Armchair Generals in the power.

[Pannonian]

Redleg, would the term decolonisation be an accurate description of what you're trying to do in Iraq?

[Redleg]

Redleg, would the term decolonisation be an accurate description of what you're trying to do in Iraq?

Not really sure. I would more call it an attempt at nation building, coupled with a few other types of operations involved with the warfighting aspect of what is going on.

I do see similiarities between the two concepts, but I lean more toward the nation building concept as being the more accurate. I guess the answer would lie in where does one place the violence that is going on in Iraq into the equation.

This was written in 2002, and applies to both Afganstan and Iraq in my opinion.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/ksgpress/..._building.html

But then this is the reason I don't see Iraq as a war of attrition when one only looks at Iraq. Now if I we wanted to pursue the war of attrition arguement - it would be better served as an arguement concerning the War on Terror as the current adminstration is pursueing that concept. Even then there is areas within that label (War on Terror) that steers one away from calling it a war of attrition. But the general persecution of the war on terror might be seen as soley a war of attrition since it is dealing with attempting to remove all resources from the non national groups that pursue terror as a means.

But I await clear cut arguements concerning that particlur thesis on the war on terror.

[Pannonian]

The thing is though, the important aspects of what you're trying to do - build a nation that stands up for itself, is friendly to you, is at peace with itself, etc. - are just what decolonisation was trying to achieve. There are various models of that process, and the US itself has had varying experiences of doing so - with success in the Philippines, where you gradually wound down over around half a century, and with failure in Vietnam, where the state you left quickly collapsed under pressure. I think the success or otherwise of Iraq can be measured in similar ways. There are factors complicating this, but if one looks at Iraq as a decolonisation exercise, it would at least make things clearer on the political level.

Thinking about it, Malaya may be an example you'll want to look at, as it combined warfighting with nation-building and working alongside a government that was at least nominally independent. However, in that case, the sides were clearly defined, and thus easily dealt with conceptually. Iraq is much, much more complex politically, which makes it even more of a puzzle why there was any desire to immerse oneself in it in the first place.

[Redleg]

The thing is though, the important aspects of what you're trying to do - build a nation that stands up for itself, is friendly to you, is at peace with itself, etc. - are just what decolonisation was trying to achieve. There are various models of that process, and the US itself has had varying experiences of doing so - with success in the Philippines, where you gradually wound down over around half a century, and with failure in Vietnam, where the state you left quickly collapsed under pressure. I think the success or otherwise of Iraq can be measured in similar ways. There are factors complicating this, but if one looks at Iraq as a decolonisation exercise, it would at least make things clearer on the political level.

Your forgetting that Nation Building does the same thing as decolonization, both are very similiar in nature but there are differences. Philippines was an attempt at decolonization, since it was previousily a colony of the United States. Vietnam was an attempt at several things, Nation Building being one of them also, because it was not a colony of the United States. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are all exambles of Nation Building. Japan and Germany were nation building based upon occupation of the enemy nation. THe difference is that Japan and Germany were utterly defeated by a total war before the occupation. Iraq was defeated but not in the same scope as either Japan or Germany.

Then your discounting the continued rebellions in the Phillipines that are ongoing to this day in the southern islands.

Your focused on what you believe to be correct, but you haven't demonstrated where decolonization is the correct answer nor have you demonstrated an accurate parrell.

Thinking about it, Malaya may be an example you'll want to look at, as it combined warfighting with nation-building and working alongside a government that was at least nominally independent. However, in that case, the sides were clearly defined, and thus easily dealt with conceptually. Iraq is much, much more complex politically, which makes it even more of a puzzle why there was any desire to immerse oneself in it in the first place.

Malaya does indeed fit into both concepts of decolonization - old british empire colony - and one of nation-building. As for going into Iraq the puzzle is rather easy to figure out. It was spelled out very clearly beginning back in 1991. You can say it was the wrong course of action to pursue based upon the political complexities of that nation, the three deverse groups have been fighting for awhile even under the aspect of being a single nation state. But to claim why there was any desire in the first place is a poor position to take.

What should of happened is a complete and utter destruction of Saddam back in 1991, against the wishes of the United Nations and the collation, or when the upraisings happened in 1992. Instead the United States abandoned some worthwhile allies that might have prevented some of the events that are happening in the world today. But then hind sight is always 20/20

[Pannonian]

Your forgetting that Nation Building does the same thing as decolonization, both are very similiar in nature but there are differences. Philippines was an attempt at decolonization, since it was previousily a colony of the United States. Vietnam was an attempt at several things, Nation Building being one of them also, because it was not a colony of the United States. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are all exambles of Nation Building. Japan and Germany were nation building based upon occupation of the enemy nation. THe difference is that Japan and Germany were utterly defeated by a total war before the occupation. Iraq was defeated but not in the same scope as either Japan or Germany.

Then your discounting the continued rebellions in the Phillipines that are ongoing to this day in the southern islands.

Your focused on what you believe to be correct, but you haven't demonstrated where decolonization is the correct answer nor have you demonstrated an accurate parrell.

I focused on what I feel are the important points of where one is trying to head, ie. the goals. Whether the starting point is one of a formal colony, protectorate, or whatever, is less important in my view. The main aims of decolonisation - gradually letting a territory go without it going to hell from internal or external pressure, and preferably without the former colonials turning on you - are the salient points. If starting point is so important, what's the difference between starting with Iraq as a colony and starting with Iraq as a mandate, as it effectively is? Both cases, and in the even more particular case of Iraq, start out with you taking over the administration of the region, and preparing to let go under ideal conditions.

