Do occupations work?

[paul1234]

Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster here so please be nice

What are people's thoughts about occupations, that is, the army of one country occupying another, such as the current US occupation in Iraq?

In ancient times when countries occupied one another, such as when the Romains captured Carthage, they would pretty much flatten the place. People would be massacred, the land was salted (damaging its ability to yield food), and the cities would generally be raised to the ground and the people led off as slaves. It was pretty horrible, but it generally worked - once a city was captured soldiers didn't generally spend the next few years just trying to keep the peace (with some exceptions of course).

With democratic nations today, such a practice would be considered barbaric, and rightly so. But the actual invasion stage of Iraq - the clash between armies - seemed to be over very, very quickly - but we've since been there just trying to hold the peace.

So my question is, with democratic government and our more civilised (we hope) view on the world, is occupation of another country a viable strategy anymore? Do you see this as one of the big lessons we'll learn from Iraq?

 

[icelord]

wait, so while not endorsing the scorched earth policy, your asking if it would work, well yes, with no one around then there would be no need for occupation, just umm, don't expect the rest of the world, or your own country for that matter to ever help you again.

Occupation is not always planned for(Iraq). The US was unprepared and had no occupying force, the sheer speed of the attack did not wear down resistance as much as they had planned, and the opposition forces who were wiped out in 93/94 led many to not immediately support the Coalition. This added with disbanding the Army put the occupation well behind a starting point.
For occupations to work, there must be internal strife, fear and distrust of the Present regime for an alternative to be accepted, much like a democratic nation, the people must seek change for it to happen.
Perhaps the US and other countries need a dedicated foreign Security detachment, much like our Federal police operations Response Group who have worked in East Timor, Solomons and for the UN. The Detachment would re-train local police, clean out corruption and work alongside police and Army of the occupied nation.
But such a move would stir up the jokes "team America, world police" and the New world order and so on.

 

[Rich]

Throughout history there are two types of occupations that have worked.

The first type is the occupation that is brutal and arrests or murders Intelligentsia and leadership. Examples would be the Soviet occupation of Germany after WW-11, or, the Nazi occupation of Poland. Post Vietnam occupation of the South would be another.

The 2'nd kind is when the occupying force keeps a skeleton Govt. and military/Police apparatus functioning in the occupied country. Examples would be the Allied occupation of Japan and Germany after WW-ll. Or Germany in France and Vichy France.

Both need adequate boots on the ground to be effective.

In Iraq we did everything wrong we possibly could. And we ignored the lessons learned in history.

 

[old faithful]

Throughout history there are two types of occupations that have worked.

The first type is the occupation that is brutal and arrests or murders Intelligentsia and leadership. Examples would be the Soviet occupation of Germany after WW-11, or, the Nazi occupation of Poland. Post Vietnam occupation of the South would be another.

The 2'nd kind is when the occupying force keeps a skeleton Govt. and military/Police apparatus functioning in the occupied country. Examples would be the Allied occupation of Japan and Germany after WW-ll. Or Germany in France and Vichy France.

Both need adequate boots on the ground to be effective.

In Iraq we did everything wrong we possibly could. And we ignored the lessons learned in history.

God, i hate to say it...Rich you are absolutley right....

 

[merocaine]

In ancient times when countries occupied one another, such as when the Romains captured Carthage, they would pretty much flatten the place. People would be massacred, the land was salted (damaging its ability to yield food), and the cities would generally be raised to the ground and the people led off as slaves. It was pretty horrible, but it generally worked - once a city was captured soldiers didn't generally spend the next few years just trying to keep the peace (with some exceptions of course).

I'd say thats pretty wide of the mark, the Romans, Persians, Arabs, all built large long lasting multinational empires without resorting to scorched earth tactics, thats not to say they werent employed, but that they were very much the exception and not the rule.
In ancient times things were a bit different, even up to the 16th century Multinational empires werent unusal. Modern nation states with there own brand of nationalism, civic religions, sence of superiorty and destany make occupations much more difficult to carry out.
Brutal empires like the Soviet Union used the threat of massive retaliation to keep there subjects in line, begein occupations like that of the allies in Germany after the war had two things going for them, one that Germany had been totally defeated and a large percentage of there most agressive fighting men were dead or maimed, and a real horror of being occupied by the Russians.

