Well, at least now we’ve gotten to the heart of the OP. It wasn’t “US citizens should question their government more.” It was actually “The US is wrong in fighting a war on terrorism.”
Nice try at a smokescreen there, pal.
**
Ok, so wars are not inevitable. But the alternative is to surrender to anyone willing to use violence to obtain their goals. That’s not a world I want to live in.
Such is the world. Even if the US was suddenly to gain perfect foresight and morality in its dealings with all other nations it would still have enemies. Sooner or later the US would interfere in one group of people trying to wipe out another group of people and then we would hear the standard “The US is a bully” line. Failure for the US to act in cases such as Rwanda have lead it to be labeled as immoral. Acting in cases such as Bosnia have led to the US to be labeled immoral. Do you see our frustration level here?
The current anti-war movement has no current strength because its current arguements have no logic. We cannot sit back and allow a militant group to target us without striking back. I pay taxes to the US government and I obey its laws in the understanding that it will do whatever is possible to protect me. Without that agreement there’s no sense in me belonging to a nation. The current anti-war movement may as well be protesting its right to exist because that is the logical conclusion of pursuing the course of nonaction that it recommends. Why should I have anything but scorn for a group that demands I do nothing while others try to kill me?
Now as to who the conflict targets next, yes. There is need for debate there. We need to concentrate on the real threats. We need debate to help determine what the real threats are. We need debate to determine what can be done to improve stability in the world. I can see how disagreements on the future course of events might lead to some real meaningful dscourse. But at the moment, we are not being offered any real choice in our our course of action.
First, as to the superficial subject of the OP: Questioning the govt. is a good thing, a necessary thing for democracy to work. No problems there.
However, what seems to be the real subject at hand, that some magical anti-war movement should rise up and stop the “war” because innocent people have/are being killed, is absurd on the face of things and willfully ignoring the facts about HOW this “war” is being faught in Afghanistan. More on that in a minute.
First, what we are fighting now is not a “new” war, as it’s been labled by the pundits. Conflict between East and West has been going on for thousands of years. Alexander first captured Afghanistan in 333 BC. The Crusades blazed through the Middle East four times, raping and pillageing in the name of Jesus. Christian fleet decimated the Ottoman Turks in 1571 at the battle of Lepanto. British colonial rule lasted for hundreds of years. Winston Churchill himself fought in the Sudan as a young man in the late 19th century. His observations on that experience are as topical today as when they were written.
( A more complete accounting of Churchill’s experiences can be found on the American Heritage webpage in a sidebarhere, along with a fascinating article on the history of East/West conflict and some very interesting conclusions, among them the fact that the industrialized West almost always wins)
It’s true that Churchill’s rheteric is somewhat heavy handed, and certainly one can see the influence of culture in them, the “civilized” West against the “savages”, but the observations are dead on, and often of the type that in today’s PC climate would be attacked without consideration as to weather they were true or not.
No, this is just the latest chapter in a war that has been going on for a long time, and to naievely believe that if we were to beat our swords into plowshares that the other side would leave us alone is foolishness of a suicidal nature. Force can only be detered by force, and if you don’t believe me, just ask Nevill Chamberlain how much “Peace in our time” apeasing Hitler brought.
The second point often overlooked when lamenting civilian casualties is exactly HOW this “war” is being fought. The death of innocents is a by product of conflict, there are no two ways around it. The US and it’s western allies are the ONLY powers that fight with the goal of keeping these casulties to a minimum. The USSR certainly didn’t when it attacked Afghanistan, Israel is storming refugee camps with tanks as we speak, sixty years ago entire cities were wiped off the map with nuclear or incindiary weapons, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of civilian dead. The US has tailored it’s armed forces to be able to attack the guilty with as little collateral dammage as possible. It is inevitable that sometimes the innocent are going to die. Rather than condeming the US when such deaths occur, the US should be lauded for striving to limit these deaths as much as humanly possible. It was asked earlier, “What makes our civilians any different than the ones in Afghanistan?” The answer is, of course, nothing. The difference, and it is a key difference, is that the WTC attacks were aimed exclusively at innocent civilians. The US response has been aimed exclusively at those parties that attacked us, with civilian deaths being an unwanted but unavoidable side effect. If you truly can not see the difference, than you are deluding yourself.
Let’s review.
As Blackclaw stated: when we intervened in Bosnia, we were cast as villains because we were interfering. When we didn’t intervene in Rwanda, we were cast as villains because we weren’t intervening.
