The Spoils of War and Conquest

[DoubleDown]

tl;dr: Here's a crazy notion I've had for several years, wondering what you all think: I think there should be spoils in war like in ancient times. Nations that win a war should take over the defeated nation, if they want it.

Premise: War is bad, and is to be avoided at all costs. A nation should only go to war if its very existence or security is directly threatened (or an ally's). You don't go to war to meddle in other another country's affairs or make them do what you want. But if you do have to go to war, under "honorable" conditions such as being attacked first, then if you win you take whatever you want from the defeated nation, and if they or anyone else bitches about it, too bad.

Background: Whatever happened to the spoils of war and conquest? As I understand ancient history, when one nation or empire went to war with another and defeated them, they took the liberty of collecting whatever spoils they wanted from their defeated enemy. They took the land, possessions, and even people. This was ugly, and in many cases included atrocities like rape and genocide. I'm definitely not advocating those things. Their empire expanded (sometimes to their own ruin), but the point is they felt free to take whatever they damned well pleased, because they had vanquished their opponent.

I suggest that the prospect of such ruin made nations think carefully before they engaged in a war, especially against a powerful opponent (although WWI, a fairly modern and stupid war, might belie this idea). Anyway, many nations found other ways to try to resolve their differences (such as sending emissaries and tithes) and sought allies to avoid being conquered by other powerful nations.

Eventually a bunch of countries got together and formed some conventions outlawing taking spoils and conquest. But is that a good thing? I suggest that in modern times, if a country is audacious enough to go to war, then collecting spoils and outright conquering should be okay. Instead, after a modern war and blowing everything up, the winning country typically spends more money helping the defeated country to rebuild itself, and attempts to install a new, more palatable government, with highly dubious results.

So here's an example: Back when the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 (a very poor decision, IMO), we sent young men and women into harm's way to do battle there. Lots were killed, many more were grievously injured. We killed probably 100,000+ Iraqis. The U.S. spent trillions of dollars fighting that war. Accusations were made by some that it really was a "blood for oil" war, that the U.S. was really just interested in taking or securing Iraq's oil reserves. At one point, the Bush/Cheney administration even promised that the U.S. would finance the war with Iraqi oil, but that never materialized as far as I know.

At the time, I thought the decision to invade was stupid (and I still do). But, I thought, if our country thinks it is so damn important to invade Iraq because of national security concerns, then we literally should turn it into the 51st U.S. State when we win. If you're going to risk lives and everything else going to war, then take over the whole thing, especially the oil fields. Unless, that is, we determine it would be more of a headache trying to hold it, in which case you'd just leave it, destroyed, and definitely not spend one cent rebuilding it. So, we would now have the State of Iraq, just like the State of New York or Hawaii with all the inherent rights and privileges under the U.S Constitution. The people there would be free to do whatever they want under U.S. laws, including practicing whatever religion they please. If the U.S. Government is not comfortable attempting to establish the U.S. State of Iraq, then you better think twice before going to war because otherwise it's probably not worth it.

Modern warfare seems almost too sanitary, in the sense that no really bad, long-term consequences hit the offending parties. They're just rebuilt, and it's a crap shoot how the new regime will turn out (see: today's Iraq). I think bona fide conquering would help avoid unnecessary wars.

What do you think? It seems perverse with our "modern sensibilities", but I honestly don't see the downside (besides the obvious one of the people not wanting to come under a new nation -- but oh well, is the alternative any better?)!

[Kriegsspiel]

All I want is to be able to drink out of the skulls of the enemies I vanquish, rape their women, and eat their food. If I can enslave their children and have it considered the spoils of my conquest, so much the better.  I don't really want them to be equal to us though... you know, if Iraq became the 51st state, they'd be able to vote and shit! Can we just kill all of them instead?

Israel has had a great history after they conquered territory, right?

[gimp]

Skulls for the skull throne!

[Michael792]

If Russia can do it, we can too :D

[EricL]

DoubleDown.  Yeah that's a pretty horrible thing to say and there are plenty out there that will say your making the Baby Jesus cry.  But there's something to be said for it. What gives the "winner take all" idea credence is the inane modern view war is or can be neat and clean with "surgical strikes"  This view has failed us again and again and makes the ancient "cry havoc" view of war seem wise by comparison.  It needs to get dumped along with the frankly liberal corollary military might can and should be harnessed to rescuing school girls or some other stupid task.  That said, the biggest problem with the overwhelming might view of warfare is that as the world gets more crowded and nations develop more destructive weapons it could lead us to thermonuclear war. 

