Do occupations work?

F

funtz

New Member
FutureTank said:
Well, no offense intended, but I say it like I see it. There is a lot of Ghandi mystique, but behind the scenes there was a lot of party and faction machinations since before the British left (even before WW2), and this trend has continued. I'm not saying that the Indian society is completely corrupt like its neighbours, and not even that most of the Indian political leadership is corrupt, but the way Indian democracy works is not quite how it works in the 'West'. I have talked to quite a few Indians on the subject, and they largely confirm this.


In the case of India again the case is unique. In fact India has four very different security challenges that require very versatile and flexible approach.
These are (starting in the North and going clockwise):
Kashmir - high altitude conflict with poor surface communications
Eastern border that is very difficult to secure due to the nature of terrain, but can pose direct threat to Indian society and economy.
The South - this is a socio-political issue that is thousands of years old due to the separation of Hindu and Tamil societies. I don't see a military solution.
And of course the Indo-Pakistani border that has its own challenges, but I don't see a political solution (as much as I wish there could be one).

An added challenge is Bangladesh, and what will happen to this nation and ts people if the sea levels do rise due to global climate change in the next 50 years. It may not pose a military threat to India, but it would create a socio-economic challenge which the Government will invariably attempt to solve by using the military in the same way South Africa is trying to cope with influx of illegal economic refugees from the North.
Click to expand...
I have lived in all of the four areas of concern and interacted as much as I could with the local population, well in fact been around most of the places in India of concern due to my dads job, and then been around the rest of her due to my job, my opinions are based singularly on my experience “I too say it like I see it”, and they are quite clearly different than yours, I have for the last 7 years gone back to my village just to participate in the elections by voting, not just for the heck of it but because of the very culture i grew up in.

Yes Indian Democracy will never be like let us say any other one (by the way what do you mean by western democracy?) place on earth as very few will face the same situations, that is why i said different solutions for different places (for example Iraq or Afghanistan will require unique political solutions), however solutions none the less.

however I can not retort to your previous 2 posts anymore as this is the worst place to do so.

On a political solution to the problem of the western neighbor, and more specifically the state of Jammu and Kashmir (and not just Kashmir), political solutions are being worked it will take another 30-40 years and efforts to become effective, again things I will not discuss here and waste your time.

I stand with the statement I made about military being the tool and not the solution, even in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a leadership at village/city-block level in all places no matter if they are in a war torn nation or a rich beyond imagination nation.

The role of the military should be to provide enough room for political leaders to maneuver and find solution and to provide room to their supporters to rally behind them, the military should get orders and the freedom to operate in order to fulfill them, if one expects military to bring about peace alone, I hope the generals are damn good in politics.

The situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan or any place where the military has to oversee the security (occupy in other words) can be resolved by providing political tools to the people for the resolution of the problem, with the military being the tool to do so.
As to what the political solution is, well i am at an obvious disadvantage to comment on that, i do not even know names of even ten roads in Iraq/Afghanistan let alone the true nature of political situation/complexity of the place.
 
Last edited:
F

FutureTank

Banned Member
funtz said:
I stand with the statement I made about military being the tool and not the solution, even in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a leadership at village/city-block level in all places no matter if they are in a war torn nation or a rich beyond imagination nation.

The role of the military should be to provide enough room for political leaders to maneuver and find solution and to provide room to their supporters to rally behind them, the military should get orders and the freedom to operate in order to fulfill them, if one expects military to bring about peace alone, I hope the generals are damn good in politics.

The situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan or any place where the military has to oversee the security (occupy in other words) can be resolved by providing political tools to the people for the resolution of the problem, with the military being the tool to do so.
As to what the political solution is, well i am at an obvious disadvantage to comment on that, i do not even know names of even ten roads in Iraq/Afghanistan let alone the true nature of political situation/complexity of the place.
Click to expand...
There is something that needs to change about the militaries when engaged in operations which are not in the form of conventional combat engagements. In all other cases the measure is not that of combat power, but the power to understand and change. I actually think that military staffs should have Staff sections for environmental analysis, socio-cultural impact and politico-economic management just as they have Operations, Logistics and Admin.
These should help the commander manage the human environment within which the physical combat environment is just one of many realities.This need not happen at tactical level, but certainly at operational echelons of command.

