Article about incompetence of cosmic proportions

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

First of all, Afghanistan and Iraq are not the same country. They have completely different problems to work through. In Iraq, you have 3 large groups all dedicated to the destruction of the others. They have been kept in check by a brutal dictator. Once that dictator was removed, chaos ensued. This, to me, was easily predictable and fairly obvious.

The area formerly known as the USSR IS more dangerous now than it was when it was in existence (though I recognize this isn't what you meant). In fact, that may be our single greatest threat today- a nation with nuclear power that has little control over its weaponry and a strong history of corruption.

Japan's success was not predicted by many, but it came to pass only with an enormous expenditure of time and money and a sensational plan. We have not had any great plan to put Iraq back together, and, even if we did, I am not sure it would have worked. Japan, like Afghanistan, is a very different country than Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East).

To top it all off, I am still wondering why we went into Iraq to begin with (setting aside the many bad decisions we have made once we went in).

I don't really disagree with any of that. I am just trying to answer your question of how we could have done something that in hindsight seems like a really bad idea. My point was only that these things are often not knowable before hand and history doesn't always guide us. That and part of our national identity has been the notion that there isn't anything we can't do.

No matter what we do, someone will think it is a great idea and someone else will think it is horrible. One of them will be right, of course.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The USSR was led to despots who cracked down on anything resembling freedom. Now Russia is.....err......the same.

Democracy in name only. History tells us that civilizations collapse, that progress can end, that liberty is an aberration from the rule.

We are living in a golden age. We would be fools to think that this trajectory will remain forever, with little effort. Because it is destiny for people to embrace freedom and democracy. Yeah right.

We have given the Iraqis there chance to freedom and democracy. They have chosen to squander it. And now there is nothing we can do.

You are right on all of this. Our civilization, just like every other, will one day collapse. I think our civilzation is much more likely to meet its demise the way that Rome did, a slow decline into dacadence and an eventual fat lazy defenselessness, than anything else.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The USSR was led to despots who cracked down on anything resembling freedom. Now Russia is.....err......the same.

Democracy in name only. History tells us that civilizations collapse, that progress can end, that liberty is an aberration from the rule.

We are living in a golden age. We would be fools to think that this trajectory will remain forever, with little effort. Because it is destiny for people to embrace freedom and democracy. Yeah right.

We have given the Iraqis there chance to freedom and democracy. They have chosen to squander it. And now there is nothing we can do.

I agree with what you say except that whatever perceived chance at freedom we gave them was illusory. As you imply, freedom is hard for a people to master, and can't be force fed.

[MikeWaters]

what I am saying is that the Iraqi leaders are no Ghandis. And I am not talking about the elected officials. I am talking about the puppet masters and the religious leaders. They could choose to strive for peace. Instead they choose to strive for power. And now they will die.

I read a Time mag article where a Sunni insurgent leader who months earlier had been killing American GIs, complained bitterly of Americans not defending Sunnis. Reap the whirlwind my friend.

The sad part is all the innocents that have died and will die. The kids caught up in the tempest. I wish there was a way we could give some a future in America. But it is not possible for numerous reasons. The main one being America will never tolerate an influx of immigrants from an enemy Islamic state (that is what I consider Iraq).

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what I am saying is that the Iraqi leaders are no Ghandis.

No. They're not. But more important, the Iraqi people are not Indians. Do you know why? Because of the British Raj in India. Contrary to leftist myths (propagated in part by the movie), the British weren't evil oppressors who completely fucked India. On the contrary, they gave her the English language, a Western legal system, a free market system, and an education system second to none though today accessed primarily by the upper classes. Paradoxically, India is today ascendant precisely because the British colonized it. There's a new wave of academia that recognizes that Empires and colonialism aren't all bad; in fact, world history is all about succeeding Empires, which transmitted many positive elements of diverse cultures. We are what we are today because Rome colonized Europe. More and more thoughtful people are realizing Western civilization is the world's only hope--a very un-PC idea until recently.

[MikeWaters]

another point is that the British were pretty good folks to wage a campaign of independence against. they don't have the stomach for genocide.

Whereas I think certain countries would relish the opportunity.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

another point is that the British were pretty good folks to wage a campaign of independence against. they don't have the stomach for genocide.

Whereas I think certain countries would relish the opportunity.

That too. Though if you took Mel Gibson's movie about the American revolution at face value you'd conclude the British were like Nazis.

The truth is that there was a lot of British sensitivity to India's culture and rights to be free. India's independence ultimatly came about because a large part of British leadership and citizens believed they were entitled to it and lobbied for it. There really was no fight. In fact, a little known fact is that the British East India company first colonialized India, at India's request, then the British government took the responsibility from the company. These entitities were always valued trading partners. There was never an armed take over; India asked the British to run it. The British incorporated much of India's culture into its own. The British Raj was by far more a mutually beneficial relationship than an oppressive one.

