Defeat in Iraq

 

 

I  am of two minds on this one. The  redesigned strat objectives ie. post 2004 have not been met...whether they could of have been remains moot. The initial start and taks objectives were accomplished with a high degree of success and relatively light loss in casualties for the fighters of the coalition. Civilian casualties and the ongoing sectarian-religious violence and internal power struggles is another matter. And granted they remained a major concern.

 

After 2004 it essentially became, as we both know, a 'nation building' design that never adequately considered the ever and non-ending sectarian and religious conflicts historically in the region and certainly those in Iraq and or with it's immediate neighbors and the multi ethnic diversities involved.

 

And while many would compare this...is. the efforts... with the rebuilding of Japan and or the deNazification efforts in the former.... when established FRG. The dis-similarities and uniqueness of the culture and history of the region's strife and development was never adequately realized by the Civilian administrations and the associated lackeys who presumed to know where the keys to success were...and were enormously different.

 

The failure to maintain a  'fighters' presence due to Iraqi intransigence in certain elements of the aforementioned groups is a case in point.  Nor was ten years necessarily an adequate amount of time to completely indoctrinate the mass and or the minority rejectionist elements within...No amount of time would have ever probably done that.

 

Remember we still maintain troop presence not only in Germany and Japan but the ROK as well. The difference being that those nations do not have the same sectarian ongoing conflicts or levels of the same within. And have become enormously successful western style capitalist nations and allies of the US.

 

Where it goes? Dunno.

 

But it ain't done ole Nick.... not by the long hairs on your chinny chin chin.

 

It aint even started.

 

Yes and no. For the population can be forced or manipulated to do whatever the government desires if the latter are willing to suffer the consequences of a minority who reject the effort. You are correct in a generic sense that democracy can not be forced...yet history shows over time... that given time... and when a genuine republican or even socialist democratic effort at reform is instituted... that most do see it's value and will adopt it's premise.

 

In the case of Iraq; insufficient time was devoted to the indoctrination of the extant native leadership and more importantly their ability to defend that which it is they are attempting to create or were dictated to create. All the while juxtapositioning the concerns of the minority rejectionists and the efforts of neighboring states to either halt the process or corrupt it to their own version and international and or regional desires.

 

All in all a goddamn mess the recreation of nation states.

 

Especially that region.

 

Because there is no real prior historical relationship with modern democracy to be found there, in any significant terms or in any real desire to be promulgated by the locals en mass. Prior to the turn of the 20th ce...or even after. And since has indeed been either the era of the regional strongman or a modified version of royalty. That was created by varying non-regional states who allowed for it's/both creation as a means of controlling outside interests developed there for their use and not necessarily those of the populace in place. The results of those failures merely prepared the continuation of the same or created a religious fundamentalist, tyrannical, state mentality and government... all still in opposition to the tenets of democracy.

 

But as you should know... the Brits have had the longest and more relatively successful (and I realize that's debatable as to the definition of success) in this stuff. And even then, after decades or longer of presence in some cases...still never achieved the end desires of the initial intent.

 

Why? Because of inherent cultural differences, bigotry etc...and or manipulation of the subject peoples for the control of resources or as a result of a  particular ideology they (or the Americans in this case) wished to create. Equally as a result of their 'contextual era' recognized supremacy.. in world affairs..(even if the same was only viewed thru their own eyes) for what ever reason...that subsequently was rejected by the natives  for any other number of reasons to include a recognition and reverence associated traditionally within and for their historic development and culture.

 

Iow. it ain't over simply because the Americans started the process and now leave.

 

Nor was it for any outside nation state involved in colonialism or the new version we seen being prepared yet today.

 

Should be fun to watch.