The Americans might have made a lot of bad moves in Iraq, but even if they made all the right ones, they still would have been up against a well armed, embittered, proud, nasnalistic population that shares very little in common with there occupiers, neither religion, politics, economics, socital oragisation, common history/roots. It was always going to be a big ask, even without the missteps.

 

[Rich]

God, i hate to say it...Rich you are absolutley right....

Do you ever contribute anything of value? Or do anything other then following me around trying to bait me? You play a 2 faced game OF. You try to get a reaction and then run to the Mods to snitch when you do. Its for these reasons I'm putting you on ignore, "in case you wonder why I'll never respond to you again", plus the fact you never say anything of value.

I dont know you and you dont know me. Saying such ridiculous statements like the above makes me think you should take a little break from the computer for awhile.

 

[Rich]

I would add that all occupations that have worked, with the exception of post WW-ll Japan, have all had the "brutal" option available. Even post WW-ll west Germany the Allied powers, while benign when compared to the Soviets, did use assassination outside the law on occasion. The Brits in particular paid the Nazis back in spades and didn't bother with trials for the Nazis who murdered and tortured their soldiers during the war. Their payback was a bullet in the back of the head on a lonely country road at 0300 hrs. All the Allies assassinated enemies during occupation.

After the war there was a Nazi terror underground called "Werewolf". Werewolf essentially was tasked with the same activities the current guerrilla groups in Iraq are. We were pretty brutal in putting down Werewolf, it must also be noted that they didn't have much support in 1945-'46 Germany as the nation was war weary. Even still the Werewolf's we captured didn't have naked pyramids to look forward to, or dogs barking at them. We started beating them and didn't stop until they gave up other werewolves.

The Japan occupation, on the other hand, was an occupation unlike any other in history. When the Japanese Emperor, Hirohito, told his people to stop fighting and assist the occupation forces it was the same thing as Jesus telling Christians to do the same. There was never any chance of the occupation failing as long as Hirohito was on board.

On the other hand Douglas Macarthur had to protect the royal family from war crimes prosecution in order to get this assistance, even tho the royal family was guilty as hell. Most of all in the Nan-king massacre where the emperors favored uncle was in command.

Its a fascinating story actually.

 

[merocaine]

On the other hand Douglas Macarthur had to protect the royal family from war crimes prosecution in order to get this assistance, even tho the royal family was guilty as hell. Most of all in the Nan-king massacre where the emperors favored uncle was in command.

Its a fascinating story actually.

Mac Aurther did a great job in Japan, and in the grand scheme of Post war Asia letting the Royals away with murder was a small price to pay.

The Werewolves never really got off the ground, but they did have one notable success when they murdered an American appointed mayor in Achen (i think).
The difference to the Iraqis is the Iraqi's never believed that they had been beaten, after the "war" ended they could'ent wait to start fighting again.

 

[old faithful]

one of the major problems of military occupations,is the fact that it creates different factions of resistance. When the occupying force leaves the country,it is ussually under the political command of the occupiers choice. This causes some of the other resistance groups to try and over throw the government and can lead to civil war. Again the country becomes a breeding ground for terrorists. I think that when Iraq is left to its own devices, Syrian and Iranian groups will greatly influence some factions untill we have another bathist like party contesting leadership. it will be easy for them to gain support from dissillusioned locals,plenty of kids hate all the nations in the occuping force already. The war on terror is not being won in Iraq. I can see the US coming and going in the middle east for some years yet.
Is there an alternative to military occupation?

 

[merocaine]

Is there an alternative to military occupation

If you need to invade and occupy a country, you better have a damn good reason for it. Sometimes you have a real need, sometimes you dont. The Russians had a real need to occupy eastern europe and Germany at the end of the second world war, America to occupy Japan, Islam had a real need to expand its infulence against the Persians and Byzantines, sometimes there is no choice, clear sighted leadership demands you garrante your future.
Other times theres hubris, like Nepolonic France, what can only be called evil in Nazi Germany, dynastic conviction with Hapsburg Empire in the low countries, a belief your invincible with Russia in Afganistan/the US in Iraq.

An alternative to occupation? real Leadership, the kind that can make clear moral judgements, and distingush between reality and fantasy.

But again the Europeans managed to carve the world up between them for a few hundred years, at a fairly managable cost to there socities. But then we seem to have lost the Imperial mindset.... The europeans never tried to export there system of goverment to non western countries they conqured, because being racists they believed that the savages would'ent be capable of setting up funtioning democracies. They had a point, in africa in the 60's they imported western ideas by the shedful, it was an absolute disaster, almost without fail they reverted back to trible grouping, with the biggest tribe installing there dictator. Outside of Europe and ex European colonys how many real multiparty democracies with citizen rights exist?

