So, in another comment in this thread I talked about how Canada is one of the best in the world at counterinsurgency because we’re experts at asymmetric warfare (since we usually have to fight like insurgents in order to be effective). But probably the most important lesson we’ve learned, even as a country that’s really good at this, is that there is basically a hard limit on how effective counterinsurgency can ever be from a military standpoint.
Basically, you cannot militarily suppress an insurgency. Military can play a role sometimes, but ultimately the only way to deal with an insurgent population is to remove their motivation. You have to get them to not want to fight. This lesson is actually better seen in Northern Ireland. It was diplomacy that ended the Troubles (for now), not military force.
The Romans figured this out two millenia ago. That’s why they made such a point of offering citizenship to peoples of conquered nations, and constantly expanded the definition of “Roman” to include those citizens. They knew that the key to absorbing new territory successfully was to make those people want to be Roman in their hearts.
To end a Canadian insurgency successfully, the Americans would have to figure out how to make the entirety of Canada happier being American. And unless they’re about to institute protections for women and minorities, abortion rights, public healthcare, a stronger federal minimum wage, gun safety laws, marginally better consumer and worker protections, and a few other things besides, I don’t think they’ve got any real hope of doing that within the next fifty years.
This, by the way, is exactly why our government should not be throwing any of those things by the wayside in our rush to “strengthen” Canada. The core of a nation’s strength is how much the people of that nation believe in it. And that belief comes from seeing how your life is better for being a part of that society. We need to focus on our Canadian identity, and building up those things that strengthen and protect the people of Canada. Businesses and billionaires don’t fight to protect a country; people do.
Excellent comment overall, with the exception of the Roman history bit that is not accurate. Beyond that one bit, hundred percent agree.
Roman history
Tacitus cites Calgacus, a scottish chief: “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire, and where they make a desert, they call it peace.” Rome did not win minds first and offer peace after, unless you immediately capitulated. If you didn’t immediately open your gates and submit, they first defeated you militarily, they butchered you and enslaved you. Then they gave your land to their veterans. And yes, several decades later you’d be “pacified”. From Corinth, to Gaul, to Jerusalem, to Dacia, just to name the ones that come to mind. It was not pretty.
And the expansion of Roman citizenship was not part of this process by the way. The first expansion followed the Social War and was only given to latin allies who had not forcefully demanded it. After that it trickled to the various client elites, until the edict of Caracalla, which came after the borders of the empire had been stable for about a century and it was arguably only done to allow the state to expand its tax base.
So, in another comment in this thread I talked about how Canada is one of the best in the world at counterinsurgency because we’re experts at asymmetric warfare (since we usually have to fight like insurgents in order to be effective). But probably the most important lesson we’ve learned, even as a country that’s really good at this, is that there is basically a hard limit on how effective counterinsurgency can ever be from a military standpoint.
Basically, you cannot militarily suppress an insurgency. Military can play a role sometimes, but ultimately the only way to deal with an insurgent population is to remove their motivation. You have to get them to not want to fight. This lesson is actually better seen in Northern Ireland. It was diplomacy that ended the Troubles (for now), not military force.
The Romans figured this out two millenia ago. That’s why they made such a point of offering citizenship to peoples of conquered nations, and constantly expanded the definition of “Roman” to include those citizens. They knew that the key to absorbing new territory successfully was to make those people want to be Roman in their hearts.
To end a Canadian insurgency successfully, the Americans would have to figure out how to make the entirety of Canada happier being American. And unless they’re about to institute protections for women and minorities, abortion rights, public healthcare, a stronger federal minimum wage, gun safety laws, marginally better consumer and worker protections, and a few other things besides, I don’t think they’ve got any real hope of doing that within the next fifty years.
This, by the way, is exactly why our government should not be throwing any of those things by the wayside in our rush to “strengthen” Canada. The core of a nation’s strength is how much the people of that nation believe in it. And that belief comes from seeing how your life is better for being a part of that society. We need to focus on our Canadian identity, and building up those things that strengthen and protect the people of Canada. Businesses and billionaires don’t fight to protect a country; people do.
Excellent comment overall, with the exception of the Roman history bit that is not accurate. Beyond that one bit, hundred percent agree.
Roman history
Tacitus cites Calgacus, a scottish chief: “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire, and where they make a desert, they call it peace.” Rome did not win minds first and offer peace after, unless you immediately capitulated. If you didn’t immediately open your gates and submit, they first defeated you militarily, they butchered you and enslaved you. Then they gave your land to their veterans. And yes, several decades later you’d be “pacified”. From Corinth, to Gaul, to Jerusalem, to Dacia, just to name the ones that come to mind. It was not pretty.
And the expansion of Roman citizenship was not part of this process by the way. The first expansion followed the Social War and was only given to latin allies who had not forcefully demanded it. After that it trickled to the various client elites, until the edict of Caracalla, which came after the borders of the empire had been stable for about a century and it was arguably only done to allow the state to expand its tax base.