According to Gallup polls, less than a third of the Muslim world believes that Arabs had anything to do with the September 11th attacks. In their eyes, in order to stop future attacks we should bomb Israel and the evil zionist Jews behind 9/11.
Are you trying to tell me that any rational action to prevent terrorism would gain any support from those who believe that it’s either the Jews or the American government behind it all?
No matter what we do, there will always be people insane, ill-informed, and angry enough to do violence to satisfy themselves. (Or do you feel that Timothy McVeigh et. al. had legitimate greivances against the US government?) Therefore, we cannot end terrorism simply by being happy nice to everyone. We will always be forced to take sides, and that will piss people off. There will always be those misinformed and misguided by corrupt regimes or leaders. And there will always be irrational, insane people willing to believe the most outlandish conspiracies and to act upon them.
Therefore, we must seek alternative sources to stopping terrorism. On the domestic front, we must fund the FBI and the CIA better and get law enforcement on a better track to prevent internal terrorism, whether by native or foreign elements. This is being done. We must freeze the assets of those organizations that are supporting terrorism. This is being done.
But there is only so much that can be done internally. Freezing assets in the US does not affect much of bin Laden’s millions. Getting our internal agents into gear doesn’t necessarily rub off on other countries- for example, French security letting Reid walk onto a plane with one shoe filled with plastic explosives.
Therefore, we must do what we are doing in Afghanistan, which is to destroy compounds designed to train terrorists, and to stop any government which is willing to fund, train, and/or harbor terrorists. By doing so- by creating an atmosphere where terrorists are outlaws in every country- we can prevent another major attack like 9/11.
We cannot stop all attacks. That’s a foolish concept, and so long as there are people insane enough to commit suicide for a cause, there will be terrorism. But we can prevent the training, networking, and coordination of cells of terrorists. The 9/11 attack involved 20 people working together, months of training, and millions of dollars in support. By destroying the governments that harbor terrorists, we can make it nearly impossible for a group to gather so much support, time, and money.
In doing this, civilians will die. So will American soldiers, and quite likely American civilians in retaliatory attacks. But do you, samboy, have an alternative? What is your foolproof, non-violent plan for stopping the Taliban from letting bin Laden train dozens more Attas? Or stopping Syria? Or Iraq?
I didn’t see any realistic alternatives beyong a vague “go in with ground troops”. It’s also several months old. Do you have any more current opinions, considering that now the Taliban is out of power and the Afghanies do have a more or less representative government?
Oh, and by the way, the first reply to that entry, was that John Walker? "i’ve said before that i myself would fight for the afghan people, much the same way that leftists from all over the planet converged to aid republican spain in the battle against the fascists in the 30s. " snort Right, it’s EXACTLY the same thing. Honestly, and I know this is the fact that I am a historian by training speaking, some people need to get a fuckin clue for God’s sake!
I know it’s several months old. And the reason why I don’t have any current opinions is because they simply haven’t changed much since there’s STILL fighting going on. I don’t agree with bombing a country that’s been bombed for 20 years and I don’t agree with the “peaceful measures.” And I think the only reason why people don’t consider the alternatives “realistic” is simply because not many agree with them and don’t want to use the alternatives. I honestly don’t consider the current Afghan government to be all that much different than the Northern Alliance.
“Oh, and by the way, the first reply to that entry, was that John Walker?”
Eh no…I fail to see the resmblance.
“i’ve said before that i myself would fight for the afghan people, much the same way that leftists from all over the planet converged to aid republican spain in the battle against the fascists in the 30s. " snort Right, it’s EXACTLY the same thing.”
You mean fighting against the remnmants of the Taliban and the leftists fighting in the civil war? He meant that he would fight AGAINST the Taliban not FOR them, so the John Walker comment was simply OUT OF PLACE.
"Honestly, and I know this is the fact that I am a historian by training speaking, some people need to get a fuckin clue for God’s sake! "
Just because their ways/opinions don’t agree with yours, doesn’t mean they’re “clueless”. No one has to agree with you to “have a clue”.