Can the US do better in Iraq and Afganistan? IMO no, what will evolve in those countries will not resemble democracy as we know it in the west, but rather client democracy (if thier lucky) but most lighty domination by one sectarian group in Iraq, and domination by another in Afganistan (traditionally the Pashtuns, but ablely resisted by the Hazara and Tajiks), perhaps with some trappings of democracy for show.
But at the end of the day, afganistan is a shithole in the middle of nowhere,
its stratigic value amounts to a proposed oil pipeline which may never be built.
As long as its not harbouring terrorists and has a reasonable goverment the Americans can declare job done and get out, and it will be.
Iraq? your looking at a commitment as long as the occupation of Germany or Japan, even then its a big gamble. Get out any sooner and Iran wins, simple as.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster here so please be nice

What are people's thoughts about occupations, that is, the army of one country occupying another, such as the current US occupation in Iraq?

In ancient times when countries occupied one another, such as when the Romains captured Carthage, they would pretty much flatten the place. People would be massacred, the land was salted (damaging its ability to yield food), and the cities would generally be raised to the ground and the people led off as slaves. It was pretty horrible, but it generally worked - once a city was captured soldiers didn't generally spend the next few years just trying to keep the peace (with some exceptions of course).

With democratic nations today, such a practice would be considered barbaric, and rightly so. But the actual invasion stage of Iraq - the clash between armies - seemed to be over very, very quickly - but we've since been there just trying to hold the peace.

So my question is, with democratic government and our more civilised (we hope) view on the world, is occupation of another country a viable strategy anymore? Do you see this as one of the big lessons we'll learn from Iraq?

In the 21st century, you see the rise of more democratic nations. But in regards to occupation, I say that if may vary on the country in question that is the occupier. And the country that is being occupied, also you have to consider the factors of the region, the politics, and just who may want to intervene on the side of the nation who is being occupied.

All of these can work out positively or negatively for a superpower or any other nation thinking or already engaged in a occupation.

 

[KGB]

I would submit that the US occupation of the Philippines 1898 - 1946 would be one of the most successfull ever. It put down a determined guerilla moveent and established a regime that has been consistently US friendly. Contributory to the success were:

1) US did not overturn existing social structures; instead co opting the ruling class (read buying them off) with lucrative contracts etc. Similar to the way the US used Hirohito.

2) Massive public spending; roads, hospitals, and SCHOOLS. In a generation English became widespread, and Spanish nearly forgotten.

3) No foreign fighters/preachers/arms etc possible due to the insular terrain

4) No holds barred collateral damage (massacres etc). Soldier's letters home were censored for possible scandals. Hamletting; eg relocating civilians in guarded camps to deny insurgents resources etc.

5) Near total information control. The atrocities were largely forgotten, also helped by the fact that the victims didn't survive to tell.

Interesting that it seems none of these conditions can apply to Iraq though.

 

[riksavage]

The British Raj , British rule between 1858 and 1947 of the Indian Subcontinent, which included the present-day India, Bangladesh and Pakistan all three came under the colonial control of the United Kingdom as part of the British Empire.

The British through a process of conquer and negotiation united smaller independent states, built a network of railways, introduced a civil service system, introduced tea from China, rubber form South America, democratic processes, and finally the English language (more people speak English in India than the USA).

 

[riksavage]

Following on form my comments above, The Indian Mutiny or Rebellion of 1857 (depends which side you were on) has similar parallels to today’s conflict in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was driven by strong religious conviction with Christian pitted against Muslim / Hindu with no quarter given on either side. Following the Cawnpore massacre the British took no prisoners firing captured foe from the mouths of cannons.

The following wiki comment provides a pretty concise overview of events:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Mutiny#Cawnpore_.28Kanpur.29

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

In ancient times when countries occupied one another, such as when the Romains captured Carthage, they would pretty much flatten the place. People would be massacred, the land was salted (damaging its ability to yield food), and the cities would generally be raised to the ground and the people led off as slaves. It was pretty horrible, but it generally worked - once a city was captured soldiers didn't generally spend the next few years just trying to keep the peace (with some exceptions of course).

