Bill Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote: > This presupposes the US intends to rule Afghanistan and Iraq, > which is manifestly false.
Since this chain started by ragging on RAH about it being a _geodesic_ neo-{Khan, con-men} empire, you're both correct - there isn't a conflict between ruling them by proxy and not ruling them directly
Most all empires that lasted more than a few decades used indirect rule (famous big exception China - though not always and they had to endure generations of collapse between each advance)
Rome & Britain just best known.
Read up on Lord Lugard.
