What Tacitus Can Teach Us about the War on Terror

The 1st-century historian wrote a detailed description of a war fought between the Roman empire and North African insurgents led by a former Roman soldier named Tacfarinas. The Romans enjoyed superior resources, training, and equipment, but Tacfarinas’ forces achieved great success against them with guerrilla tactics. Nevertheless, Rome eventually won. The lessons for the U.S. war on terror, and Israel’s wars with Hamas and Hizballah, are evident. Jakub Grygiel writes:

Tacfarinas . . . in Tacitus’ evocative phrase . . . began to scatter the war, sowing terror and disruption here and there, retreating and advancing, moving to the front and then to the rear of Roman forces. . . . A relatively small rebellion became a ubiquitous war, engulfing a whole region and creating a series of challenges to the defending army. . . .

Perhaps more importantly from the political perspective, . . . Tacfarinas realized that he did not need to kill Roman soldiers to defeat them. . . . He could simply chip away at Rome’s authority and its reputation for power by mocking its forces militarily, showing that its mighty legions could not win against an enemy that they could not fix in place. . . .

The Romans had to become more like Tacfarinas’ confederation of tribes [in order to win], and so began to fight him with tactics not dissimilar from his. . . . The broad goal was to make the [insurgents] as afraid of a raid as the Romans were, while at the same time limiting their mobility by fortifying potential targets and key roads.

Read more at American Interest

More about: Ancient Rome, History & Ideas, Israeli Security, Military history, War on Terror

 

Expand Gaza into Sinai

Feb. 11 2025

Calling the proposal to depopulate Gaza completely (if temporarily) “unworkable,” Peter Berkowitz makes the case for a similar, but more feasible, plan:

The United States along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should persuade Egypt by means of generous financial inducements to open the sparsely populated ten-to-fifteen miles of Sinai adjacent to Gaza to Palestinians seeking a fresh start and better life. Egypt would not absorb Gazans and make them citizens but rather move Gaza’s border . . . westward into Sinai. Fences would be erected along the new border. The Israel Defense Force would maintain border security on the Gaza-extension side, Egyptian forces on the other. Egypt might lease the land to the Palestinians for 75 years.

The Sinai option does not involve forced transfer of civilian populations, which the international laws of war bar. As the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other partners build temporary dwellings and then apartment buildings and towns, they would provide bus service to the Gaza-extension. Palestinian families that choose to make the short trip would receive a key to a new residence and, say, $10,000.

The Sinai option is flawed. . . . Then again, all conventional options for rehabilitating and governing Gaza are terrible.

Read more at RealClear Politics

More about: Donald Trump, Egypt, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula