I think you may overestimate how much control over an enemy’s internal politics you can reasonably expect. The enemy is going to be as hardened as possible against your influence and will assuredly establish strong social norms against yielding to your influence, for values of “strong” that look like “succumbing to enemy pressure is treason, punishable by death”. Nations pull together in war.
I expect this to usually not be much of an issue, though for two very different reasons, depending on the country:
Many third-world countries just don’t have a strong nationalistic streak. People act in their own interest or their family’s interest, even if the country is at war. (Same sort of attitude that gives rise to widespread corruption and nepotism.)
Social pressure itself is dominated by symbolism. Succumbing to enemy pressure does not necessarily look like succumbing to enemy pressure. Furthermore, political factions will actively spin anything to make their side look good.
In the first case you cite, you’ve misidentified your enemy. You’re not fighting the nation, you’re fighting some subset of it. The usual response is to identify a significant subset that opposes your enemy subset and supply them weapons. Be careful—a lot of Afghan anti-American insurgents started out as a US funded anti-Soviet insurgents. The enemy of your enemy often stops being your friend when your first enemy has fled.
For the second case—the enemy is probably not stupid or politically naive (they’re leading a country, after all). Anyone within their borders who impedes their prosecution of a war will very likely be imprisoned and replaced (and probably executed). You may see the occasional Oskar Schindler type who’s willing to take the risk and cunning enough to carry it off, but that’s pretty rare and it’s far too slim a reed to support a realistic military strategy.
I think you may overestimate how much control over an enemy’s internal politics you can reasonably expect. The enemy is going to be as hardened as possible against your influence and will assuredly establish strong social norms against yielding to your influence, for values of “strong” that look like “succumbing to enemy pressure is treason, punishable by death”. Nations pull together in war.
I expect this to usually not be much of an issue, though for two very different reasons, depending on the country:
Many third-world countries just don’t have a strong nationalistic streak. People act in their own interest or their family’s interest, even if the country is at war. (Same sort of attitude that gives rise to widespread corruption and nepotism.)
Social pressure itself is dominated by symbolism. Succumbing to enemy pressure does not necessarily look like succumbing to enemy pressure. Furthermore, political factions will actively spin anything to make their side look good.
In the first case you cite, you’ve misidentified your enemy. You’re not fighting the nation, you’re fighting some subset of it. The usual response is to identify a significant subset that opposes your enemy subset and supply them weapons. Be careful—a lot of Afghan anti-American insurgents started out as a US funded anti-Soviet insurgents. The enemy of your enemy often stops being your friend when your first enemy has fled.
For the second case—the enemy is probably not stupid or politically naive (they’re leading a country, after all). Anyone within their borders who impedes their prosecution of a war will very likely be imprisoned and replaced (and probably executed). You may see the occasional Oskar Schindler type who’s willing to take the risk and cunning enough to carry it off, but that’s pretty rare and it’s far too slim a reed to support a realistic military strategy.
Whoops, this was meant as a response to the post, not ChristianKI’s comment.