[neither the Mexican War nor any other war prior to the First World War has anything to teach us about modern war (including the current one in Ukraine)]
I can't go along with that. There are plenty of historical conflicts we can still draw lessons from. Our own civil war, where the larger nation with more men and a bigger economy event…
[neither the Mexican War nor any other war prior to the First World War has anything to teach us about modern war (including the current one in Ukraine)]
I can't go along with that. There are plenty of historical conflicts we can still draw lessons from. Our own civil war, where the larger nation with more men and a bigger economy eventually ground down a smaller nation with better generals and many early battlefield victories comes to mind. Fortunately we in the west seem to be heeding that lesson as we do much more to support Ukraine and weaken Russia than anyone external did in the Civil War for the South (a good thing, too).
I would dispute that the the Confederacy had better generals. Better tacticians, perhaps, but strategically, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, and their immediate subordinates didn't just overwhelm Lee and company -- they outgeneraled them, too.
I'd stand by the point that wars prior to WWI have relatively little to teach us too, but that's irrelevant to my main point: that the Mexican War has NOTHING to teach us about immigration policy.
Yes, the Union generals in the first two years, especially McClellan, were pretty bad. He was good at training them, but not in leading them into battle.
And I should have said "outside military science". I don't question the ongoing value of studying the generalship of Napoleon -- or Caesar and Hannibal, for that matter. But the topic arose in reference to Sociology and International Law, and I do think that conflicts prior to the delegitimizing of the Right of Conquest as an organizing principle have little to teach us on those topics.
[neither the Mexican War nor any other war prior to the First World War has anything to teach us about modern war (including the current one in Ukraine)]
I can't go along with that. There are plenty of historical conflicts we can still draw lessons from. Our own civil war, where the larger nation with more men and a bigger economy eventually ground down a smaller nation with better generals and many early battlefield victories comes to mind. Fortunately we in the west seem to be heeding that lesson as we do much more to support Ukraine and weaken Russia than anyone external did in the Civil War for the South (a good thing, too).
I would dispute that the the Confederacy had better generals. Better tacticians, perhaps, but strategically, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade, and their immediate subordinates didn't just overwhelm Lee and company -- they outgeneraled them, too.
I'd stand by the point that wars prior to WWI have relatively little to teach us too, but that's irrelevant to my main point: that the Mexican War has NOTHING to teach us about immigration policy.
I should have said better generals at the start.
As for wars prior to WWI, I'm still not buying, but I'll definitely grant you the point about immigration policy.
Yes, the Union generals in the first two years, especially McClellan, were pretty bad. He was good at training them, but not in leading them into battle.
And I should have said "outside military science". I don't question the ongoing value of studying the generalship of Napoleon -- or Caesar and Hannibal, for that matter. But the topic arose in reference to Sociology and International Law, and I do think that conflicts prior to the delegitimizing of the Right of Conquest as an organizing principle have little to teach us on those topics.