Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Does anyone else find it amusing that the only two nations I can think of that have historically invaded people for freedom are the French and the Soviet Union?

I...

You know what...

Now that you say that...

o.O

I gotta ponder that for a bit.

I know right, it's a very odd thing to think that the Soviets for all of their de facto faults were actually okay guys when it came to ideology.

And the French invaded various nations as part of the ongoing French Revolution until Napoleon decided to turn the situation to his own ends. Aside from that brief moment of idealogical fervour they didn't invade on the cause of Freedom until the Mali conflict last year. Though they do have something of a history of throwing the Legion around Africa to do away with some of the more vicious rebel movements in their ex colonies.

Aside from that I can't really think of anyone else who invaded a nation on the actual cause of Freedom.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that the last places we truly went into for "Freedom" was S. Korea and Vietnam. Most other places that have been "freedomized" by us have gotten there because of some incident or other (ie. US Marines died, so we launched Operation Just 'Cuz, or Saddam invaded Kuwait, a freedom loving country, so we had to fix that situation as well)

Not even then. The only reason why the US went to war over Korea and Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. If communism wasn't involved, they wouldn't have bothered.

Well, that and French rubber plantations. Don't want those dirty Reds to have tires, now do we?

As to the OP, I do think that yes it can be beneficial to the invaded country if another country were to invade and briefly occupy for the intention of spreading freedom. There are several reasons why this isn't done though. First of all an invasion for the explicit purpose of Freedom for the inhabitants means that the invading nation should not seek or expect any kind of recompense for their actions aside from possible good will from the populace if it goes smoothly. That means that the nation cannot economically exploit the nation, nor exercise or significantly influence the politics of the country after they have stabilised it. Thirdly, such a campaign is likely to be long term, and after the initial invasion the rebuilding of the country must be done in a way that leaves the control of the operation to the local inhabitants. The only lasting political control that I think would be justified is the writing of the invaded nations constitution, but only as long as it is fair to the people and enshrines no special treatment or favours towards the occupying nation.

While I recognise it would be a very hard endeavour to both undertake and sell to the public, I really do think that it is something that is both possible and could benefit various sections of humanity that currently suffer from oppressive regimes or governments.

But I'm probably being rather naive right now.

Strategically speaking if you look at the position of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran and consider the previous Administration's feeling toward Iran, you will find an interesting geopolitical/military situation.

You can't tell me that wargamers hadn't seen this before!

 Firehead158 wrote:
Yes, it was a little bit of sarcasm on my part. Dunno if that made it through or not.

No, I fell into the sarchasm :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
As to the OP, I do think that yes it can be beneficial to the invaded country if another country were to invade and briefly occupy for the intention of spreading freedom. There are several reasons why this isn't done though.

Chiefly, the time-honored tradition of: "You break it, you bought it".

For the record: when did the Soviets invade anything for any reason other than resource/land grabs and expendable roadblocks to invasion? (Aside from prosecuting a war they didn't start all the way back into the aggressor's capital). Yeah, a lot of their actions in the cold war amounted to trying to build allies/trade partners out of impoverished nations, but none of that included actual invasions on their part, just funding one side or another.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
For the record: when did the Soviets invade anything for any reason other than resource/land grabs and expendable roadblocks to invasion? (Aside from prosecuting a war they didn't start all the way back into the aggressor's capital). Yeah, a lot of their actions in the cold war amounted to trying to build allies/trade partners out of impoverished nations, but none of that included actual invasions on their part, just funding one side or another.

More like a hostile takeover using planted agents as the doorway in but thats a moot point.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
For the record: when did the Soviets invade anything for any reason other than resource/land grabs and expendable roadblocks to invasion? (Aside from prosecuting a war they didn't start all the way back into the aggressor's capital). Yeah, a lot of their actions in the cold war amounted to trying to build allies/trade partners out of impoverished nations, but none of that included actual invasions on their part, just funding one side or another.

More like a hostile takeover using planted agents as the doorway in but thats a moot point.

Is their agent not then, technically speaking, one side or another? I did mean funding in a broader sense than just financial.

I think they went into Afghanistan for freedom, or at least that is what I've been told. They also went into South Ossetia and then Georgia pretty much because freedom and friendly neighbours.

 Firehead158 wrote:

Afghanistan. AKA Operation Enduring Freedom. Though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap of some "Al Queda", and the Taliban happened to be in our way. So we gave them some freedom too. Liberated the beejezuz out of them.

Iraq. Aka Operation Iraqi Freedom. Again, though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap out of some uh....Republican Guard? I dunno, we just killed liberated the crap out of them too.

Somalia. Operation Gothic Serpent. We had to give the Somalis some snakes.

We went into Somalia because it's not like we had anything better to do on the weekends. We then realized that Somalia is so incurably jacked up that burning the cities and salting the earth wouldn't produce any noticeable difference.

Yeah, nobody could possibly notice. Makes me wonder if NK would be the same deal.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, nobody could possibly notice. Makes me wonder if NK would be the same deal.

no because the fires wouldn't catch, and the salt would freeze before anything could be accomplished.

 Seaward wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:

Afghanistan. AKA Operation Enduring Freedom. Though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap of some "Al Queda", and the Taliban happened to be in our way. So we gave them some freedom too. Liberated the beejezuz out of them.

Iraq. Aka Operation Iraqi Freedom. Again, though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap out of some uh....Republican Guard? I dunno, we just killed liberated the crap out of them too.