If such a measure is implemented, occupations are not only possible, but would be successful because they would approach the AO in far greater depth of engagement then just the physical environment.
 
R

radiosilence

jints
FutureTank said:
Turning to the current NATO problem in Afghanistan, it is only a lack of education in military history and a greater lack of imagination that prevents complete and quick victory over Taliban. All these NATO officers raised on the Napoleonic ideal of manoeuvre and shock have never thought past the last day of the one-week Cold War scenarios and are subsequently out of their depth in Afghanistan. And this despite MANY clues as to what is required practically all over the place.

And yet solution is simple, relatively easily implemented, and does not require significant increases in personnel
Click to expand...
You are in charge of Nato's Afghan policy, whats your solution for quick victory over the Taliban?
 
K

KGB

New Member
Afghanhistan is the way it is, for the obvious reason that no one entity has been able to exert control over it for quite a long time, not the taliban, not the soviets. Why is it so? Because there isn't that much incentive to go and claim it. When China wanted to cement it's grip on Tibet for example, they built roads and railways, and encouraged Han settlers to move in, blunt but effective cultural integration. Perhaps the same process is in effect in Palestine. They won't say it, but the coalition's true goal seems to be containment. They hope that the central government will succeed, but the plan is to keep down the taliban using a small amount of troops.

Not such a bad idea, since large scale operations like iraq are costly.
 
F

FutureTank

Banned Member
An example of how occupation doesn't work

Indonesia: Troop increase in Papua not justified, says expert

Jakarta, 14 Sept. (AKI) - An Indonesian army proposal to increase troop numbers in Papua could intensify conflict between the army and local separatists, according to a leading expert.

The Indonesian Army has proposed a third infantry division be sent to Papua to patrol border areas and other parts of the province.

"There is no justification for it and it would only worsen the situation," academic and priest, Father Neles Tebay, told Adnkronos International (AKI).

Papua, previously known as Irian Jaya, is the easternmost province in the Indonesian archipelago. It was annexed by Indonesia after a much-publicised referendum in 1969.

The government has ruled out full independence for the province, which lies on the western half of New Guinea island, and wants to stop nearly 40 years of separatist fighting there. Some sources estimate the conflict has cost more than 100,000 lives.

"Where is the threat?" said Tebay, who lives in Papua. "There are none and the troop increase is unjustified."

General Djoko Santoso, Indonesia's army chief of staff, said the troop increase would help to make border areas more secure. But Tebay disagrees.

"On the contrary, the presence of the new troops would create problems for the local population that live on the border with Papua New Guinea," Tebay told AKI. "They will be under observation and could possibly be maltreated by the military."

Tebay said in the past people living on the border were watched closely and accused of supporting the revolutionary movement.

"I am afraid that could happen again and lead to new problems," he said.

George Aditjondro, a professor who follows the army and its role in the archipelago, said Santoso's request was linked to peace in Aceh and economic incentives offered from the conflict zone.

"After peace was achieved in Aceh, Indonesian troops had to be moved and the favourite destination is Papua, due to the extra funds they get in dangerous areas," he said.

Aceh, the westernmost province of the archipelago, was granted autonomy in August 2005 after a 30-year struggle for independence.

"The request to increase the troop level shows that Jakarta has not learnt from the peace accord in Aceh and still believes that the people's wish for independence can be silenced with military strength," Aditjondro told AKI.

Speaking to reporters in Jakarta this week, Santoso defended the army's proposal which still requires government approval.

"We need strong armed forces to maintain the unity of our country," Santoso said.
 
F

FutureTank

Banned Member
FutureTank said:
George Aditjondro, a professor who follows the army and its role in the archipelago, said Santoso's request was linked to peace in Aceh and economic incentives offered from the conflict zone.

"After peace was achieved in Aceh, Indonesian troops had to be moved and the favourite destination is Papua, due to the extra funds they get in dangerous areas," he said.