This isn't compleatly accurate. The romans were experts at holding a big stick and talking softley. In a campaign such as the invasion of gaul or hispania, most tribes allied voluntarily after other stronger tribes or sponsor nations (like carthage) were defeated on the battlefield. Some cities were definatly raised with massive bloodshead and looting, however this was not the norm. Most of Gaul was captured intact, apart from any tribal armies that faced Ceasar in battle and a couple of cities that put up stiff resistance. So the wanten death and distruction was only used in specific sircumstances to send a message that resistance was indeed futile. Most of the empire was gained (after the 2nd punic war at least) rather peacefully after the nation's being invaded's army was defeated in battle.

As far as carthage goes the only reason it was dealt with as brutaly as happened in the 3rd punic war, was the memory of the price baid in roman blood in the 2nd punic war. In the 50yrs of peace after the 2nd punic war the dreaded memory of hannibal and the frightfull price paid fermented in Rome. The justification used to go to war with carthage a third time, even though they posed absoloutly no threat whatsoever, was the heated rhetoric of cultural threat and vengance. Carthage was obliterated and earth was indeed "salted" so nothing could grow again (although a Roman Carthage was built not far from the original site and soon became a thriving city as wealthy as its punic counterpart and the first city in the wealthy provinces of North Africa, so how much earth was "salted" is questionable). This treatment was rare for roman enemies, not because they were humane, but because of the economic cost of rebuilding shattered conquests.

The Romans did however deal wth many uprisings and only one of them was sucsessfull untill the 5th century (so about 400yrs). The roman army was experts at counter insurgancy warfare. A perfect example is the campaign to quell the uprising by germanic tribes between the Rine and Elbe rivers led by (funnily enough) Germanicus. Like the majority attempted at the time, this uprising was crushed under the boots of the roman army. There are a few reasons why they were so sucsessfull at counter insurgency campaigns. There total commitment to the cause was perhaps there greatest asset. This unshakable will to commit everything to total war that served them so well conventional warfare didn't hurt a counter insurgency campaign at all. Only once were roman losses so appauling that a region was abandoned. The battle of the Tuteboug forrest 3 legions pluss auxillaries were ambushed and slaughtered by a germanic tribal army, which lead to the abandonment of germany. Only this massive loss was enough to shake roman will. A low intencity "gurilla" campaign was seen by the romans as little threat, due to the tiny dent such losses would make on manpower and monetary reserves. Some other very effective tactics used by the romans were the mersiless treatment of insurgents and the supporting civil population (the romans didn't share our concernes about humane treatment), coupled with the offereing of citizenship for the population, economic growth and the envolvement of the local aristocracy. This combination of absoulout slaughter of rebelious people/cities, men women and children, with the benifits of roman citizenship for the aristocracy and the general population was verry sucsessfull at wining counter insurgency campaigns. In the long term the asimilation and exportation of roman culture meant that gaulic tribesmen soon spoke latin and thought of themselves as roman as the senators in rome. This combination of short term and long term strategy was extreemly sucsessfull and granted one city rule over most of europe.

Many site gurilla campaigns and some of the resent sucsesses of this strategy. However it is the tactic of the weak.Throughout history this has usually failed miserably.

 

[KGB]

The Yuan Dynasty was techincaly a Mongol occupation of China, and so was the Manchu. In China apparently, the social structures were so strong that the occupiers were subsumed into the goverment; the way a coup de etat would change the cabinet but leave the civil service system alone today.

That would be similar to the US occupation of Japan; it was an orderly society to start with; once the goverment changed the people cooperated.

Now an occupation of a dysfunctional state (or a non state) would be another matter. In places like Somalia, Afghanhistan, Iraq (?), any sort of rule foreign or local would have to be imposed with a strong hand. Saddam was quoted as saying that Iraq had to be held together the way he held it together and in a way he was right. The difficulties the US faces in Iraq isn't just that of an occupation - it's creating a functional stable non tyrannic state where none existed before.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

I would submit that the US occupation of the Philippines 1898 - 1946 would be one of the most successfull ever. It put down a determined guerilla moveent and established a regime that has been consistently US friendly. Contributory to the success were:

1) US did not overturn existing social structures; instead co opting the ruling class (read buying them off) with lucrative contracts etc. Similar to the way the US used Hirohito.

2) Massive public spending; roads, hospitals, and SCHOOLS. In a generation English became widespread, and Spanish nearly forgotten.