Somalia. Operation Gothic Serpent. We had to give the Somalis some snakes.

gothic serpent? That's a pretty metal sounding operation.

Did the Marines use sonic weaponry?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-4npEHXMGVg/S7sLAz5DJuI/AAAAAAAADIE/tDDU4a4g-5c/s1600/peace_through_superior_firepower_sticker-p217287362224804280qjcl_400.jpg

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:

Afghanistan. AKA Operation Enduring Freedom. Though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap of some "Al Queda", and the Taliban happened to be in our way. So we gave them some freedom too. Liberated the beejezuz out of them.

Iraq. Aka Operation Iraqi Freedom. Again, though not necessarily for freedom. We had to murder the crap out of some uh....Republican Guard? I dunno, we just killed liberated the crap out of them too.

Somalia. Operation Gothic Serpent. We had to give the Somalis some snakes.

gothic serpent? That's a pretty metal sounding operation.

Did the Marines use sonic weaponry?

Do LAVs and sniper rifles count?

Do the rifles look like Electric Guitars?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
We went into Somalia because it's not like we had anything better to do on the weekends. We then realized that Somalia is so incurably jacked up that burning the cities and salting the earth wouldn't produce any noticeable difference.

Actually it would make a significant difference not only would those actions put you on similar level of cruelty as some of the other famously horrific regimes in history it would also have a major impact on the environment and certain industries.

If Black Hawk Down is an accurate image of the restrictions that were placed on the military there, I think that the Somalia operation could have been successful, they just had to remove some of the restrictions and actively go after the warlords or groups that wouldn't conform to their standards.

Regardless of what you think about the conflicts in the past few years, I would seriously argue that women in the middle eastern countries we "invaded" quite likely feel they have been a helluva lot more "freedom" than before we showed up. And yet, still not nearly enough.

Another country that could use a good dose of "invading for freedom"? Burma.

Well if we're drawing up lists I think Rhodesia should be on there too, as well as Syria.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Well if we're drawing up lists I think Rhodesia should be on there too, as well as Syria.

Rhodesia isn't a place anymore. Do you mean Zimbabwe, which is what Rhodesia became or.... I don't even know. Rwanda?

Unless Rhodesia is back somewhere somehow.

Zimbabwe is what it is currently called yes, but since higher up they mentioned Burma which is currently called Myanmar I think it's okay.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Zimbabwe is what it is currently called yes, but since higher up they mentioned Burma which is currently called Myanmar I think it's okay.

So it is. Total brainfart, forgot that Burma is now Myanmar. Whoops!

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Regardless of what you think about the conflicts in the past few years, I would seriously argue that women in the middle eastern countries we "invaded" quite likely feel they have been a helluva lot more "freedom" than before we showed up. And yet, still not nearly enough.

Another country that could use a good dose of "invading for freedom"? Burma.

Yeah, those burqas scare me I have a really bizarre fear towards them like even just seeing images of them can cause nightmares for me. Niqabs don't scare me but whenever I see a women wear one their eyes always seem to have a frightened or sad look the first time I saw a women in

a niqab I had to do a double take, they're like fething ninjas but if I saw a women in a burqa I would probably tremble with fear.

 Ouze wrote:

There is no rational explanation for the meme that the United States is interested in spreading freedom, it's simply not true in either fact or ideal,

Its based on the equation of democracy and freedom.

Its been argued that the reason behind the invasion of Iraq was that the institution of democracy there would cause the rest of the Middle East to become democratic. And since, according to democratic peace theory, democracies don't make war with other democracies the Middle East would become more amenable to the US. As we all know, a lot of the rhetoric surrounding this decision was built on spreading freedom by toppling Saddam's regime. So the natural conclusion is that America is spreading freedom, where "freedom" means government systems it believe will be sympathetic.

Granted, this really only applies to the Iraq War, but that's also the conflict that's freshest in people's minds.

I thought it came about because of the thought that it is/was one of America's founding beliefs that they were there to bring Freedom to world. Either by shining example or by the point of the sword. Now it hasn't exactly panned out that way, but it did play a not insignificant role in the political justification of their Western expansion.

 dogma wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

There is no rational explanation for the meme that the United States is interested in spreading freedom, it's simply not true in either fact or ideal,

Its based on the equation of democracy and freedom.

Its been argued that the reason behind the invasion of Iraq was that the institution of democracy there would cause the rest of the Middle East to become democratic. And since, according to democratic peace theory, democracies don't make war with other democracies the Middle East would become more amenable to the US. As we all know, a lot of the rhetoric surrounding this decision was built on spreading freedom by toppling Saddam's regime. So the natural conclusion is that America is spreading freedom, where "freedom" means government systems it believe will be sympathetic.

Granted, this really only applies to the Iraq War, but that's also the conflict that's freshest in people's minds.

If that were true... we'd be fething invading half the planet (exaggeration... maybe... Canada haz maple syrup... definitely may need an invasion )

According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of alleged nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace...

 whembly wrote:

If that were true... we'd be fething invading half the planet (exaggeration... maybe... Canada haz maple syrup... definitely may need an invasion )

According to Blair, the trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of alleged nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace...

The argument stems from all the various members of PNAC that were also members of the Bush Administration, adhered to democratic peace theory*, and identified the Middle East as a threat to American security. The point being that said members (the British just sort of got roped in) weren't necessarily concerned about the reality of Iraqi WMDs, as Iraq and the rest of the Middle East were viewed as a generic threat that needed to be addressed.



*Which many of them interpreted as the "American Peace".