My wife has been to Egypt. She said that the best parts of Egypt are 1) the ancient ruins; and 2) improvements, hotels, etc. built by the British.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't really disagree with any of that. I am just trying to answer your question of how we could have done something that in hindsight seems like a really bad idea. My point was only that these things are often not knowable before hand and history doesn't always guide us. That and part of our national identity has been the notion that there isn't anything we can't do.

No matter what we do, someone will think it is a great idea and someone else will think it is horrible. One of them will be right, of course.

You are presenting this almost as if it was a coin toss on which way it would go ("one of them will be right, of course"). I think it was far from a coin toss.

Try to list the countries where we have successfully installed a new regime. Then list the countries where we have tried and failed. The list of failures far exceeds the list of successes (the only two I can think of are Germany and Japan).

In German and Japan, the countries were largely ethnically homogenous. They followed the same basic religious tenets (in Germany, largely becuase Hitler had eradicated everyone else). We also went in with a plan to reconstruct the countries and we were prepared for the tremendous expenses that entailed.

In Iraq, we were dealing with a totally different situation. The country had been glued together arbitrarily and then kept together by a ruthless dictator. Remove the ruthless dictator, and the result is predictable. COULD we have formulated a plan that would maintain order? Perhaps (though I highly doubt it), but it most certainly would have involved more than thinking that "they will welcome us with open arms as liberators." It would have involved far more money and personnel than what we dedicated to Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan. It would have involved securing the border immediately to prevent Iran from working to destroy what was happening in Iraq (which was also highly predictable).

In short, I fail to see how this is an instance of "one group would get it right out of the two competing camps."

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

In short, I fail to see how this is an instance of "one group would get it right out of the two competing camps."

I know. I'm just telling you that it is impossible for any of us to divorce ourselves from our hindsight perspective.

Also, and I may just be ignorant, but I'm not aware of us ever having failed in installing a new government. I can think of examples where we were unsucessful in trying to prop up a government or a faction,but none where we ousted the old government and started afresh unsucessfully.

You cited Japan and Germany, but we also invaded Panama and ousted Noriega. That was followed by several democratic elections. The overthrow of the North Vietnamese and North Korean governments was advocated by some during the respective wars of the same name but never attempted. In large measure McCarther's advocacy of that is what got him fired.

The CIA and MI6 aided the Shah in retaking power in 1953, but he had been in charge for more than a decade before that and was not successfully overthrown until 1979. That was a success that lasted 26 years which is an eternity if you're French (gratuitous shot, couldn't help it).

I would agree that each of those examples is distinguishable from Iraq which is actually pretty unique. What is the list of failures that you have in mind that would have clearly guided us away from this path? I just can't think of them but I may have overlooked something obvious.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I know. I'm just telling you that it is impossible for any of us to divorce ourselves from our hindsight perspective.

Also, and I may just be ignorant, but I'm not aware of us ever having failed in installing a new government. I can think of examples where we were unsucessful in trying to prop up a government or a faction,but none where we ousted the old government and started afresh unsucessfully.

You cited Japan and Germany, but we also invaded Panama and ousted Noriega. That was followed by several democratic elections. The overthrow of the North Vietnamese and North Korean governments was advocated by some during the respective wars of the same name but never attempted. In large measure McCarther's advocacy of that is what got him fired.

The CIA and MI6 aided the Shah in retaking power in 1953, but he had been in charge for more than a decade before that and was not successfully overthrown until 1979. That was a success that lasted 26 years which is an eternity if you're French (gratuitous shot, couldn't help it).

I would agree that each of those examples is distinguishable from Iraq which is actually pretty unique. What is the list of failures that you have in mind that would have clearly guided us away from this path? I just can't think of them but I may have overlooked something obvious.

I was talking about where we have installed a new regime, not necessarily where we have then actively run the government overtly.

Some examples that come to mind:

1. Haiti- we overthrew Aristide and essentially picked his successor. Haiti is a human rights disaster.

2. South Vietnam- we picked the government in Saigon which was never really supported by the people. When it was overthrown 8 years later, we didn't even bother to try and support our own regime. Our regime there never enjoyed popular support.

3. Bolivia- We helped Banzer come to power, he was absolutely brutal.

4. Cuba- We picked Batista (who was despised and then overthrown by Castro).

5. We aided Branco in Brazil (who was also brutal and helped install a brutal regime in Argentina).

6. We overthrew (and probably assassinated) Lumumba in Zaire to install Seko. Seko turned out to be vicious in his leadership.

7. We installed the Shah in Iran. Granted, he held on for over 20 years, but the discontent there led to the fundamentalist revolution which has taken hold ever since.

BTW, we supported Noriega too until he turned on us, then we arrested him.

I did forget one other successful regime change, however- Hawaii (though there is still a lot of discontent with the US in Hawaii and several efforts have been made to secede).

I think looking down the road, you can predict with a high degree of probability that we will tire of our involvement in Iraq and the current regime will be replaced by a vicious, cruel dictator while we do nothing (or that the current regime itself will become vicious and cruel).