Machiavelli and Iraq

[cj_finn]

I’ve been re-reading The Prince during my commute and I can’t help but wonder if our president and his advisors skipped reading this one. The question I have here is whether applying Machiavelli’s principles would have eased the conquest of Iraq? I know that we are not supposed to think about the liberation of a soveriegn nation in terms of conquest, but for all practical purposes, that is what it has amounted to; at least in the short run.

Machiavelli advocates colonizing conquered countries having very distinct cultures. I can’t say that this would be a good idea. M’s idea is as follows:

Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one can no longer remedy them.

One thing we might take away from this is the idea that we need more people on the ground. Not just soldiers, but folks that will keep us tuned in to what is going on. Intelligence agents, informers, gossips, etc. How we might get these folks on board is beyond me. Any ideas? While colonizing just isn’t going to happen, more soldiers might not be the answer either as according to M: “For every reason, therefore, such guards are as useless as a colony is useful.”

Another thing Machiavelli advocates is avoiding the middle of the road approach. In his own words:

Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; thereofre the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.

So, you kill 'em with kindness or just plain kill 'em. I feel that we’ve already broken this commandment and are “stand[ing] in fear of revenge.” So what could we do to help out? It seems to me that we should pull out soon and get some third party such as the UN or Iran (they seem to be very anxious to “help” the Iraqis ) to administer some massive investment. Alternativley, we crank up the draft and put a GI on every street corner with live ammunition. This idea horrifies me, but with enough GI’s, it might just work, at least long enough for us to gracefully leave.

The final theme from Machiavelli that I want to describe relates to the clever use of statecraft. Machiavelli decribes how the Romans managed their conquests by carefully ensuring that the minor powers in the region were maintained as friends and that any that might challenge them were quickly and efficiently dealt with. The tool (a gladius) that the Romans used as often as not was not particularly elegant, but it was effective. Though what we should consider is that the Romans actively managed these types of affairs and kept things balanced so as to maintain stability. They gathered intelligence, put people on the ground, and just generally got the job done. The Romans were very straightforward about what they were about, knew and accepted what would happen if they messed it up, and took a craftsman’s pride in getting the job done, if not right, at least done. This last bit is my own take on what Machiavelli thought about the Romans, but I don’t think he would disagree.

I think this last theme is the most difficult for us today. Our leadership hasn’t been very straightforward about why we are in Iraq or what is going on there and the US doesn’t seem to have the desire to employ some of the messier means that might be required to give Iraq a good start.

Based on this, it would seem prudent for the US to tuck its tail up between its legs and get out of Iraq. It would be a serious kick in the nads for the US, prideful as it is, but in Machiavellian terms, that is, practical ones, it would seem the best course. To use a more modern phrase, Machiavelli was all about “go big or go home” and I can’t really disagree with this sentiment as applied to Iraq. While some would argue that we can’t just cut and run, we might be able to take a few Machiavellian ideas to heart and start taking it to the terrorists.

So, from the view point of Machiavelli, how might we improve our current position in Iraq?

cj finn

[Rashak_Mani]

Iraq is small fish… the US has in a way or other managed to retain an amazing amount of control of world events with relatively little actual use of military power. The occasional big unsheating of the sword always proving disastrous. Bush hasn’t been reading Machiavelli… former presidents and their advisors did and well.

Now back to Iraq… there is a reason why you don’t openly invade countries… and why powers usually resort to supporting resistance groups and puppet rulers. It makes it all the more palatable to the conquered. Something lost to the current administration.

Now if you really want to be depressed... read Sun Tzu's "Art of War"... even more stuff that got neglected. I think they should stop reading only the bible.

[NoPretentiousCodename]

I suppose the answer to the question of whether or not to follow Machiavelli’s “principles” depends on how serious you think he was when he wrote The Prince.