I think you have seen Rambo III too many times. I do not justify the attack by the taliban but you certainly had it coming. Together with the russians you used Afghanistan as your playground. You never thought of the consecuences. Well, what did you expected? You have to remember gun safety rules:
- you never give a gun to a child
- you have to be carefull to keep the ammo in a different place than the gun
- keep a gun in a place where children can not get it
- NEVER GIVE A GUN TO A RELIGIOUS FANATIC YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
So you destroyed their country (you did, no question about that or at least you were one of the principal causes of the death of tens of thousands of afghans) and then you wonder why they carried out the attack of 9/11. This would be a good moment to say I don’t hate America but they do, enough to hijack a plane and ram the in a building full of people.
Your reaction was the natural one, get the bastards. I disagree with the methods. Unfortunately I don’t see another way of achieving the same result in such short notice. An implementation of an international court of justice, doing everything in your power to make the benefits of globalazation available TO ALL. Improving the U.N. stop acting as if you were God, and many other important things will make attacks like the one of 9/11 a bad memory. I think John Paul II said there can not be a secure world until social injustices end, or something like that. If America as the only super power acts only in it’s own benefit instead of using it’s power to try improve things in this planet, nothing will change
First of all, the statement about fighting for the Afghani people came right on the heals of “If i actually believed the US gave two shits and a fuck about humanitarian concerns” and right before “however, as it stands now, there are plenty of fascists to fight right here in america”, so I don’t think assuming the person was taking an anti-US stance a monumental leap of faith, it certainly sounded like s/he was talking about fighting against US forces. I also do not require that people agree with me to respect their opinions. I do require that they demonstrate a tiny bit of evidence that they have thought the issue through and make coherent defense of their positions.
Second, I’m still waiting for details of “realistic” alternatives.
Third, you never adressed my previous point that the way the war is being fought DOES demonstrate a marked concern for limiting colateral dammage.
Funny, a lot of people would call what you just did “justification.”
Um, you do realize that the attack was planned and financed by a native of Saudi Arabia, right? The Afghan people had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. The only reason the fighting is occurring there now is because the Taliban regime allowed this man and his minions to use their country as a safe harbor.
Again I refer to the time spent building coalitions – not just for the war on terrorism as it exists now, but the time spent in 1990 and 1991 building an unheard-of coalition among Middle Eastern and European countries to fight a tinpot dictator. If the U.S. truly acted only in its own self-interest, it would’ve just bombed the heck out of Iraq at the time without working through diplomatic channels. Despite all this effort, a single Saudi Arabian zealot with a ton of money decided he didn’t like American troops being housed on his country’s soil. Which brings us to where we are today.
I swear, Americans are often (and many times, justly) accused of having a simplistic world view, but some of you in other countries are making Americans look like geopolitical geniuses.
Hmmm…Well I tend to fall on the side of Sauron, John Corrado, et al and agree the current campaign in Afghanistan has been, by and large ( there has been a mis-step or two, but that’s likely inevitable ), both measured and appropriate. I do think a significant portion of the American public has an unfortunate tendency towards jingoism. But in this case, I don’t think it has compromised the campaign much. Now if we end up attacking Iraq with out setting the stage much, much better than we currently have, then I might change my mind a bit about the sensibility of the current administration ( for my feelings on the topic, you can generally reference edwino]s posts in GD ).
But on a sidenote…
I completely disagree with you here, Weirddave. I’ve never bought into this “East/West” divide. It smacks of old-fashioned theories of “orientalism” and inherent, deterministic differences between European and non-European cultures which I tend to reject ( and not for PC reasons 
). For example trying to put Lepanto and Alexander’s campaign on the same plane just doesn’t make any sense to me. IMHO Alexander wasn’t “western” in any modern sense and probably rather less “western” than the Turks fighting the coalition forces at Lepanto.
No I agree with the media ( for once 
) that this is, in fact, a “new” war ( if you want I’ll acknowledge a tenuous link back to the 19th century ).
It’s an academic disagreement, really, and I’m not calling you an idiot or anything. I’m comfortable agreeing to disagree 
. But I did want to mention my disagreement just for the sake of putting it out there.
- Tamerlane
I think you misunderstand. I’m not talking about any inherent differences, but about the way societies developed. Alexander was leading an organized, professional army from a city state against disorganized, tribal type oposition. Say what you will about western governments, they have proven to be frightfully effective at warfare. The issues have been territorial, economic and colonial. All I’m saying is that Western countries have embraced organized, professional armies to an extent that most middle eastern countries haven’t until recently.
Well as Sauron so thoughtfully pointed out, not a single Afghani participated in the attack of 9/11. In fact, most Afghanis view us as their allies. This kinda blows your self righteous smug assed attitude all to hell doesn’t it?