Iraq isn't a great example because no matter what the oil was not the big a deal.  The real goal was engineering some neo con Machiavellian scheme to scare Iran.  Neither really worked out.  Although a case can be made the Arab Spring indirectly occurred because of the war.  But that too may yet screw us. 

[Nords]

tl;dr: Here's a crazy notion I've had for several years, wondering what you all think: I think there should be spoils in war like in ancient times. Nations that win a war should take over the defeated nation, if they want it.

Premise: War is bad, and is to be avoided at all costs. A nation should only go to war if its very existence or security is directly threatened (or an ally's). You don't go to war to meddle in other another country's affairs or make them do what you want. But if you do have to go to war, under "honorable" conditions such as being attacked first, then if you win you take whatever you want from the defeated nation, and if they or anyone else bitches about it, too bad.

In the remote chance that this is a serious discussion (for at least the next 3-4 posts), this philosophy after WWI was used as the justification for WWII. 

So yeah, not only is it a crazy notion but it's probably a dangerous precedent.

[Sdsailing]

Agree on Iraqi oil. We should have sucked them dry.

  But I would have preferred to stay out in the first place.

[Travis]

The bottom line is war has become prohibitively expensive.  Maintaining a military large enough to invade and completely conquer a neighbor takes a force larger than most nations are willing to pay for (the post-Marius professional Roman legion needed to keep conquering just to make payroll).  With modern economics and trade there is much more money to be made through peace than through war.  With this desire for peaceful trade and higher standards of living for everyone the desire to go to war for raw conquest or to capture materials has become mostly obsolete.  You could argue that Russia's involvement in Ukraine these last few months has been about at least in part to their desire for the ports on the Baltic.  If that's the case, they don't need to conquer Ukraine, just that slice of it or pressure Ukraine into hooking them up with access like they used to.

Most of the wars the US has fought have not been for conquest, but for the security of resources and trade (you don't need to necessarily conquer and occupy for something to be secure).  Desert Storm was fought to maintain the Middle East's balance of power and keep the oil flowing without Iraq holding the market hostage.  We didn't desire to occupy anything, just put things back the way they were.  OIF was fought for a number of contentious reasons, but none of them were supposed to require an occupation.  We weren't out to permanently conquer Iraq, but to get rid of Saddam and make it a state we could shape for our uses.  Taking their oil would have been like rescuing a hostage and stealing their wallet for the privilege of saving them.  OIF and OEF reminded us that occupying a hostile nation is a long term and expensive undertaking.  It is rarely worth the expense.  Ten years of Iraqi oil sales might have paid for one year of our occupation expenses.  The OP's assertion that we could have just created a 51st state assumes the Iraqis would ever go along with such an arrangement.  The 8-year insurgency against us reveals the pitfalls of that plan.  Hundreds of years ago this was solved by straight up killing huge percentages of the population.  That's just not something we do anymore.

In the ancient times referred to by the OP, looting of precious metals was necessary to pay for the cost of the war and generally enrich the home empire.  Economies have grown to such a scale that we no longer require ships full of silver to finance the state.  Taking spoils is illegal by international treaty as well as being unnecessary and not worth the effort. 

[Malaysia41]

The treaty of Versailles made Germany pay big time for the costs of WW1.  The measures were considered by many to be excessively punitive.  The German people became so dejected that it took very little for a small dude from Austria to convince them to scapegoat others (rest of Europe, Jews, Romas, Homosexuals and invalids) for their problems. WWII anyone?

Personally, I prefer looking toward common solutions versus assigning blame and extracting punishment. 

and yes, tl;dr.

[Leisured]

Interesting idea DoubleDown, but I agree with Travis that modern war is too expensive. There are other possibilities. In the nineteenth century, the USA performed two acts of checkbook conquest; the Louisiana Purchase, and the Alaskan Purchase. No shots were fired.

I do not see checkbook conquest working in the Middle East.

In the Arab world, there are several monarchies, notably Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Jordan. Boringly stable societies. The kings hold their position by divine right - I use the term loosely - rather than from support from factional power brokers. Saudi Arabia is mainly Sunni, but King Abdullah ibn Abdilaziz has no reason to discriminate against the Shia minority.

Saudi Arabia has 29 million people, Iraq 36 million. Iraq’s oil reserves may exceed those of Saudi Arabia, but there has been little exploration or development for 30 years, because of political instability.

The fatheads who fight for the Islamic State (IS) want a caliph. Give them one, in the form of King
Abdullah ibn Abdilaziz. I would like to see the Saudi army invade Iraq, drive through towns whose streets are lined with cheering Iraqis, and make Iraq a province of Saudi Arabia, with King Abdullah as ruler. The Saudi royal family spend lavishly on health, education and infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, funded by oil exports, and take pride in doing so. The royal family can spend lavishly on these things in Iraq, funded by Iraqi oil exports.