Aceh, the westernmost province of the archipelago, was granted autonomy in August 2005 after a 30-year struggle for independence.

"The request to increase the troop level shows that Jakarta has not learnt from the peace accord in Aceh and still believes that the people's wish for independence can be silenced with military strength," Aditjondro told AKI.

Speaking to reporters in Jakarta this week, Santoso defended the army's proposal which still requires government approval.

"We need strong armed forces to maintain the unity of our country," Santoso said.
Click to expand...
If TNI wanted to send troops to dangerous places for higher pay (combat pay), they can always send a division to Afghanistan or Iraq :)

Is any country that needs a "strong armed forces to maintain the unity" really united? :confused:

West Papua has a population of approximately 800,000, making it one of the least populous of all Indonesian provinces. Papua itself has about 2,795,182 (2005) in population. So for about 3.5 million population TNI needs three infantry divisions? And this is in addition to local police and regional infantry battalions (about a brigade in all). Thats about one soldier/police officer for every 80 civilians. Dupuy suggested a long time ago that the average an occupation needs to achieve to be effective is about 1:100 ratio.

As a matter of fact Achenese gave up when a tsunami washed over much of their coastal population and therefore destroyed much of their support base. Some "peace accord" :(
 
K

KGB

New Member
FutureTank said:
If TNI wanted to send troops to dangerous places for higher pay (combat pay), they can always send a division to Afghanistan or Iraq :)
Click to expand...
Blackwater was reported to be considering establishing a training/recruiting facility conveniently located the Philippines
 
C

crusader91

New Member
Sometimes brutality is quite useful in occupation of a place,but not necessary razing down a place.I feel that the japanese in world war 2,although they are cruel by chopping off heads of people for minor offences,people in asia came to fear them and they learned not to mess with them and relatively make things easier for the invaders with few resistance that may tie down their troops for war efforts elsewhere.However,the side effect is people hating them more and feel more motivated to resist but majority of the population will not due to fear of implicating their family members.Well,for major powers like USA,they can't do this in iraq due to international opinion.
 
F

FutureTank

Banned Member
crusader91 said:
Sometimes brutality is quite useful in occupation of a place,but not necessary razing down a place.I feel that the japanese in world war 2,although they are cruel by chopping off heads of people for minor offences,people in asia came to fear them and they learned not to mess with them and relatively make things easier for the invaders with few resistance that may tie down their troops for war efforts elsewhere.However,the side effect is people hating them more and feel more motivated to resist but majority of the population will not due to fear of implicating their family members.Well,for major powers like USA,they can't do this in iraq due to international opinion.
Click to expand...
Beheading was a standard form of execution throughout Asia before Europeans arrived there, and was introduced to Japan from China.
Beheading was also a standard form of execution in the Islamic world until recently.
 
C

crusader91

New Member
FutureTank said:
Beheading was a standard form of execution throughout Asia before Europeans arrived there, and was introduced to Japan from China.
Beheading was also a standard form of execution in the Islamic world until recently.
Click to expand...
The point is not about beheading.My conclusion is people who are occupied will be obiedient when they are scared.
 
Y

yeahwhat

New Member
Well parts of China are free and parts are occupied. Japan never fully occupied China.

Beheading was a standard form of execution throughout Asia before Europeans arrived there, and was introduced to Japan from China.
Beheading was also a standard form of execution in the Islamic world until recently.
Click to expand...
And I'm not sure what the guillotine does.
 
F

FutureTank

Banned Member
yeahwhat said:
Well parts of China are free and parts are occupied. Japan never fully occupied China.


And I'm not sure what the guillotine does.
Click to expand...
It certainly doesn't do what was suggested. Entirely different use of a rather gruesome method. Of course beheading was not new to Europe either, but the discussion turned to Asia.
 
C

crusader91

New Member
FutureTank said:
It certainly doesn't do what was suggested. Entirely different use of a rather gruesome method. Of course beheading was not new to Europe either, but the discussion turned to Asia.
Click to expand...
Psychological fear is what the invaders want to instill in minds of conquered citizens.
Not necessary killing,torturing also considered.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top