Quote Originally Posted by digicross
Then also, why use battles at all?

Those who know on how to do battles (or at least read Sun Tzu's Art of War) knows that it's better to gain a territory not through battles, but through cunning and diplomacy. Make them give their territory to you without any battle at all.

One of those people that do exactly just that in recent time is the former Indonesian president Suharto, when he devise the creation of A.S.E.A.N. (Association of South East Asian Nations), which is essentially can be considered as Indonesia+. He as a military general is quite well versed in the art of war, his prefered method of conquering other countries is actually more into as corporate merger or corporate take over (a.k.a. A.S.E.A.N.) instead of military of invasion (makes no mistake though, he has no qualm of using military forces if needed). If he indeed make a military invasion, chances are that he was ORDERED to do so, and not his own personal actions. For example, the invasion to East Timor (that was done exactly after he met with Henry Kissinger) doesn't has his signature moves, even if he participated in it. Some says that Kissinger give his approval, what if it's more like an order?
I would have to disagree with you on the matter of Suharto invading East Timor. True, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and then US president
Gerald Ford were in Indonesia the day before the invasion took place. But instead of them ordering Suharto to invade, it was a "green light" giving an o.k. to go ahead with an invasion.

Declassified US gov't documents published by the
National Security Archive are none the less still
damning to all parties involved in the conversation.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB62/
Ford was unambiguous: “We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have.”

as Kissinger told Suharto: “We would be able to influence the reaction in America if whatever happens happens after we return. . . If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the President returns home.”


This sounds quite in line with what Suharto would do given his taking
power resulted in the massacre of over 700,000 Indonesians.
And I don't blame this on Suharto alone either. The CIA provided lists
of known and suspected communists and communist sympathizers.


Then there's the whole take over of West Irian/West Papua as well.
In what was called the "Act of Free Choice" has been sarcastically
called the "Act of No Choice". Indonesia was to help conduct an
election on self-determination under the UN, but "quickly moved to repress
political dissent by groups demanding outright independence for the territory."
The only ones allowed to vote were 1022 Papuans hand picked by Indonesian authorities.

Again, relevent US documents surrounding this issue:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB128/index.htm


But I don't mean to sit here and slam your government - only.
As noted I've ripped on US officials too.


_____
It is interesting you note ASEAN as a sort of corporate take over
of other countries.

Then compared with the US invasion of Iraq to make it an indepedent country
rather than the 51st state. Also I'd like to throw the trade agreement NAFTA
(North American Free Trade Agreement) between Mexico, Canada, & the US, as well as IMF, World Bank, & WTO into the mix.

Some people consider NAFTA to be an annexation of Mexico of sorts similar
to your comparison for ASEAN.
"Annexation of Mexico : From the Aztecs to the IMF"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...82559?v=glance

With the IMF, WTO, & World Bank, being from Indonesia I suspect
you might be more familiar with the international monetary institutions
treatment of countries not of the G7/G8 ("the North"), again inline
with your ASEAN comparison, and for those not familiar with such a point
of view...
My understanding is that those 3 institutions act as a sort of global
governance system. IMF & World Bank (I forget which does what)
give out loans to countries under the guise of development or
poverty reduction or in a financial crisis. As conditional to get these
loans countries are forced reorganize their economy and gov't services
including cutting schooling funds sometimes down to grade school.
Privatize gov't held industries. Reorganize tax structures to treat foreign
corporations as if they were local businesses and even allow for investments
to be taken out of the country 100% on a whim. WTO threatens lawsuits
if such things as environmental or worker protections are ruled a "barrier
to trade" by an unelected 3 judge tribunal.

And with US invasion of Iraq, it is rather setting up a puppet gov't.
It would be very bad public relations and even their biggest supporters
would not support them if the US gov't set up a 51st state.
Instead they invade by telling lies to their own population about "weapons
of mass destruction" and hint at connections with 9/11 terrorist attacks.
(never outright claim there are connections,
but hint at them and prominant non-governmental supporters can tell out right lies).
When the US had its viceroy in power before handing over to the Iraqi
interm government, Paul Bremer signed into law, that for Iraqis, was
really bad economic policies. Foreign companies could own 100% of
companies and withdraw 100% of all assets at any time. Also no foreign
company could be held responsible for anything. At first they were going
to privatize all the state owned oil companies, but they decided it was better
for profits if they kept it state owned. Also imposed a flat tax system.
Its all about economics. They don't have to steal the oil and send it home,
just control of the oil so they can profit from where ever it goes.

Basically control the heads of state enough to deal economically in favor of
you instead of their own people. Which is a major reason the US didn't
say anything when Saddam Hussein was massacring the Kurds back
in the 80's.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

So that too fits in with your ASEAN corporate take over scheme.
I actually believe more of the ones that I listed, but its the first
I've heard of the example you gave, so I'll try to keep an open mind.
Thus far I've been thinking ASEAN was more like the European Union
before it became political, it was mainly economic.