This is coolbert:
And what would Niccolo say?
From the Internet web site Small Wars Journal and thanks to same. The article by Chad M. Pillai.
"Fundamental principles" as enunciated by Machiavelli hardly should hardly be confined to the wars of the Middle East. Are eternal "fundamental principles" and should be understood fully well as being so.
Several paragraphs as extracted in entirety, verbatim:
"To avoid hubris, senior political and military leaders should have read closely Niccolò Machiavelli book 'The Prince' on what a ruler should expect when conquering foreign land. In chapters four and five, Machiavelli lays out the fundamental principles a ruler needed to understand before embarking on conquest by highlighting the differences between the Kingdom of France and the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. To briefly paraphrase Machiavelli's advice in chapter four, he wrote that states that are hard to conquer are easy to rule while states that are easy to conquer are hard to rule."
"In chapter five [The Prince], Machiavelli providers further advice on what to expect when conquering another with the following words:"
"When a state accustomed to live in freedom under its own laws is acquired, there are three ways of keeping it: the first is to destroy it, the second is to go to live there in person; the third is to let it continue to live under its own laws, taking tribute from it, and setting up a government composed of a few men who will keep it friendly to you. Such a government, being the creature of the prince, will be aware that it cannot survive without his friendship and support, and it will do everything to maintain his authority. A city which is used to freedom is more easily controlled by means of its own citizens than by any other, provided one chooses not to destroy it."
EASY TO CONQUER, HARD TO RULE. HARD TO CONQUER, EASY TO RULE?
My instantaneous thought was Japan and German in the post-WW2 era. American success story in both cases?