I hope that Iraqis would prefer a stable monarchy rather than the corrupt, ineffective regime they have now.

Once Iraq is on its feet as a province of Saudi Arabia, Saudi forces might invade Iran and evict the mad clerics now in power, to the relief of many Iranians. Iran is mainly Shia, but King Abdullah will want the support of Iranians, so has no reason to discriminate against Shias. Sanctions will be lifted, and Iran will prosper. I hope that Iranians would prefer a stable monarchy rather than the incompetent regime they have now.

[DoubleDown]

Yes, I am seriously posing this question, albeit provocatively and in full understanding that it sounds odd. I'm questioning the modern-day convention of not taking spoils or conquering, much in the same way we question the conventional wisdom of getting a good job, buying a nice car with a 5-year loan, buying a house with 10% down, and saving 5-10% annually until we're 65. Everyone thinks the system they're used to is "normal" until they sometimes take a step back and ask, "Wait a minute, where does this come from and why do we follow it?"

I agree it sounds ludicrous, but when I think about it more deeply, I'm not so sure.

Also, I am not advocating that a country should take spoils or conquer. Just that they could if they deem it in their interest to take ownership of whatever is in the country they defeated (and they win). As I said, a country should not go to war at all, unless their very real and legitimate interests are directly threatened.

[DoubleDown]

this philosophy after WWI was used as the justification for WWII. 

So yeah, not only is it a crazy notion but it's probably a dangerous precedent.

Nords, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Are you saying that the heavy-handed reparations that were put on Germany after WWI led to WWII, so it provides us with a good example in history of why "spoils" (for lack of a better word) is a bad idea?

If so, what would we speculate would or should have happened following WWI regarding defeated Germany? This is wild speculation, but would we believe that if Germany didn't become so pissed about their post-WWI treatment, then Hitler, instead of gaining all kinds of nationalist traction, would have been laughed off and ignored by the populace? Or would it make no difference and his movement still would likely have moved forward?

[DoubleDown]

OIF and OEF reminded us that occupying a hostile nation is a long term and expensive undertaking.  It is rarely worth the expense.  Ten years of Iraqi oil sales might have paid for one year of our occupation expenses.  The OP's assertion that we could have just created a 51st state assumes the Iraqis would ever go along with such an arrangement.  The 8-year insurgency against us reveals the pitfalls of that plan. 

Agreed, that's a vexing problem. I'd like to hand-wave that objection away, but it's a serious hurdle. It's actually this very problem 11 years ago (knowing we would face the hazards of being an occupying force) that led me to this very question. I wondered, farcically, "If we're going to be in this intractable situation as an occupying force facing an insurgency, why the hell don't we just take over the whole damn place and call it a day? Put them under our constitution and give them all the liberties and support provided, so they can do whatever they want and with the full protection of the United States."

In that scenario, there would be no Maliki and warring factions or an Islamic State cutting a swath right through the damn country trying to install Sharia law.

But yeah, I don't see millions of Iraqis saying "Hooray, now we're all Americans!" So it's crazy :-)

[GuitarStv]

It's difficult to predict alternate histories with accuracy, but what Nords is saying is quite correct.  Germany would not have been as receptive to nazism if it weren't being economically crippled by the WWI terms of surrender.  The reason so little European resistance reared up when the third reich started expanding was that many nations viewed the terms of the treaty as oppressive and believed that Germany was really just taking back what was rightfully theirs.

[DoubleDown]

It's difficult to predict alternate histories with accuracy, but what Nords is saying is quite correct.  Germany would not have been as receptive to nazism if it weren't being economically crippled by the WWI terms of surrender.  The reason so little European resistance reared up when the third reich started expanding was that many nations viewed the terms of the treaty as oppressive and believed that Germany was really just taking back what was rightfully theirs.

That sounds reasonable to me. So, in line with my original thesis, consider this alternate history: Instead of putting crippling and punitive reparations on Germany, the allies take it over lock, stock, and barrel (or divide it up among the allies -- whatever). The Germans still maintain their culture and heritage, and the country is rebuilt with no punishment. Germans citizens have all the food they need, they are prosperous under their new regime. For the sake of argument, let's say it becomes an American territory, and everyone is treated nicely as German Americans. Just like German Americans in Pennsylvania or Iowa.

Some German citizens might object to becoming part of America, but they have zero standing. They already lost. And is this any different than any other territory that was taken over in history (for example, Europeans taking over North America from the Native Americans)? Or colonists giving the finger to England and declaring themselves free? Eventually, the populace gets over it, whether they like it or not, or they leave.