Fuck you and your damn “I don’t hate America but it had it coming” bullshit. Take a fucking stand. Spew forth your nonsense without cringing behind that lame line. If your going to claim that the hijackers somehow had the right to revenge against the imaginary wrongs of the US you might as well drop your pants and show what a true asshole you are. Or you could go read a history book and get a few facts straight about Afghanistan you brainless amoeba.
Fuck you, maggot.
Once again, can somebody tell me of a nation that is NOT acting in it’s own interest? Was the Taliban trying to make the world a better place? Are the Saudi’s using their vast wealth to promote peace and harmony? Has the U.K. been selfless champion for the underdogs of the world? Has Japan? What’s Argentinia done? Oh, but the U.S. is the great Satan?
Christ, grow up.
Weirddave: Well, we’re starting to get pretty far off-topic here, but I think I still disagree with your amended point. Certainly in the modern era ( in this case the 18th century on ) I’d have to largely agree with you. And if we were just talking about Afghanistan, I’d also mostly agree. But if we’re discussing the whole of the Middle East ( and even excluding East Asia, where I’m sure you’ll agree the Chinese have a very long history of maintaining ‘professional’ military establishments ), I see just too many exceptions. Take for instance the three instances you cited:
1.) Alexander the Great - Well he certainly was up against pretty disorganized, tribal resistance in the vicinity of modern Aghanistan. But let’s look at his primary opponent in the Middle East, Achaemenid Persia. Was his army really that much more “professional” than the Persian? Only by a small degree if at all, I think. Both armies relied on, as their arms of decision, on an elite corps of aristocratic, essentially feudal, heavy calvary. Both armies also relied heavily on large contingents of Greek mercenaries and/or forced draftees ( remember that one of the “Persian” generals Alexander defeated was actually a Greek, Memnon of Rhodes ). And both armies made extensive use of contingents of lightly armed tribal levies. Now those levies formed a much larger proportion of Persia’s armies than they did Alexander’s - But then the Persian army was a lot bigger, period. In terms of “quality” troops they were probably pretty evenly matched. The Macedonian army as re-built by Phillip was very formidable, but the key difference was Alexander’s leadership, both in terms of charisma and in tactical virtuosity ( which was as novel to the Macedonians/Greeks as it was to the Persians ).
Oh and just as a nitpicky clarification - Macedon was a kingdom, with a capital at Pella, rather than a city-state.
2.) The Crusades - I don’t think a convincing argument can be built that the feudal armies of Europe were noticeably more professional than that of their Muslim opponents. Even the crusading orders such as the Templars and Knight Hospitallers weren’t any more uniquely professional than, say, the mamluks, military slaves employed as standing armies by virtually every Muslim dynasty in the region. In my opinion the initial successes and the later long drawn-out defensive stand by the Crusaders can be mostly chalked up to fortuitous timing - The political vacume in Syria after the Seljuq disintegration ( and concurrent Fatimid decline ) left the region uniquely vulnerable.
3.) Lepanto and the Ottomans in general - Mid-14th to early or mid-17th century I think it is safe to say that the Ottoman army ( the navy was a slightly different kettle of fish, though it too was formidable, but probably was dominant for a much shorter period of time - say the 16th century ) was demonstrably more professional and effective than any European counterpart. This advantage gradually eroded, along with the Ottoman state itself. But it didn’t really become significantly inferior until the early 18th century ( and even afterwards was still capable of putting together winning campaigns from time to time ).
Now I’m sure you can think of plenty of counter-examples. Precious few nations pre-19th century have ever equalled the precision of the Roman military machine at its height, for example. But I think enough exceptions exist, pre-modern era, that your broad generalization just doesn’t hold up. IMHO anyway .
- Tamerlane
**
If we had it coming then how come the attack wasn’t justified?
**
We weren’t the ones who invaded Afghanistan in the 70’s. Tell me, do you also blame the USSR for Viet-Nam?
**
How were we one of the principle causes of death?
**
I might be mistaken but I think most of the people who actually carried out the attack were arabs and not native to Afghanistan.
**
What are your specific objections to our methods? Keeping in mind that you don’t see another way of achieving the same results in a reasonable amount of time.
**
Isn’t there already an ICJ? And in what way should we improve the United Nations? The United States isn’t playing God. The United States is exercising it’s right to self-defense.
