Skip to comments.Americans Weary of Nation Building
Posted on 03/12/2012 1:20:37 PM PDT by trappedincanuckistan
Americans left, right, Democrats and Republicans are all sick of thankless nation-building in the Middle East. Yet democratization was not our first choice, but rather a last resort after prior failures.
The U.S. had long ago supplied Afghan insurgents, who expelled the Soviets after a decade of fighting. Then we left. The country descended into even worse medievalism under the Taliban. So after removing the Taliban, who had hosted the perpetrators of 9/11, we promised in 2001 to stay on.
We won the first Gulf War in 1991. Then most of our forces left the region. The result was the mass murder of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, 12 years of no-fly zones, and a failed oil-for-food embargo of Saddam's Iraq. So after removing Saddam in 2003, we tried to leave behind something better.
In the last 10 years the U.S. has spent more than $1 trillion and has lost thousands of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both places seem far better off than when ruled by the Taliban and Saddam Hussein at least for a while.
Yet the Iraqis now bear Americans little good will. They seem friendlier to Iran and Syria than to their liberators. In Afghanistan, riots continue over the mistaken burning of defaced Qurans, despite serial U.S. apologies.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
“Americans Weary of Nation Building”
Republicans were, too, when Clinton did it. Then suddenly after a certain date they changed their minds, I guess because they couldn’t think of anything better to do. Hey, it worked in Germany and Japan, didn’t it? Why not in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? Well, thems the breaks.
We may well be. But, I know we are sick of spending blood on treasure on losing. And, that does seem to be the overall strategy for the last 40+ years.
I have problems with nation building in general, but the biggest problem with intervention in the Middle East is that they are not our friends. They hate Western Civilization.
Big difference. They had to pulverize those countries into submission. Now, they can't even shoot unless they get shot at first.
You can’t build modern states out of savages.
Musta had their weekly US foreign policy strategy meeting at the elite Four Seasons, deciding US foreign polcy in Syria over Brie, chilled Cristal, and Beluga caviar on toast.
For instance, how many young US soldiers should lose their lives in yet another failed MIdeast incursion, and how many trillions of US tax dollars neocons want Americans to pony up.
A Syrian incursion ALSO means neocon bossman Richard Perle needs more US billions to sink into his Iraqi oil company-the one he financed with war profits.....
Americans pay the price at the pump-so that the neos can pocket billions. Neocons strategy was to get out of these hellholes without getting a promise of oil.
Her are the various Mideast American policy failures the US was inveigled into over the last few decades.
<><> Military assistance or punitive intervention without follow-up mostly failed.
<><>The verdict on far more costly trillion dollar nation-building is still out.
<><>Trying to help popular insurgents topple unpopular dictators does not guarantee anything better.
<><> Propping up dictators with military aid is both odious and counterproductive.
<><> Keeping clear of maniacal regimes leads to either nuclear acquisition or genocide -- 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan.....(and elsewhere?)
Keep in mind, all of this has been manipulated by the pariah neocons. These opportunistic ding-dongs actually had an office in the GWB WH---they alone had the secret LIST of coutries the US would invade without provocation.
The n/c's favorite sport---- after looting the US Treasury---- was kicking Repub social conservatives to the curb. McCain's Syrian proposal means they still got Repubs by the b***s.
We’ve had the ‘limited war’ doctrine since 1951 since the Truman administration after Truman threatened to use nukes in the Korean conflict. That’s how long we’ve dedicated ourselves to losing.
You can’t build modern states where people reject the modern world.
It’d be one thing if it EVER WORKED! Or at least didn’t always make things worse.
This administration can’t even build our own nation, let alone those in the Middle East. All they are doing is spending money over there. It’s time we cut the cord. Especially on oil and start producing our own......which we have plenty of if we keep it all here in the U.S.
I have read studies that claimed the Marshal plan may have actually retarded European rebuilding.
“Big difference. They had to pulverize those countries into submission. Now, they can’t even shoot unless they get shot at first.”
Oh, we pummeled Iraqis and Afghanis, too. Remember Shock and Awe? It didn’t take as much, but that’s because their military-industrial capacity was not that of the others. Also, Afghanistan was pre-pulverized from decades past. Wasn’t their average age for adult males like 13, or somesuch ridiculous number?
As for restrictive rules of engagement, I’m sure we had to use kid gloves in Germany and (perhaps less so) Japan after surrender, too. No doubt we’re more politically correct these days, and in many ways it’ll never be the same. But you forget about the distinction, which is as old as manned air flight itself, between ground and air killing. one is unaccountably okay and the other evil. Ground troops may be handcuffed into the mold of post-Rodney King LA cops, but bombs and missles can still, early in the war at least, rain down like it’s 1945.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
> Hey, it worked in Germany and Japan, didnt it? Why not in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan?
1) Japan and Germany have people who are industrious and educated.
2) Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan have people who desire to live in the 7th century.
3) The USA should just get out of nation building. We would not actually need anything other nations have to offer if the leftists and the enviros would allow us to use our own resources and the government would remove all of the anti-business money-grubbing legislation.
Which calls for a different strategy. Fighting a losing war isn’t my idea of a good strategy. But, what do I know?
“Weve had the limited war doctrine since 1951 since the Truman administration after Truman threatened to use nukes in the Korean conflict”
I think we can all agree that nukes pose a special problem. It wouldn’t strain credulity to claim we’re going all out without them. I date “limited war” policy to McNamara and the Whiz Kids.
I’m weary of it. I was weary of it when Pres. Bush tried it with Ashcanistan. We tried to illiterate Moslem savages into a Western democracy, which was obviously not going to work.
Given the nature of Afghanistan, I think we should consider “tribe exterminating” when dealing with these savages.
“Because Germany and Japan are nations with educated and industrious people.”
By the way, I meant the Germany and Japan comments to be from the mouths of neo-cons. I should have put it in quotation marks or included a sarcasm tag. I personally am against nation building except as punishment when the other guys start it, and not even always then. Just like I was in the 90s, which was my post’s main point.