It seems like where we really tend to f*ck ourselves is when we fight a war in a country, then try to put in a puppet, bullshit government that ends up causing all kinds of trouble down the road. You're viewed (rightfully) as an unwanted, occupying force. So I'm back to my "all or nothing" thing of don't get involved at all, unless you are willing to either take over the whole place, or leave it in ruins and walk away like a cool guy walking away from an explosion without looking back.

[matchewed]

Historically speaking razing the entire country after you've invaded it would spur even greater animosity towards the invaders. Putting heavy reparations on Germany during WW1 resulted in some bad side effects (WW2).

You talk about making it a state. That would I presume include the building of infrastructure, installing a local government, and drafting laws. Seems like that strategy may have been done before too. It didn't work in Iraq, it did work in other countries but I would venture that those countries had cultural similarities which made it more conducive to adopting certain laws and governments (not to mention that we used several of the "old guard" in the "new guard").

So oddly enough neither of your proposed black or white solutions would actually in practice work, and haven't with few exceptions. Those exceptions though were based around building up the place being invaded. It also relied on everyone around them being at either peace or a stalemate. It's hard to stabilize a single country when all the other countries around them are burning.

[Travis]

DD, that's an overly simplistic review of what happened after WWI.  For starters, the allies didn't conquer Germany. They simply defeated the German Army in the field.  The war still ended on French soil.  A large portion of the German Army still existed, but they were in constant retreat and knew they would eventually lose so they sued for peace.  The allies were so depleted themselves that they were happy ending the war on those terms.  I can't imagine the entire German population just surrendering to occupation if their homeland was never attacked.  The allies also didn't have the manpower or finances to occupy the country.  Like I said in the beginning, armies and wars are expensive.  The massive allied armies that took part in WWI went home and most of them demobilized.  In your alternate history, also remember that the Great Depression was 10 years after the end of WWI, and that event kicked everyone in the ass around the world which compounded Germany's problems leading to Hitler.  The Depression would have still happened, except in your scenario it would have happened while Germany was occupied.  The Germans also went from a monarchy to a very weak republic before it all fell apart and Hitler was elected.  Just like many other nations that we forced into democracies, they didn't know how to do it and it made a mess of things.  Also, why would you think the British and French would want to dissolve Germany, or for that matter allow the newcomer Americans to have any part in it?  The story was much different 25 years later only because the US economy and military was so massive and this was their second war with Germany.  I'm also having a hard time reconciling your opinions on occupying forces.  In one sentence you say "the populace just gets over it" and then "you're viewed as an unwanted force."  I don't see how you can have it both ways.

[GuitarStv]

The losing country after a large war is a ruins/shambles.  It's usually massively in debt, public services have been destroyed, many of the able bodied of working age have been killed in fighting.  You're looking at significant reconstruction with very high costs.  Here are the problems I see with your proposition of the winning country absorbing the losing country:

- What does the winning country get out of the scenario?  Post WWII Germany wasn't a treasure trove of riches, just a big money sucking problem.  What the allies did was use Germans as forced labour, took any scientist of value out of the country, and raided the natural resources (mostly coal).  Then they destroyed about half of all the German heavy industry factories and told Germany to rebuild on their own.  If the allies had to help Germany rebuild it would have been a significant drain financially . . .
- What do you do about human nature?  People you have been fighting to the death a couple days ago are suddenly your friends?  You need to do some reading about how occupying forces treat the population they were just fighting against.  There were a lot of pretty terrible injustices that went on against nazi supporters and german people in general after WWII was over.
- How do you get buy-in of the defeated country?  You've just finished a massive campaign to kill their sons (and sometimes daughters).  They've just spend the whole war thinking of you as inhuman monsters.  Now you want them to rebuild their country for you . . . but under your flag now.  They may have zero standing, but a large population of unruly people is difficult to maintain order in.
- At the end of WWII nazism was German culture.  They obviously can't maintain that.  Regarding culture . . . if you allow them to maintain themselves as completely separate entities (language, religion, foods, etc.), why do you think that they would ever integrate with your society?  Look at Quebec and the rest of Canada.  They've been part of Canada since 1867, but due to the distinct culture have never really accepted that they are part of Canada.  The biggest political party in the province is devoted to separating from the rest of the country.  This is after nearly a hundred and fifty years . . .

In my opinion it is significantly easier to bomb another country out of existence than it is to develop the country to a high standard of living.  Taking responsibility for the country you just destroyed militarily is a tremendously difficult task that residents of the country are very unlikely to thank you for.

[Travis]

If the allies had to help Germany rebuild it would have been a significant drain financially . . .