Marc
Your argument is that once upon a while you and the U.S.S.R destroyed Afghanistan, the attack of 9/11 was carried out by a Saudi. Then there is no relationship between the two things.
They are different countries but they form a community in the sense that they share the same culture, religion, language? (I am guessing here). How did you react in both world wars when the british were at war with germany? in both cases long before you actually entered in the war you help them. The same can be said about Osama and all the Saudis, pakistanis, etc that fought against the Russians and are fighting you. The same, when we fought the Falklands or even during the “English invations” last centuries we received help from our neighbours who also share our history, culture, etc.
For all of that I said you had it coming. You bomb plabts in Sudan, bombard lybia, intervene in the arab-Israeli conflict (not always as a mediator, or at least they see it that way) you bombard afghanistan (I am refering to an episode I think that happened 4 years ago). You do all that and you don’t expect a retaliation? My whole point is that at least for your State department the attack of 9/11 wasn’t a surprise attack.
Of course you act in your own self interest, every country do so. The problem is you have an extrordinary amount of power the like of wich the world has never seen. That creates new responsabilities, what we have seen so far is U.S. acting worse than usual:
- Anti balistic missile defense (violaton of a treaty)
- International court of justice (dictatorships and the U.S. opposed)
- Kyoto agreement.
- Taliban not being considered prisioners of war.
- Supposedly Bush is all for free trade but since he started his presidency countless restrictions were createdl, also subsides increased.
No one in this planet can stop you specially the U.N, that is why your self- interest is precisely self restriction.
Regarding the Macedonian army, correct me If I am wrong but weren’t they superior to the persian army because they had: Unity of command, were more disciplined and also they had the Falange (sorry I don’t know the english word) formation?
Estilicon, I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say.
It seems to me that we’re seeing partisanship on a global scale here. Those who have a beef with the U.S. (for whatever reason) are going to find fault with whatever is done or isn’t done in Afghanistan, and vice versa.
To me, those who find fault based on earlier events, disputes or preconceived notions regarding the U.S. are engaging in just as much jingoism (although in a negative sense) as they claim for Americans.
Unless, of course, Estilicon is trying to make the case that Osama bin Laden and his followers are hacked at the U.S. for not signing the Kyoto treaty. Somehow, I doubt that’s the case.
Were you born this stupid, or did you have to study?
Guess again. All Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have in common is Sunni Islam, which is the official religion in Saudi Arabia, and one of several very different religions practiced in Afghanistan. There are about half a dozen DIFFERENT tribal cultures and languages within the borders of the “country” we name Afghanistan, most of which are completely unrelated to the Arabic culture in Saudi Arabia.
Lets see…
- Sudan - was bombed as retaliation for aiding Al-Qiada and Bin Laden, following terrorist bombings on American embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole.
- Lybia - hit in retaliation for sponsoring terrorist attacts on U.S citizens in South America, and aiding the terrorists who destroyed the Pan American flight over Lockerbie, Scotland.
- Afghanistan - the U.S. launched cruise missiles targeting Al-Qiada training camps following the attacks on the African embassies and U.S.S. Cole, which were planned and carried out by that organization.
Sounds like you list of aggrieved parties also “had it coming”. As for the Arab-Israeli conflict, what actions could the U.S. take that would NOT be seen as favoring one side or the other?
The ABM Treaty - the treaty specifically states that either signatory may unilaterally withdraw from it at any time, provided that it gives an official notice to the other signatory at least six months before the withdrawal takes place. How is America’s decision to invoke that clause “violating the treaty”? (Whether you think that the withdrawal is a wise decision is a separate issue!)
The International Court of Justice - did you ever ask WHY the U.S. opposes it? Could it possibly be because there is a very real risk that the court will be used for political grandstanding (especially by non-democratic nations) as opposed to dispensing justice? What possible rational reason could the U.S. have to support the formation of such a court, when it places its citizens at risk of being unfairly accused and tried for “crimes” that are no such thing?
Kyoto Agreement - was never ratified by the United States, so the U.S. can hardly be said to be violating it. You can debate whether the U.S. SHOULD have ratified it, given the serious concerns about global warming and the problems with the treaty, but you CANNOT state that the U.S. has no right to national sovereignty - and a soverign nation gets to choose which treaties, if any, it ratifies.
