Armchair Generals in the power.

[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.

[Redleg]

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.

Iraq is a reconstruction. Just like Germany and Japan. Handover back to the nation after recontruction also happened in both Germany and Japan.

[Geoffrey S]

Except in this case, there never really was a nation in the first place to hand it back to. Bit of difficulty ensues.

[Redleg]

Except in this case, there never really was a nation in the first place to hand it back to. Bit of difficulty ensues.

Incorrect - claiming Iraq was not a nation fails when reviewed. You can claim several things about Iraq, but saying it was not a nation is not one of them.

[Veho Nex]

Iraq is a reconstruction. Just like Germany and Japan. Handover back to the nation after recontruction also happened in both Germany and Japan.

If I'm correct, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany were a simple matter of supplying a bit of cash and man power, while rebuilding Iraq is almost as if we have to keep a garrison there to make sure it doesn't crash down on its self.

The aim of rebuilding Iraq, to turn it into a 1st world nation instead of a third world country?

[Redleg]

If I'm correct, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany were a simple matter of supplying a bit of cash and man power, while rebuilding Iraq is almost as if we have to keep a garrison there to make sure it doesn't crash down on its self.

You would be incorrect. Germany and Japan were initially occupied to insure they remain defeated. It helped that they were on the brink of destruction at the end of the war, but troops were initially garrisoned as occupation forces.

The aim of rebuilding Iraq, to turn it into a 1st world nation instead of a third world country?

[/quote]

The aim should be to fix what we broke, we have an obligation toward that end. Regardless of how you feel about the conflict or the reasons behind it, the moral obligation remains.

[Caius]

The aim of rebuilding Iraq, to turn it into a 1st world nation instead of a third world country

It is obvious that a third world country, because it would be a threat for freedom.

[Ironside]

If I'm correct, the rebuilding of Japan and Germany were a simple matter of supplying a bit of cash and man power, while rebuilding Iraq is almost as if we have to keep a garrison there to make sure it doesn't crash down on its self.

I lack the total number, but the US occupied part of Germany (with a population of 2/3 of Iraq) had around 200k men 1946-1950 (increases after that due to the cold war and North Korean invasion) and that was still about 2/3 of the recommended number (low need and requests to bring the boys home were the reasons here).

Following those recommendations would give around 400k troops in Iraq.

America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Ironside, that was also the beginnings of the Cold War - troops were necessary in Europe beyond the task of occupation.

[Redleg]

Ironside, that was also the beginnings of the Cold War - troops were necessary in Europe beyond the task of occupation.

That does not necessarily discount the fact that intially the troops were occupation forces. One can argue when the occupation turned into defense because of the Cold War. I normally go with the position that the American Forces occupied Germany until the middle of 1946, somewhere around June-August of 1946 I believe the joy of the war being over began to be outweighed by the percieved threat of the Soviet Union. If I remember my history right the Cold War is generally given a start year of 1946.

Now one could argue given the nature of the British and Russian zones that Germany was occupied for a bit longer then 1946.

[Ironside]

Ironside, that was also the beginnings of the Cold War - troops were necessary in Europe beyond the task of occupation.

But that is only relevant after 1950 (well the US started to push for it 1949), the calculations and troop numbers did not take that into serious consideration before that. And as expected that number rised considerbly after that.

Officially Western Germany (and Eastern for that matter) didn't exist until 1949 and was occupied until 1955. The Cold War messes up the troop number left after the occupation officially ended though.