GuitarStv, just a point of order: we did rebuild Germany.  It was called the Marshall Plan.  The scenario you're describing happened in East Germany, not West.  The western allies decided almost immediately after the war to combine their occupation zones and rebuild Germany into an industrialized state that could help fend off the Soviets.  By the 1970s West Germany was one of the richest nations in Europe.  The only reason this plan worked was because we flattened Germany and exhausted them from ever wanting to consider another war.  Our large occupation army and the Soviet Union on their doorstep certainly helped turn them to our way of thinking.  Within a few years Germany and France started making trade treaties that would become eventually turn into the EU and our military footprint shrunk a bit from an occupation force to an allied force.  The conquer/occupy scenario DD keeps pushing worked here because of unique circumstances that have yet to be repeated. 

[justajane]

One reason the Mongolians were successful building such a large empire was because once they conquered (and pillaged, yeah they certainly did that), they integrated the existing population into the empire. They gave them a degree of autonomy that ultimately made them loyal to the empire. My point is that full scale conquering, complete with forced conversion and lots of other forced adherences, is oftentimes less successful than loose control.

[libertarian4321]

this philosophy after WWI was used as the justification for WWII. 

So yeah, not only is it a crazy notion but it's probably a dangerous precedent.

Nords, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Are you saying that the heavy-handed reparations that were put on Germany after WWI led to WWII, so it provides us with a good example in history of why "spoils" (for lack of a better word) is a bad idea?

If so, what would we speculate would or should have happened following WWI regarding defeated Germany? This is wild speculation, but would we believe that if Germany didn't become so pissed about their post-WWI treatment, then Hitler, instead of gaining all kinds of nationalist traction, would have been laughed off and ignored by the populace? Or would it make no difference and his movement still would likely have moved forward?

YES YES YES YES!

In both military and historical circles, this is the accepted theory.  Thousands of books have been written on this subject.

BTW, "war for profit" isn't a comic book.  It ain't like you just beat the other guy's army, waltz in, and reap decades of pure profit.

Honestly, we should no better by now.  It should have surprised NO ONE who'd read any history that we'd end up in a quagmire n both Iraq and Afghanistan.  There was plenty of historical precedent to show that we'd FAIL in both military misadventures.  The British, when they were the global empire "big dogs" with all the military power, failed in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan MULTIPLE times.

The Brits fought THREE wars trying to control Afghanistan, they "won" two of them before leaving Afghanistan with their tail between their legs, they never controlled a DAMNED THING and lost money in this military misadventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Afghan_War

Their results in their historical "conquest" of Iraq were similarly dismal.

Had George W. Bush ever bothered to read a little history, something more in depth than "My Pet Goat," he surely wouldn't have cavalierly attacked either of these nations.

[CDP45]

Historically speaking razing the entire country after you've invaded it would spur even greater animosity towards the invaders. Putting heavy reparations on Germany during WW1 resulted in some bad side effects (WW2).

You talk about making it a state. That would I presume include the building of infrastructure, installing a local government, and drafting laws. Seems like that strategy may have been done before too. It didn't work in Iraq, it did work in other countries but I would venture that those countries had cultural similarities which made it more conducive to adopting certain laws and governments (not to mention that we used several of the "old guard" in the "new guard").

So oddly enough neither of your proposed black or white solutions would actually in practice work, and haven't with few exceptions. Those exceptions though were based around building up the place being invaded. It also relied on everyone around them being at either peace or a stalemate. It's hard to stabilize a single country when all the other countries around them are burning.

Well said here.

Plus, think about if a foreign invader came to your neighborhood and stole all your property, I bet you'd fight a lot harder instead of agreeing to terms of peace that may involve some sort of tax or loss of territory, but you wouldn't agree to the pillage of your society because those are unacceptable terms.

If you have fantasies of combat, just join a local boxing or MMA gym, you'll understand quickly.

[CDP45]

Their results in their historical "conquest" of Iraq were similarly dismal.

Had George W. Bush ever bothered to read a little history, something more in depth than "My Pet Goat," he surely wouldn't have cavalierly attacked either of these nations.

I think the recent misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan were quite successful for bush and his ilk, it was an excuse to expand the federal government, pay trillions to cronies, and distract the American people from the abuses and waste suffered under the government. What cost did Bush ever pay for the wars? What cost does Obama pay for not ending them? It seems only rewards are gained by furtherance. We thought Afghanistan was a quagmire, oh boy just wait to see how Iraq turns out...

