"The US largely did what it set out to do in Iraq. Built up the local army and police and handed power over. For whatever reason in Afghanistan we seem dead set on screwing things up with the Taliban, having not learned that alienating the Baathists was the biggest problem we had in Iraq. "

Saddam Hussain had far greater control over the islamic extremist factions we see there than the current government does. Baghdad is not safe for anyone now, in the old days it was just unsafe for those who spoke out against the regime. The American occupation of Iraq is not successful by any somewhat rigorous definition. Same in Afghanistan. I do see your point, but building up a local police and army does not a successful occupation make.

I can't claim to understand feudal politics, but I thought that Spain got the Low Countries through inheritance & marriage, not conquest.

I think you saw plenty wars of conquest & occupation. The so-called 'tribute' states were much like the system of British chieftains set up in Africa, except far less independent. If the conquered areas dared raise a banner of nominal independence against Ming or Qing rule they could be assured of destruction. The Yuan dynasty annexed most of southern regions outside of the Chinese core (Yunnan, Guangxi), including parts of Burma. The Ming Dynasty for a time took control of Vietnam. The Qing Dynasty took Turkestan, Tibet, and Mongolia.

The conquered areas were treated qualitatively different than normal tributary states like Korea, Java, or Champa.

"Spain" didn't get the Low Countries. The Habsburgs (Seriously, Firefox? You can't tell that's a word?) got them, as you say, through inheritance and marriage. When the family split the line ruling Spain kept control. It's more that their ruler was also the king of Spainand had his power base there than that Spain itself had control. Hair-splitting, of course, but these are the fine distinctions one is forced to deal with with these sorts of issues.


As for China and Russia inevitably going to war, I really just don't see it. Crises? Aplenty. But war? Neither can afford the risk.

The CCP's political legitimacy comes entirely from it being able to guarantee continued economic growth. A war would risk that and jeopardize their hold on power. I also don't see a war with Russia as a viable distraction for a recession either. As soon as an economic downturn happens China will have serious domestic unrest to deal with, and could ill-afford to start a war in the wastes of Siberia while there's potential for political dissent at home. As for Russia, they just don't have enough Russians any more to sustain a conventional war of the scale a war with China would likely be. The huge disadvantage of young men to die means Russia is far more likely to use nuclear weapons to defend its territory if it really starts to lose. That would mean a response. So the war's unlikely because both China is deterred by the high likelihood of a Russian nuclear strike if China's too successful and Russia will do everything it can to avoid war since it knows it will have to escalate it in relatively short order.

I stand by my slow creep idea. The post-Putin Russia is only about 10 years away. That's nothing to the patient Chinese. Even the slow-creep idea may be kind of unlikely, since China's sitting on a housing bubble as bad as what happened in the West. When it pops we may be more worried about the unrest in China itself rather than its potential geostrategy in Inland Asia.

"Habsburgs (Seriously, Firefox? You can't tell that's a word?)"

I hate to break it to you, but, technically, that isn't a word.

In what possible way is the name of arguably the most influential family in European history not a word? At any rate, it looks like Firefox prefers "Hapsburg" over the more authentic "Habsburg." Go figure.

so anyway

A name isn't a word just because it's a famous name... Is it?

All names are words. They're called proper nouns. I just would think Firefox would have such a prominent word in its dictionary. Well, in its dictionary and spelled the normal way.

@steephie,
Invictus is Amerikaan, jij gaat nog naar school. Wie van jullie twee zou gelijk hebben? ;-)
Maar dit alles terzijde

My German friend prefers Habsburg, and corrected me when I said Hapsburg. Good to know we each had our reasons.