3 ms·

Democracy export? That has worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan...

by carlob 2y ago

crop_rotation 2y ago
While I don't agree with the parent comment, 20 years is just nowhere enough for his strategy. Mullah Omar himself was alive for almost half of those. Something like 50 years where the old regime leaders completely vanish can only work. Again I am not saying whether it is practical or whether it is even a good idea at all.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
We didn't do what throwaway3521 said, though. We tried to do it "on the cheap", just occupying, not actually transforming the society, and not staying for 50 years. For context: We occupied Japan for, what, 12 years? We technically occupied Germany longer, but practically it was about the same (I think - from memory and not researched). In that time, we transformed them from violent, racially superior, conquer-the-world militarists to more-or-less western-values democracies. But we put a lot of people in there, and we controlled every aspect of their society. Iraq and Afghanistan, we tried to do it with half-measures rather than a complete rebuild. And it failed.
- hobs 2y ago
  For context, one of those events started in 1945, and one in 2003. One started because we won a decisive war against the nation, in the other we invaded the country on a flimsy excuse. We have entirely different cultures, times, mores, media landscapes, and different series of occupations, modern weaponry, 4th generation warefare (post vietnam) tactics, the list goes on. Why would "oh we didn't waste enough money occupying a country that we gained little from" be the right choice? How do we magically know that?
- distances 2y ago
  I would assume a more important factor was that Germany and Japan were both very organized, successful industrialized societies long before facing their respective downfalls in the wars. Iraq and Afghanistan both had a very, very different starting position and it would be unreasonable to expect a similar outcome.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    One thing to consider is that you have to have very functional central government to be able to execute types of wars of conquest that likes of them and USA did... So simply moderating them is often sufficient to keep stability.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    Other relevant context includes the fact that it was actually West Germany, with the East providing strong incentives to both the US and the West Germans to make it work, and that this was not the first attempt to turn the successful, industrialized and well educated Germany into a democracy with peaceful relations with its neighbours...
- nkrisc 2y ago
  Japan and Germany were already powerful, industrialized societies that rivaled the post-war occupiers in power. They just lost the war.

Democracy export? That has worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan...

by carlob 2y ago

Democracy export? That has worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan...

While I don't agree with the parent comment, 20 years is just nowhere enough for his strategy. Mullah Omar himself was alive for almost half of those. Something like 50 years where the old regime leaders completely vanish can only work. Again I am not saying whether it is practical or whether it is even a good idea at all.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

We didn't do what throwaway3521 said, though. We tried to do it "on the cheap", just occupying, not actually transforming the society, and not staying for 50 years. For context: We occupied Japan for, what, 12 years? We technically occupied Germany longer, but practically it was about the same (I think - from memory and not researched). In that time, we transformed them from violent, racially superior, conquer-the-world militarists to more-or-less western-values democracies. But we put a lot of people in there, and we controlled every aspect of their society. Iraq and Afghanistan, we tried to do it with half-measures rather than a complete rebuild. And it failed.

hobs 2y ago
For context, one of those events started in 1945, and one in 2003. One started because we won a decisive war against the nation, in the other we invaded the country on a flimsy excuse. We have entirely different cultures, times, mores, media landscapes, and different series of occupations, modern weaponry, 4th generation warefare (post vietnam) tactics, the list goes on. Why would "oh we didn't waste enough money occupying a country that we gained little from" be the right choice? How do we magically know that?
distances 2y ago
I would assume a more important factor was that Germany and Japan were both very organized, successful industrialized societies long before facing their respective downfalls in the wars. Iraq and Afghanistan both had a very, very different starting position and it would be unreasonable to expect a similar outcome.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  One thing to consider is that you have to have very functional central government to be able to execute types of wars of conquest that likes of them and USA did... So simply moderating them is often sufficient to keep stability.
- notahacker 2y ago
  Other relevant context includes the fact that it was actually West Germany, with the East providing strong incentives to both the US and the West Germans to make it work, and that this was not the first attempt to turn the successful, industrialized and well educated Germany into a democracy with peaceful relations with its neighbours...
nkrisc 2y ago
Japan and Germany were already powerful, industrialized societies that rivaled the post-war occupiers in power. They just lost the war.