Posted on 04/03/2022 10:23:59 AM PDT by Renfrew
In the wake of Russia’s misadventure in Ukraine and the United States’ and NATO’s likewise disastrous pullout from Afghanistan, it’s worth speculating: is it possible that militaries can destroy things, devastate territory, and kill people but not control them?
It may be that a unit of combat power has come to cost too much for them to purchase enough units to do the job.
That is, the tendency among military professionals, civilian officials, and lawmakers is to procure the latest shiny bauble in small numbers rather than unglamorous, lower-tech implements in bulk.
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
I speculate if the Ruskies didn't have to worry about those things it'd be a lot worse in Ukraine.
Half of our population will control themselves. Put your mask on.
Yup!
To control a people by military means requires a degree of ruthlessness that the Western Judeo-Christian ethic will not tolerate. This is why placing armed troops at our Southern border is useless. Without the orders and will to cut down invaders without regard for age or sex, nothing will stop them.
This will also be the reason the white race will eventually be eliminated
🐽
The truth of this statement has been verified.
However, after thinking about the fires of Portland, and the difficulty that Russia has had in Ukraine, I do wonder about how secession would go in the US. How much effort would the ruling government be willing to make?
It's not 1861. No one wants a battle with 30,000 casualties in a day. If (let's say) Texas decided to be independent -- what would the federal government do? Oh, sure, it's easy to say that they'd call out the army and the army would be willing to shoot US citizens, and the courts would say Texas is wrong, and all of that. But at the end of the day, the cost in money, men, and materiel would be far too much for the US government. I think the attempt would be feeble, and then the rebellious state would be allowed to separate. I just don't think the US government has the power to defeat a US state. Maybe Rhode Island. But I think our fragility runs very deep now.
Completely agree. Lumping the Russian effort in Ukraine with the US in Iraq and Acghanistan implies the author does, too, though I don’t see where he says so. The Russians in Ukraine seem to be operating under fairly strict rules of engagement. They certainly are not operating like the Red Army in 1945.
Correct. The US military can’t control the southern border. But the CIA could pay Mexican army area commanders to do it, or even some drug cartels.
“How much effort would the ruling government be willing to make?”
I’m sure Klaus Schwab could raise a Euro army to ‘liberate’ America.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
This is akin to the ‘why the great powers of Europe will never go to war’ trope popular among liberal commentators around 1910. The same arguements were proffered. History demonstrated otherwise. The same today. A collision with China, which they seem to desire can easily escalate into general war and strategic exchange and bugs and gas if the Chinese get frustrated this sort of thing can get going faster than most ever imagine.
Well we do know that 200,000 Russians can't control 44 million Ukrainians.
Think about the American invasion of Iraq.
There’s your answer.
Destroying cities and road systems and poisoning croplands and water supplies is easy.
It seems to me for the last 80 years or so, only MASSIVE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES end wars in the victors’ favor.
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.