One lecturer put it thusly:

My take on this book is representative of a widely held (but distinctly minority) view of The Prince, namely, that the book is, first and foremost, a satire, so that many of the things we find in it which are contradictory, morally absurd, and specious are there quite deliberately in order to ridicule two things—first, the Medici family itself and, second, the very notion of tyrannical rule embodied in the government of the Prince (hence, the satire has a firm moral purpose—to expose tyranny and promote republican government). Such a way of reading this text, it should be clear, is distinctly at odds with any reading which assumes that Machiavelli’s analysis and text are totally without ironical undercurrents which qualify, indeed contradict, his literal “message.”

While certainly not the definative last word on the subject, that lecture can be found here and is included to articulate a position I agree with. Now, only Machiavelli (and his hairdresser) knows for sure, but I think the dude pulled off one of history’s great whooshes.

So I suppose that I would take a dim view of applying The Prince to any current situation.

[BrainGlutton]

@NoPretentiousCodename

I suppose the answer to the question of whether or not to follow Machiavelli’s “principles” depends on how serious you think he was when he wrote The Prince.

My understanding is, it was not a satire but a resume. Machiavelli hoped some prince (a Borgia, ideally) would read his book and hire him as a counselor. Didn’t work.

[ExTank]

Could be the invasion of Iraq was meant to serve at least two purposes, possibly more:

1. Act as a “lightning rod” for terrorists and terrorist activities at a place other than American soil.

2. Using increased terrorist activity vis-a-vis Iraq to track and identify the world terrorist network through their movements of funds, equipment and personnel.

3. (Maybe) Bring a cultural civil-war to the middle east and have the Muslims sort themsleves out with AK-47’s and RPG’s without too many American/Western casualties. It is so much more efficient to have your enemies kill each other than having them gang up to kill you.

Of course, Abu Grahb is the biggest monkey in the wrench, costing a great deal of political and diplomatic capital. Von Clausewicz would have predicted Abu Grahb; if not in detail then at least in kind. Nicolo may have as well.

All-in-all, I cannot help but think that the post-war occupatiuon of Iraq has been almost criminally mismanaged at the highest levels of civilian authority, as if someone had merely slimmed the cliff-notes version of Machiavelli, Sun-Tzu and Von Clauswicz.

[legion]

@cj finn

Machiavelli advocates colonizing conquered countries having very distinct cultures. I can’t say that this would be a good idea. M’s idea is as follows:

One thing we might take away from this is the idea that we need more people on the ground. Not just soldiers, but folks that will keep us tuned in to what is going on. Intelligence agents, informers, gossips, etc.

I’m not that well aquainted with Machiwhatever the hell his name is but I’m pretty sure that most of the bad guys we have engaged in conflict with in the past have stood great store in “folks that will keep us tuned in to what is going on. Intelligence agents, informers, gossips, etc.”

:dubious:

[drewbert]

@ExTank

Could be the invasion of Iraq was meant to serve at least two purposes, possibly more:

4. Get the military a new home in the middle east that’s not Saudi Arabia?

[ExTank]

Kind of a hard way to go about doing that, ain’t it, drew? I mean, c’mon, there have got to be other countries in the region that would glady accept Great Satan Dollars and allow us pig infidels to desecrate the more desolate portions of their Holy Land (“Mohammed Slept Here!”) with our filthy war machines.

BTW, slimmed = skimmed.

[BrainGlutton]

@ExTank

Could be the invasion of Iraq was meant to serve at least two purposes, possibly more:

1. Act as a “lightning rod” for terrorists and terrorist activities at a place other than American soil.

That’s not working out too well, is it? There have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001, but I attribute that to increased vigilance by law enforcement and government and citizens generally. Meanwhile, terrorists are doing their thing, and usually getting away with it, in Iraq and a lot of other places.

@ExTank

2. Using increased terrorist activity vis-a-vis Iraq to track and identify the world terrorist network through their movements of funds, equipment and personnel.

That’s not working out too well either, is it?

@ExTank

3. (Maybe) Bring a cultural civil-war to the middle east and have the Muslims sort themsleves out with AK-47’s and RPG’s without too many American/Western casualties. It is so much more efficient to have your enemies kill each other than having them gang up to kill you.