3) No foreign fighters/preachers/arms etc possible due to the insular terrain

4) No holds barred collateral damage (massacres etc). Soldier's letters home were censored for possible scandals. Hamletting; eg relocating civilians in guarded camps to deny insurgents resources etc.

5) Near total information control. The atrocities were largely forgotten, also helped by the fact that the victims didn't survive to tell.

Interesting that it seems none of these conditions can apply to Iraq though.

Different times and mentalities, though these points applied and somewhat benefited the occupation of the Philippines. One also must consider the fact that Saddam wasn't actually a liked, and also the region wasn't as hostile as the middle east. So in theory an occupation and its outcome in the long run, reflects the political and social surrounding that they take place in.

 

[lancemaria]

not all country are democratic.

 

[Falstaff]

Interesting thread really.

As far as Germany after WW2 is concerned I think one can learn a lot how occupations can work:
Most people forget that there were two different kinds of occupations, one being the occupation of western Germany by Britain, France and the US, the other being the occupation of eastern Germany by the Soviets.
One worked out and left behind a stable and wealthy democracy that today is critizised for being too careful with its military- who would've thought of that?- the other left behind a communist regime which wasn't able to survive economically and broke down in 1989/90 because the German people couldn't stand their regime any longer and longed for reunification with the wealthy and free western part.

Ok, there are several things that helped the allies: Germany was occupied by forces that shared their belief (christian) and a multi-century long common history. And all major European powers were strongly connected for more than 1000 years in terms of policy and culture. And forgive me, although you colonials founded a nation recently (the USA) you still have European roots.
This is a fact that doesn't apply to most occupations in recent times, I think. These troops weren't complete strangers. They looked the same if you know what I mean.

There are two things that this occupation had in common with the Iraqi situation: The country was a dictatorship before and there are certain commonalities between the Baath-party and the NSDAP. Second, the German people too didn't have too much sense for and experience with practicing democracy apart from that few years of the "Weimarer Republik" that bridged the years from WW1 to the dawn of the Nazis in 1933.

I think that there are several points why one worked and the other didn't:
German Democratic Republic:
- in the eastern part, one "top-down" ideology was replaced with another that didn't fit the cultural and philosophical roots of the German people
- in the eastern part, the regime could not provide wealth for the people, esp. in comparison to the western part; perhaps the most important thing here
- the GDR was a terror regime to some degree, using the "Stasi" to control the minds of the population and striking hard against opponents, so called "dissidents"
- the Soviet forces were never really liked by the common people as they were seen as occupiers till the end, while in the west the allies after some time were seen as defenders and friends

Federal Republic of Germany:
- in the west there was a "denazification" at higher levels but key structures remained intact such as administration and police
- with lots of money the allies enabled the economical rise of western Germany to today's 3rd biggest economical power after the USA and Japan, creating wealth for the people
- beginning just after WW2 the western part started to work up the Nazi-era, a process that lasts until today and had astonishing and healthful results for our society (as you know I'm German, so I say "our"), creating serious debates covering all aspects of that era; in the eastern part that part of history was mainly hushed up

So I tend to say the occupation of west germany did work out perfectly and perhaps is the most successful in history.

 

[merocaine]

beginning just after WW2 the western part started to work up the Nazi-era, a process that lasts until today and had astonishing and healthful results for our society (as you know I'm German, so I say "our"), creating serious debates covering all aspects of that era; in the eastern part that part of history was mainly hushed up

So I tend to say the occupation of west germany did work out perfectly and perhaps is the most successful in history.

Just as an aside, I had a girlfriend from the East(Berlin), she was about 10 when the wall came down, so did'ent really have much knowlage of the political situation. But her parents were really interesting to talk too, they were real live communists, or were anyway, they said that they knew the system was sick, but that they believed it could be fixed. After the GDR was abolished they felt that they had been lied to by the FDR, mainly because they thought that things were never that bad in the east and it could be preserved in some way, a lot of there friends felt the same kind of attachment to the GDR.
They also felt that the GDR had done a lot better job of denazisfacation than the West, they were a lot less guilty about what had happened during the war than most west germans I meet too.

Thats not to say they did'ent have a better life in the reunified Germany, both of them had professional careers and had done very well for themselves, and were quite content.
But still they were nostalgic for the old days, esp the 70's when they felt that they east had developed into a prosperous communist state (compared to the rest of the east and russia!).

My girlfriend was also (and her Mum) really into equality of the sexes and feminisim, which they said was tauth like a subject in school. I used to pretend to be sexist just to drive her crazy!