[arebelspy]

Premise: War is bad, and is to be avoided at all costs. A nation should only go to war if its very existence or security is directly threatened (or an ally's). You don't go to war to meddle in other another country's affairs or make them do what you want. But if you do have to go to war, under "honorable" conditions such as being attacked first, then if you win you take whatever you want from the defeated nation, and if they or anyone else bitches about it, too bad.

Doesn't the second bold line offer a perverse incentive to go to war besides the reasons offered in the first bold line?

One ought to go to war, IMO, for ethical reasons (a whole can of worms on what that is), and accomplish the reasons why you did so, and then not grind the other country into the ground more and/or rub it in.  Spoils of war is unethical, to me, and further encourages unethical wars.

"We can get oil by nuking a country that is way less technologically and militarily advanced than us?"  Let's not use that as a way to tempt ourselves to twisting into a "this war is justified for other reasons" thing.

[lemanfan]

The bottom line is war has become prohibitively expensive.

That line feels kind of ... weird to me.  You make it sound like a problem that it's expensive to invade a country? 

This is indeed a hard time for peace.  In addition to all other conflicts, there is a terrorist group that has declared a state in the middle east, and there is a ground war being fought in Europe.  This very day.  And just 25 years ago, there was another war that tore apart nations in Europe.

We need peace, not war.

[EricL]

Premise: War is bad, and is to be avoided at all costs. A nation should only go to war if its very existence or security is directly threatened (or an ally's). You don't go to war to meddle in other another country's affairs or make them do what you want. But if you do have to go to war, under "honorable" conditions such as being attacked first, then if you win you take whatever you want from the defeated nation, and if they or anyone else bitches about it, too bad.

Doesn't the second bold line offer a perverse incentive to go to war besides the reasons offered in the first bold line?

One ought to go to war, IMO, for ethical reasons (a whole can of worms on what that is), and accomplish the reasons why you did so, and then not grind the other country into the ground more and/or rub it in.  Spoils of war is unethical, to me, and further encourages unethical wars.

"We can get oil by nuking a country that is way less technologically and militarily advanced than us?"  Let's not use that as a way to tempt ourselves to twisting into a "this war is justified for other reasons" thing.

I thought this thread was dead. It was indeed a bunch of musings on war that were only semi serious.  But I think that a country is justified in taking what it wants if it has done every possible, reasonable, effort to avoid war.  (And no, I don't think President Bush and his cronies made that effort the last time around). Though history has shown us some of those weren't prudent.  It's definitely true, we need more peace in the world.  But it's not there for the taking right now. 

Pres. Obama's inaction in Syria may be stupidity and may yet bite us in the ass. However, I feel a lot more comfortable with it compared to John McCain's knee-jerk let's go re invade something.  The first is an admission of ineptitude we can at some point remedy; the second is an opportunity to paint ourselves into a corner.

[arebelspy]

But I think that a country is justified in taking what it wants if it has done every possible, reasonable, effort to avoid war.

Again, this offers a perverse incentive to go to war, and to warp in your mind the fact that you're doing it for the "right" reasons.

If you're doing it for the right reasons, do it.  But then taking shit afterwards adds doubt, and makes people do things for the wrong reasons (taking shit) and claim they're doing it for the right ones.  Don't add that incentive.

[EricL]

But I think that a country is justified in taking what it wants if it has done every possible, reasonable, effort to avoid war.

Again, this offers a perverse incentive to go to war, and to warp in your mind the fact that you're doing it for the "right" reasons.

If you're doing it for the right reasons, do it.  But then taking shit afterwards adds doubt, and makes people do things for the wrong reasons (taking shit) and claim they're doing it for the right ones.  Don't add that incentive.

Your reasoning presumes that such a nation is automatically in a position to win the war.  Many nations are not so advantaged and their efforts to avoid war are as honest as they are earnest.  War is a crap shoot and at least for a democratic nation there is very little in the way of an up side even in victory.  Yeah, maybe countries should take a moral high ground and refuse plunder or "reparations".  But war is so nasty it's kind of a hard sell to pretend you're so pure after the fact.

[arebelspy]

Your reasoning presumes that such a nation is automatically in a position to win the war.  Many nations are not so advantaged and their efforts to avoid war are as honest as they are earnest.

Of course.  But there are often cases of disparate power and conquest. Those are the relevant ones.  It doesn't matter if that's not the case all of the time, as long as it is some of the time.

War is a crap shoot and at least for a democratic nation there is very little in the way of an up side even in victory. 

Sure.  So why offer more potential upside (and encourage it)?

Yeah, maybe countries should take a moral high ground and refuse plunder or "reparations".  But war is so nasty it's kind of a hard sell to pretend you're so pure after the fact.

Sure.  But at least you can avoid the accusations of "look at all the shit they took, that's the real reason why they did it."

