HSX Forum

TVStocks, MusicStocks and Life

Reply Topic List All Forums

report abuse

I'd argue though, that in most of those cases, not a lot of thought was put into installing a Western-style government.

Posted by: RogerMore on Jul 16, 13:52 in response to arf's post That's an excellent synopsis! You have valid points....

As you said, the objective was to stop communism from spreading, to remove a regime or for immediate humanitarian grounds. That involved removing a threat and stabilising a chaotic situation, not necessarily installing a new government.

For Korea and Vietnam, that meant shoring up a military dictatorship, not establishing a democracy.

For Iraq - well, there were plans developed by the Dept. of State, but they were thrown out by DoD. The Coalition Provisional Authority was run out of USDoD, the Iraqi army was disbanded rather than co-opted, Abu Ghraib undermined Iraqi confidence in the US effort - the liberators were just as bad as the oppressors. Whatever possibility there was of creating a functional state died early on.

For Afghanistan - the focus was also about ensuring a government that provided stability

For Somalia (I think this is what you meant when you said Ethiopia) - the focus was on immediate humanitarian efforts and restoring some sort of order, so getting warlords to stop fighting and share power, not installing a Western style government.

For former Yugoslavia - this was about forestalling conflict. Europeans didn't want a war happening in a corner of Europe.

So in none of these cases was the primary objective to install a Western style government. In some (except Iraq and Afghanistan) it was a side benefit, or a secondary objective, but the immediate/military objective was always first.

Compare against post-war Germany and Japan, which are examples of successful nation-builing. The enemy had been defeated, and the goal was to build up societies that would not be a threat (and would help in the fight against communism). Time, effort, thought and money was put into post-war reconstruction, through the Marshall Plan, but also through building up institutions that created checks and balances on power and established the rule of law. There wasn't much of a domestic insurgency, not to the extent of Iraq or Afghanistan, so the focus could be in re-building, not defending. (It also involved making some uncomfortable compromises - eg allowing Emperor Hirohito to remain as a figurehead.)

I disagree with your statement that "freedom is too alien for them to grasp when their lives have been a dictatorship for as long as even their parents remember". Unsurprisingly, a lot of dictators use this as an excuse for why Western ideas like democracy will not work in their country, and therefore they should remain in power. But I think that the desire for freedom - to live your life without interference from others - is more or less universal. Everyone understands freedom - the challenge is accepting that other people have freedom too.

The issue with "not ready for freedom" is really that the system is not ready for freedom. A country that doesn't have an independent courts system, that doesn't good governance or a strong anti-corruption agency, that doesn't have a free press, that doesn't have constitutional rights like free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly, that doesn't have a system that protects minorities against majority will - this country is not ready for democracy because its system of government isn't ready to support it.

Look at Russia at the end of the Cold War, for example. Democracy was hugely popular. But the government sold its assets to insiders, the courts system was undermined, the media was undermined, opposition parties were undermined, anti-corruption advocates and journalists who asked the wrong questions were murdered. This didn't happen because "people weren't ready" for democracy, it happened because the institutions that enable democracy to exist were never able to grow. The system wasn't ready.

*The one thing I will say about "people not ready" having a point, is that it's harder in a country where the borders have been drawn by outsiders. There aren't Iraqis, but Shia, Sunnis, Kurds etc. There aren't Afghans but Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc. But these people are in countries split by conflict, and can't be expected to think of themselves as Iraqis or Afghans firsrt.

To arf, from the Movies Board, on The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival RogerMore Jul 16, 10:14

That's an excellent synopsis! You have valid points. -more- arf Jul 16, 10:53

I'd argue though, that in most of those cases, not a lot of thought was put into installing a Western-style government. RogerMore Jul 16, 13:52

We agree, I'm just not a wordsmith. Though 'changing government' ends up being tacked onto most actions. -more- arf Jul 16, 14:32

But see, I'm not sure that we do agree - you're still drawing very different conclusions than I am about the problems that exist and what RogerMore Jul 16, 15:28

I mean that we agree on some of the major problems facing us. Though we have different solutions and ideas. {nm} arf Jul 16, 16:24

Sometimes it's about THIEVERY - 'STEALING A NATION'. Captain Obvious Jul 16, 15:29

Thanks Mr. Obvious, I hadn't even heard of that before, only Diego Garcia without history. {nm} arf Jul 16, 16:17

Seemingly Absent from US History Textbooks - the American & British Theft of an Entire Country. {nm} Captain Obvious Jul 16, 16:33

There's lots of history revision going on, mostly in the form of "less you know, the better". -more- arf Jul 16, 17:32

Reagan had very little contact with reality in governmental matters. He is the one who endorsed "trickle down" economics after all. {nm} DTravel Jul 16, 21:20

Got the hostages back, brought the Soviet Union to its knees, reversed 18% inflation rate through "pro-growth" economics, ..... {nm} TJNFL1 Jul 16, 22:42