In the long run, maybe. At the moment, we’ve given all the various discontented factions in Iraq a common enemy – us – and we’ve given the Arab League and even the whole Islamic world a reason to present a united front against the Western enemy.

@ExTank

All-in-all, I cannot help but think that the post-war occupatiuon of Iraq has been almost criminally mismanaged at the highest levels of civilian authority, as if someone had merely slimmed the cliff-notes version of Machiavelli, Sun-Tzu and Von Clauswicz.

Amen to that.

[glee]

@cj finn

I’ve been re-reading The Prince during my commute and I can’t help but wonder if our president and his advisors skipped reading this one. The question I have here is whether applying Machiavelli’s principles would have eased the conquest of Iraq?

You can go back further. Do you think the US should have considered the likely consequences when they installed Saddam in power?

@cj finn

One thing we might take away from this is the idea that we need more people on the ground. Not just soldiers, but folks that will keep us tuned in to what is going on. Intelligence agents, informers, gossips, etc. How we might get these folks on board is beyond me. Any ideas?

And is Bush going to listen?

“SECRET government papers have revealed that Tony Blair was warned a year before the invasion of Iraq about the problems the country would face after the war.”

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1097512004

@cj finn

So what could we do to help out? It seems to me that we should pull out soon and get some third party such as the UN or Iran (they seem to be very anxious to “help” the Iraqis ) to administer some massive investment. Alternativley, we crank up the draft and put a GI on every street corner with live ammunition. This idea horrifies me, but with enough GI’s, it might just work, at least long enough for us to gracefully leave.

Bush ignored the UN and invaded. Now you expect the UN to step in to save the US, huh?

“Kofi Annan declares US invasion of Iraq illegal.”

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1200535.htm

As for your second idea, I can visualise a massive US force enforcing a curfew throughout Iraq. (Of course no member of the Bush family will be there - they’ll be defending the US from Alabama! :rolleyes: ).
But how do they leave? Won’t people be shooting at them?

George Santayana: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

I have this recollection of the last helicopter leaving the US Embassy, with people desperately struggling to get on it.
Iraq, the new Vietnam.

@cj finn

The final theme from Machiavelli that I want to describe relates to the clever use of statecraft. Machiavelli decribes how the Romans managed their conquests by carefully ensuring that the minor powers in the region were maintained as friends and that any that might challenge them were quickly and efficiently dealt with.

Statecraft. Bush.
No, sorry, can’t see it at all. Didn’t he once say he was on a crusade in the region?

@cj finn

I think this last theme is the most difficult for us today. Our leadership hasn’t been very straightforward about why we are in Iraq or what is going on there and the US doesn’t seem to have the desire to employ some of the messier means that might be required to give Iraq a good start.

But we all know why Bush invaded!
The US was attacked by terrorists from Saudi Arabia, prepared to die to remove US troops from Holy Soil.
The US couldn’t remove its troops and bases from Saudi while Saddam could have invaded (as per Kuwait).
Therefore Saddam had to be overthrown.
(Plus you get oil contracts as a bonus!)

I would like to know what you mean by employing ‘messier means’ in Iraq. Does it involve civilians at all?

[msmith537]

Eveyone reads The Prince or Sun Tzu and thinks that all of a sudden they should be Secretary of State.

What makes you think we don’t have intel people on the ground in Iraq? And after reading The Prince, the conclusion is we should pack up and go home?

I don’t think you are reading Machiavelli closely enough:

"is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force. "

"there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm (indifferent, uninterested) defenders in those who may do well under the new. "

"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. "

"The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow. "

[BrainGlutton]

@msmith537

"is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force. "

How we gonna manage that? In Iraq or anywhere else?

@msmith537

"The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow. "

There are innumerable counterexamples. Hussein’s regime had good arms. Did it have good laws?