Do it for the rare reasons that make war ethical.  Don't then take a bunch of shit afterwards.  That's not ethical, and undermines and encourages war.

[EricL]

In the cases of disparate power favoring the nation claiming to "avoid"'war it's grossly obvious and it does matter.  The Roman Kingdom and early Republic often inflicted huge damages from attackers so it was clear that going to war was no joking matter and stood as a warning to other aggressors.  Neighbors and allies generally understood.  Enemies, many of whom aspired to Rome's obliteration, did too.  Considering genocide was conclsidered an acceptable strategy in the ancient world it was also kind of generous (ethical?).  How well it worked is anybody's guess but generally nobody gets a lot of credit for prevention. The later Republic and Empire's claim to the same rights as a military juggeernaut were broadly understood to be a joke in poor taste by all their neighbors.

As for encouraging it, other posters on this thread have shown convincingly to me at least a modern nation doesn't get a lot out of it short of 100% annexation.  And even that isn't so great if you're annexing a shithole like Afghanistan. 

What other people think about what you did should be considered but he moral high ground is harder to enjoy when you're dead.  Harder still when others may have to pay for it. 

I've served 28 years in the military in some capacity and fully endorse war and violence as a means to an end.  But I've real difficulty calling any of it ethical and have severe doubts over efforts to make it so or seem so do much more than make people who don't fight more comfortable with it than they would be otherwise.

[PKFFW]

The simple fact is humans are not perfect.

Set up a situation in which the victor can take whatever they like from the loser and you will inevitably encourage any nation, that believes it can win, to go to war if they don't want to pay the price in some other way to resolve the issue.

It is probably an appealing idea to people who live in a militarily superior country that needs the resources of a militarily  less superior country to continue their own current standard of living.  Probably not such an appealing idea the other way around.

[EricL]

The simple fact is humans are not perfect.

+1

Set up a situation in which the victor can take whatever they like from the loser and you will inevitably encourage any nation, that believes it can win, to go to war if they don't want to pay the price in some other way to resolve the issue.

It is probably an appealing idea to people who live in a militarily superior country that needs the resources of a militarily  less superior country to continue their own current standard of living.  Probably not such an appealing idea the other way around.

I can see where a victor who was not favored to win might be quite enthusiastic about harsh reparations.  An example would be the Ethiopians in the first war with the Italians.  In the late 19th century Italy tried to coerce Ethiopia into becoming a protectorate with methods considered underhanded even by the standards of the time. To Italy, Ethiopia seemed a mere confederacy of spear chuckers. But actually it was an ancient sovereign state with a savvy monarch.  It was no pushover.  Italy, while punching above its weight in Africa due to modern firearms, was still only a third rate power.  As diplomacy failed Ethiopia went on a weapons buying spee and a national call up. When the two sides clashed the "spear chuckers" carried quality European firearms into battle which they fought from the high ground against the outnumbered, disorganized Italians. If Ethiopia in victory could have demanded harsh reparations against Italy they might well have.  If they'd known the Italians would return in greater numbers to inflict even greater suffering they definitely would have.

And I'll add that one of the great myths, IMO, of the past 250 years is that war is rational.  Even most pacifists assume this.  Yes, wars can be planned as rational exercises (though often that is illusory too) and benefit can from rare rationality.  But when the adrenalin is up the hands grow sweaty on the hounds' leashes (the bastards are always pulling hard); what was meant as a calm statement can be a loud cry for something else.

[Grog]

tl;dr: Here's a crazy notion I've had for several years, wondering what you all think: I think there should be spoils in war like in ancient times. Nations that win a war should take over the defeated nation, if they want it.

LOL do you mean that America should have been submissed to Vietnam?

[arebelspy]

The simple fact is humans are not perfect.

Set up a situation in which the victor can take whatever they like from the loser and you will inevitably encourage any nation, that believes it can win, to go to war if they don't want to pay the price in some other way to resolve the issue.

It is probably an appealing idea to people who live in a militarily superior country that needs the resources of a militarily  less superior country to continue their own current standard of living.  Probably not such an appealing idea the other way around.

Absolutely agreed.

And I'll add that one of the great myths, IMO, of the past 250 years is that war is rational.  Even most pacifists assume this.  Yes, wars can be planned as rational exercises (though often that is illusory too) and benefit can from rare rationality.  But when the adrenalin is up the hands grow sweaty on the hounds' leashes (the bastards are always pulling hard); what was meant as a calm statement can be a loud cry for something else.