Why SHOULD the Taliban/AL-Qiada prisoners be regarded as prisoners of war (a specific legal term with a precise meaning)? They are not official members of a recognised government’s uniformed armed forces. There have been several threads discussing this issue here on the SDMB - suffice it to say that is is VERY unclear whether the Geneva Convention even applies to them. Of course, they should be treated humanely, insofar as it is possible to do so without allowing them to harm either themselves or other people, but to date, I’ve not seen any credible evidence that their fundamental right to decent treatmet IS being violated. Either provide such evidence, or shut up!
Free trade - define it, please. EVERY country has some restrictions on trade, so until you define exactly what it is you mean when you use the nebulous term “free trade”, it is impossible to evaluate your claim that the U.S. is “violating free trade agreements”. Or perhaps EVERY NATION is in violation of free trade - which makes me wonder if the term haas any real meaning in that case.
Moron.
Not really. Common culture? Mostly not - Afghanistan is quite different from the Arabian penninsula. Common religion? The leadership of the Taliban, yes, to some extent. They were/are heavily influenced by the Wahabi Sunnism follwed in SA. But the vast majority of Afghans are not Wahabi ( though of course they are still Muslims of a particularly conservative bent ). Common language? Nope. The Saudi Arabians speak Arabic ( not surprisingly ), the Afghans mostly speak various dialects and derivatives of Persian ( Dari and Pashtu mostly ).
You are in part correct that there is in fact a connection of sorts between the proxy war waged in Afghanistan by the superpowers and the WTC bombing. It is, after all, that conflict that helped radicalize Osama bin Laden. However the connection is not a direct one. ObL’s primary motivation to strike at the U.S. stemmed from the Gulf War and its aftermath, which had nothing to do with Afghanistan. And the Taliban, though ideologically friendly and both economically and militarily beholden to ObL, were, as far as anyone has ever been able to determine, not a part of ObL’s international network. Quite the contrary, they were/are a xenophobic, inward-looking regime, quite unconcerned with the goings on in most of the rest of the world. Their involvement in this whole unfortunate affair stems from the fact that they sheltered ObL and his organization in their demesnes.
Am I correct in guessing from some of your statements that you aren’t a native English-speaker? If so, then I think I might be able to explain some of the hostility you’re receiving. It’s one thing to say that the WTC attack was a perhaps predictable outcome of U.S. policy in the Middle East. I wasn’t shocked by the WTC bombing - Horrified and appalled, yes, but not shocked. It’s quite another to say “you had it coming”. In American English that phrase means, quite baldly, that the United States deserved to be attacked in such a fashion. I hope that isn’t your meaning. No country deserves to be subject to such an atrocity. Even if you happen to believe they have committed what you consider to be atrocities of their own. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
It is my opinion that the United States has made a number of very bad mis-steps in the Middle East over the decades. From the failure to follow up in Afghanistan after 1989, to the the coup that overthrew the Mossadeq government in Iran. I think it has done some positive things as well. But regardless of the balance sheet, on no account did it deserve the events of 9/11, which are beyond the pale of any civilized action. Osama bin Laden ( and the evidence is pretty damning that he was a, if not the ket figure ) committed a crminal act of the highest order. He represented a threat of the gravest magnitude to all the civilized world and his elimination and the eradication of his organization are IMO necessary for the safety of the world community. Now I think the U.S. could have gone about it the wrong way, but like I said I am mnore or less pleased with the course of the campaign so far. That’s my personal opinion. A lot still needs to be done and the U.S. could still end up flubbing it. I am not sanguine about the sabre-rattling around Iraq, which I think is a potentially devastating mistake. But so far, so good. I am convinced that despite the continuing chaos and the casualties incurred, Afghanistan today, at this particular moment in time, is better off than it was before the U.S. intervention. With a little luck it might end up better off, permanently.
One can criticize U.S. behavior, without being a jerk about it.
As for [samboy’s plea for pacifism - I am emotionally sympathetic to it, but regard it as unfortunately unrealistic.
Hmmm…In part. At least in terms of battlefield coordination.
Again, in part. But I think both of these factors again stemmed from Alexander’s abilities and absolutism, rather more than Philip’s reforms.
Phalanx. Not so much, I think. The Greek troops in the Persian army utilized that formation as well. Now the Macedonian army did have a more flexible, ‘modern’ re-working of the Phalanx. But I don’t think it was decisive. Though no doubt you can find plenty of credentialed historians that will disagree with me.
- Tamerlane