[ExTank]

BG:

That’s not working out too well, is it? There have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001, but I attribute that to increased vigilance by law enforcement and government and citizens generally. Meanwhile, terrorists are doing their thing, and usually getting away with it, in Iraq and a lot of other places.

Actually, if my first assumption is correct, then the invasion of Iraq is working out beautifully by presenting a great big old American mlitary target right out there in the middle east where Al-Queda can get quite easily get at it. It’s only cost us some 1,000 soldiers.

That’s not working out too well either, is it?

I honestly don’t know; what’s your security clearance? Are you getting the raw feed from Condi Rice? I will admit to the ordinary observer such as myself that things don’t look so hot, but what a guy like me doesn’t see and hear about Intelligence Operations Conducted By National Intelligence Means could fill volumes.

In the long run, maybe. At the moment, we’ve given all the various discontented factions in Iraq a common enemy – us – and we’ve given the Arab League and even the whole Islamic world a reason to present a united front against the Western enemy.

Which I attribute more to sloppy execution of a poorly conceived plan than to any given assumption that western intervention would automatically provoke the same response.

[Spiny_Norman]

@msmith537

I don’t think you are reading Machiavelli closely enough:
"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. "

If Machiavelli had chosen the bumper-sticker slogan as his means of expression, he wouldn’t still be quoted. That one line is not a fair representation of what Machiavelli was trying to say. I suggest rereading Chapter 17, I’ll just quote the conclusion:

**Machiavelli:**To come back now to the question whether it be better to be beloved than feared, I conclude that, as men love of their own free will, but are inspired with fear by the will of the prince, a wise prince should always rely upon himself, and not upon the will of others, but above all should he always strive to avoid being hated, as I have already said above.

In other words, rule but what means you must and fear is the more reliable motivator, but allowing yourself to become hated is the one thing you cannot afford. Which makes for a sloppy and unreadable bumper-sticker, but it’s far closer to the truth.

[Rashak_Mani]

@msmith537

"The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow. "

Well so much for the good laws too... and by "good arms" he doesn't necessarily mean you should use them. The famous "sheated" sword. The less you use it the better.

[The_Hamster_King]

@ExTank

BG:
Actually, if my first assumption is correct, then the invasion of Iraq is working out beautifully by presenting a great big old American mlitary target right out there in the middle east where Al-Queda can get quite easily get at it. It’s only cost us some 1,000 soldiers.

Has this ever worked as a military strategy?

What enemy in his right mind would pick a hard target over a soft target?

The idea of defense is that you arrange it so the enemy has to go through your hard targets to get to your soft targets. If your hard targets don’t actually block the approach to your soft targets, it’s not really a defense.

Consider the U.S.'s island-hopping campaign in the Pacific in WWII. Or the German invasion of France. In both cases the attackers dealt with enemy strongholds by leap-frogging past them and rendering them worthless.

Did the Maginot Line act as “flypaper” to the Wehrmacht? Did Rabaul act as “flypaper” to Admiral Nimitz?

The only way to imagine the “flypaper” plan working is if you assume your enemies are fools. And anybody who believes that you win a war by treating your opponent as a fool needs to reread both Machiavelli & Sun Tzu … .

[Rashak_Mani]

@Pochacco

The only way to imagine the “flypaper” plan working is if you assume your enemies are fools. And anybody who believes that you win a war by treating your opponent as a fool needs to reread both Machiavelli & Sun Tzu … .

Nice “flypaper” comparison… your only wrong in assuming they read any of these books… it should be “needs to read both Machiavelli & Sun Tzu”

[msmith537]

@BrainGlutton

How we gonna manage that? In Iraq or anywhere else?

I would imagine carpet bombing unruly cities into oblivion.

@BrainGlutton

There are innumerable counterexamples. Hussein’s regime had good arms. Did it have good laws?

It had order and security.

@Spiny Norman

In other words, rule but what means you must and fear is the more reliable motivator, but allowing yourself to become hated is the one thing you cannot afford.

He also said that “hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil”.