Sure.  And why add more fuel (greed) to that irrational fire?

tl;dr: Here's a crazy notion I've had for several years, wondering what you all think: I think there should be spoils in war like in ancient times. Nations that win a war should take over the defeated nation, if they want it.

LOL do you mean that America should have been submissed to Vietnam?

Your hyperbole does bring up a interesting point, in that with such a case it becomes a fight to the death, there is no pulling out.

[EricL]

By comparison to war even greed in its lesser forms can be rational.  As for Vietnam, they're in the same boat as Ethiopia: victorious locally only.  But if they went to the UN to seek reparations, I think they'd have a case.  Not that the UN could help them.

In any case I've said my piece.  I'm not convinced by your arguments though they did have merit - they were more reasonable than some posters (***cough Open Carry cough***).   If you remain unconvinced by mine then you are...unconvinced.  As such, I'm done.

[DoubleDown]

Premise: War is bad, and is to be avoided at all costs. A nation should only go to war if its very existence or security is directly threatened (or an ally's). You don't go to war to meddle in other another country's affairs or make them do what you want. But if you do have to go to war, under "honorable" conditions such as being attacked first, then if you win you take

Doesn't the second bold line offer a perverse incentive to go to war besides the reasons offered in the first bold line?

I suppose it could offer a perverse incentive, but I'm inclined to think Bad Actors are going to be Bad regardless. Russia right now provides a terrible but very apt example of invading and annexing parts of Ukraine despite international condemnation of its actions. So, they have their perverse incentive no matter what. I'd like to think that if it came to all-out war, and Ukraine and its allies not only beat back Russia, but even drove them back into Russian territory, Ukraine might keep that territory as the cost of doing business against Russia and as a future deterrence. Otherwise they just lose a bunch of lives and spend a bunch of money to maintain the previous status quo; and Russia also gets to maintain the previous status quo, no long-lasting harm done.

Or, pick another Bad Actor. Suppose the complete nut case Dear Leader in North Korea decides to launch a nuclear weapon against Seoul or the U.S. It blows up a good part of a city. We launch a massive retaliation and overwhelm them, they surrender, and then what? Help them rebuild because their people are starving and form a new government? At that point, I'd say complete reunification with South Korea looks like a really good option.

[DoubleDown]

I thought this thread was dead. It was indeed a bunch of musings on war that were only semi serious. 

Yes, I did start this thread as only half-serious musings. It's a fun thought experiment (for me at least) in questioning some of the things we take for granted in "civilized" society. I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode (original series) where a planet had grown so civilized they had completely done away with actual, conventional war and destruction, and instead had computer simulations dictate which cities would have been destroyed in an attack. Then instead of actually destroying the cities and the people that lived there, those people that the computers determined would have been killed instead reported for orderly disposal in disintegration chambers, with no muss or fuss. Completely Awesome Captain Kirk has to lead them back to the threat of actual destruction of war to get them to stop fighting.

Of course, we think "that is silly, no society would really go to that extreme," but its a commentary nonetheless on trying to make war/conquest/spoils somewhere along the spectrum of civilized and sanitary.

[arebelspy]

Premise: War is bad, and is to be avoided at all costs. A nation should only go to war if its very existence or security is directly threatened (or an ally's). You don't go to war to meddle in other another country's affairs or make them do what you want. But if you do have to go to war, under "honorable" conditions such as being attacked first, then if you win you take

Doesn't the second bold line offer a perverse incentive to go to war besides the reasons offered in the first bold line?

I suppose it could offer a perverse incentive, but I'm inclined to think Bad Actors are going to be Bad regardless. Russia right now provides a terrible but very apt example of invading and annexing parts of Ukraine despite international condemnation of its actions. So, they have their perverse incentive no matter what. I'd like to think that if it came to all-out war, and Ukraine and its allies not only beat back Russia, but even drove them back into Russian territory, Ukraine might keep that territory as the cost of doing business against Russia and as a future deterrence. Otherwise they just lose a bunch of lives and spend a bunch of money to maintain the previous status quo; and Russia also gets to maintain the previous status quo, no long-lasting harm done.

Or, pick another Bad Actor. Suppose the complete nut case Dear Leader in North Korea decides to launch a nuclear weapon against Seoul or the U.S. It blows up a good part of a city. We launch a massive retaliation and overwhelm them, they surrender, and then what? Help them rebuild because their people are starving and form a new government? At that point, I'd say complete reunification with South Korea looks like a really good option.

Sure, bad actors will always exist, but doesn't it create more incentive for them, and the potential to turn good or neutral actors bad for greed's sake?  I just don't see the upside to it when the downside is "more war and death."

[Kriegsspiel]

I think ISIS saw my comment and took that route.

And who says internet forums can't change the world!