It loses the distinction between us and them.
You can speculate over your pet approach if you like, but realistically it isn't going to happen, and I don't see how you can draw a meaningful comparison between the establishment of "sepoy-like forces" in imperial settings (which Americans did as well as anyone else) and what you're proposing.
Your initial contention:
still seems somewhat dubious to me, both for the misplaced comparison referred to above and in the implicit assumption that "indirect rule" is the desired end state.The Americans never really mastered this indirect rule and the setup of effective indigenous sepoy-like forces either
Bookmarks