with the tributes from the City. Which system in a short time made their Treasury very rich.
These two methods, therefore, of distributing the booty and of sending of colonies, caused Rome to be enriched by the wars while other unwise Princes and Republics were impoverished (by theirs). And these were brought to such limits that a Consul did not think he could obtain a triumph unless, with his triumph, he could bring much gold and silver, and every other kind of booty into the Treasury.
Thus the Romans with the above described conditions and by finishing wars quickly, being satisfied by the length (of the wars) to massacre the enemy, and by defeating (their armies) and overrunning (their lands), and (making) accords to their advantage, always became richer and more powerful.
Nowhere have I claimed that human right, including those for women, are not reforms. Just that quite a large number of people around the world disagree.
You are falling into the trap that is almost universal, have to struggle against it myself. Here’s an example: “human rights, democracy, and fair treatment of women to be reforms ... tend to make societies that embrace them less violent and less aggressive.”
The assumption here is that everyone will agree with us that less violence and aggression is a good thing. Well, they don’t. In militaristic societies, or those based on the notion of the obligation to wage eternal war on the rest of the world until they submit, why would they view less violence or aggression as good things? Those are our values, not theirs.
Another example: Expose a 17th century Euro aristo to the notion that “all men are created equal.” He would be appalled. What, he’s the equal of his own serfs? Don’t be ridiculous. When the Founders made this statement, they said “we hold (or believe) these truths to be self-evident.” They did not claim they were facts, much less that everyone in the world agreed with them.
I probably share your values to several decimal points, but I try not to assume everybody else does.
I agree that Western societies are better for women than Muslim ones. But try to see what devout Muslims, including women, see when they look at how women are treated in the West. They see dishonor and degradation.
I’ve never said Islamic societies are virtuous, only that their sincerely held values often diverge considerably from ours.
Good read.
Notably, although the "Muslim Spring" went sour when it was hijacked by Islamists, it began as a series of protests demanding Western style political reforms. Similarly, millions of Muslims have to one degree or another chosen Western values by emigrating from Muslim lands to Europe and the US.
Consider the modern history of Japan, a society explicitly based on a warrior code. After WW II, MacArthur insisted that the Japanese adopt not just the mechanisms of democracy but also deep reforms that elevated women to equality with men. The result was a transformation of Japan into a modern, peaceful society.
Can the same process be induced within Islam? It may, as with WW II, require defeat in war, unconditional surrender, and then a long period of reformist occupation. Or, perhaps a strong, consistent US effort in the war of ideas will be enough.
After all, the crisis of Islam is that many Muslims already see themselves as losers at the bottom of the global pecking order in the measures of modern life. At the very least, we ought to explain how Islam's toxic culture can be remedied by human rights, democracy, and fair treatment of women.
I agree it’s worth a try.
This topic was posted , thanks Jacquerie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