Malaya does indeed fit into both concepts of decolonization - old british empire colony - and one of nation-building. As for going into Iraq the puzzle is rather easy to figure out. It was spelled out very clearly beginning back in 1991. You can say it was the wrong course of action to pursue based upon the political complexities of that nation, the three deverse groups have been fighting for awhile even under the aspect of being a single nation state. But to claim why there was any desire in the first place is a poor position to take.

What should of happened is a complete and utter destruction of Saddam back in 1991, against the wishes of the United Nations and the collation, or when the upraisings happened in 1992. Instead the United States abandoned some worthwhile allies that might have prevented some of the events that are happening in the world today. But then hind sight is always 20/20

Hang on. The ability of the Coalition to present a united front was purely because of the limited and almost universally agreed to be just aim of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Schwarzkopf made it pretty clear that, if he went any further beyond that, that united front will be no more, and then the political scene would be as it is now, with a vacuum in Saddam-less Iraq and the neighbours itching to get in on the action. How would things be significantly different?

[Redleg]

I focused on what I feel are the important points of where one is trying to head, ie. the goals. Whether the starting point is one of a formal colony, protectorate, or whatever, is less important in my view. The main aims of decolonisation - gradually letting a territory go without it going to hell from internal or external pressure, and preferably without the former colonials turning on you - are the salient points. If starting point is so important, what's the difference between starting with Iraq as a colony and starting with Iraq as a mandate, as it effectively is? Both cases, and in the even more particular case of Iraq, start out with you taking over the administration of the region, and preparing to let go under ideal conditions.

Then you really need to look into what determines Nation Building. Since once again the concept of Nation Building is what Afganstan is definitely defined as, and Iraq is in a similiar situation. Both countries had the ruling regime removed and a new government established, both are being rebuilt by outside resources, and both have plans for the eventual withdraw of foreign forces and aid. Both have a similiar end result - a nation that is viable and friendly.

I will leave it at that since your so determined to argue for a decolonization aspect but you have not provided any detail into that arguement, one that shows the difference between the two concepts, one that points out where decolonization is a more valid definition of what is eventual hopeful end result for Iraq. BTW you will find that both have very similiar end points.

Hang on. The ability of the Coalition to present a united front was purely because of the limited and almost universally agreed to be just aim of expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Schwarzkopf made it pretty clear that, if he went any further beyond that, that united front will be no more, and then the political scene would be as it is now, with a vacuum in Saddam-less Iraq and the neighbours itching to get in on the action. How would things be significantly different?

you wanted a reason for the current immersion into Iraq - you got it but you don't like the answer that is self-evident, based upon history. The United States has been in conflict with Iraq under Sadaam since 1990. I more then understand why we did not continue past the agreed upon conditions and in fact I agreed with them at the time, and as I stated Hind sight is always 20/20. However I did answer your initial comment.

Now why it got started in the first place was because of Oil, the key reason for Sadaams invasion of Kuwait. Or do you want to delve deeper into history then the last 20 years?

Now how would things be different. The primary one being that the United States honored its word to the Shite in Basara. Or are you forgetting that little bit of history, where the United States stated a few promises to those people in that area of Iraq? Would that lessen the impact of some of the extremists - who knows for sure, but I would think that honoring one's word would have had a significan impact, and would of done some good in the long run. Would the other groups still have used violence against the establishment of a new government - most likely, but then again at least two of the groups would have had a significant amount of trust toward the United States given that we honored a committment that we initially implied toward them.

[Pannonian]

you wanted a reason for the current immersion into Iraq - you got it but you don't like the answer that is self-evident, based upon history. The United States has been in conflict with Iraq under Sadaam since 1990. I more then understand why we did not continue past the agreed upon conditions and in fact I agreed with them at the time, and as I stated Hind sight is always 20/20. However I did answer your initial comment.

Now why it got started in the first place was because of Oil, the key reason for Sadaams invasion of Kuwait. Or do you want to delve deeper into history then the last 20 years?

Now how would things be different. The primary one being that the United States honored its word to the Shite in Basara. Or are you forgetting that little bit of history, where the United States stated a few promises to those people in that area of Iraq? Would that lessen the impact of some of the extremists - who knows for sure, but I would think that honoring one's word would have had a significan impact, and would of done some good in the long run. Would the other groups still have used violence against the establishment of a new government - most likely, but then again at least two of the groups would have had a significant amount of trust toward the United States given that we honored a committment that we initially implied toward them.

When I asked why, I know the reasons given, but I was looking for sensible reasons, of which I saw none. I'll concede your last point though - the US had a good rep back then, principally in comparison with the far less desirable Soviet Union, but also as a country that tries its best, even for others.

Also, I'll offer what I think is the main difference between nation-building and decolonisation. Nation-building does not set the handover as the main goal, but the reconstruction or construction of a country. Decolonisation does nation-building as part of the overall drive towards the handover. I don't think any US government has the political capital to do the former in Iraq, even if you can afford it. Therefore the latter is the best you can realistically do. Correct me where I'm wrong, in either the difference between the two, or my conclusion drawn.