posted
This semester I’m taking a history course titled US Relations with Latin America. The class deals largely with the United States’ foreign policy towards Latin America since 1895. From 1895 to 1933, the United States repeated used military force to interfere in the internal affairs of Latin American nations, typically citing democracy and national security as their reasons.
My professor intently compares these interventions with the War in Iraq. When I started this class, I believed that the war had been justified by Hussein’s blatant support of terrorism and the possibility of Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, I have to admit that the professor is convincing me that the current war is a hopeless mission that can not succeed. In some of the Latin American interventions, the U.S.’s policy went something like this: The United States had various issues with a dictator so they sent in the troops and deposed him. They then established a democratic government while training a native National Guard in hopes that the National Guard will stabilize the new government. The US feels that its job is done and leaves. The only true power left in the country is the National Guard. Somebody slowly gains control of the National Guard to the point that the Guard is more loyal to the individual than the US created government. The individual then takes over the country and forms a military dictatorship. This situation explicitly occurred in Nicaragua under Garcia and the Dominican Republic under Trujillo. The parallel the professor makes to Iraq seems so clear. We are currently trying to build up Iraq’s National Guard so that they’ll be able to defend themselves and we can leave. When we do leave, that will be the only strong power left in the nation, and at that point, whoever controls the military controls the country.
I now think that we need to leave as soon as possible because another dictatorship, if not Civil War, is inevitable. The country has no other competing powers (like the strong businesses and State National Guards in the US) and has no firm attachment to the idea of democracy. Perhaps with several more decades, hundreds of thousands of more troops, and billions upon billions of dollars more placed into the country, there is a chance of success similar to Germany and Japan. However, both of these nations already had prominent powers other than the military. Even if it is possible, I don’t think that anybody looks forward to another twenty or thirty years in Iraq, and I don’t think that the American public would allow that. So, more than likely, we just ousted one dictator for another one. Why spend any more lives or money on this project?
Is there something that I’m missing? If you believe in the current war, why do you think that it can succeed? Is hope of success feasible?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're a long way from the end in Iraq, that's for sure.
Will there be a Western-type democracy there? Probably not in our lifetime, but one can always hope. And honestly, I believe that it won't come about without a civil war of some sort, which may have already begun.
Sadly, the civil war, may very well be a necessity to establish a lasting democracy there, if one will ever bloom. Intrinsic to having a working democracy is that the population MUST feel ownership of their own country and feel that they are responsible for it. In short, they must, in some way, earn the right to have a democracy or they will quickly give it away. As seen in the Latin American countries in the 1900s.
Why did Germany and Japan take to democracy so quickly after World War II? It wasn't just because it was forced on them, but that both countries had given away their democracy once before. The people knew what they had lost and when they were given it back, they truly took it and held it to heart.
But for an average Iraqi? Have they ever known democracy before? No.
Did they have to fight to gain their independence? Not until now.
Will they value their own blood being shed to give them the right to have a government of the people, by the people? Someday.
But it won't be Americans who instill the true democracy in them. It will have to be themselves.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My professor intently compares these interventions with the War in Iraq. When I started this class, I believed that the war had been justified by Hussein’s blatant support of terrorism and the possibility of Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, I have to admit that the professor is convincing me that the current war is a hopeless mission that can not succeed.
Wow a liberally biased professor with a politcal agenda in the classroom....How suprising.
What you described happening in Latin America, happened in Guatemala as well. I lived there during it's 35 year civil war. We sent CIA and Military advisors to make sure that the outcome of that civil war wasn't a Central American "Cuba".
Here's the issue. We support democracy. Heck we even supported Sadaam Hussein for a while back in the day.
The problem you face with your professor is that different areas and cutures react differently to democracy.
Japan and West Germany flourished under it. Both post-War. The same with South Korea.
You may want to bring up those circumstances to him directly.
quote: So, more than likely, we just ousted one dictator for another one. Why spend any more lives or money on this project?
Is there something that I’m missing? If you believe in the current war, why do you think that it can succeed? Is hope of success feasible?
That depends on the People of Iraq. We can give them a voice and a say in how things are run. We can give the freedom, but it must be maintained and defended. If they aren't willing to stand up and do that, then you have the collapse you saw in Latin America.
There is a difference from Latin America to Iraq and that is education. We didn't influence or advance or promote education in latin America, but we are making it a HIGH priority in Iraq.
If you can educate/indocrinate a person to love freedom and democracy and believe in it, then they will oppose anyone who tries to take that away. In Latin America education about democracy and a sense of "National Pride" were missing.
People didn't care who led so long as they weren't bothered.
Someone raised and taught democracy as a way of life is more apt to oppose it being theatened than someone who doesn't even understand what it is.
Ask your professor about Japan, West Germany and South Korea.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But it won't be Americans who instill the true democracy in them. It will have to be themselves.
I agree absolutely, and this just further proves that the war is pointless. Since there's no way to force them to adopt it and no reason to think that they would, why waste lives and money?
quote: If you can educate/indocrinate a person to love freedom and democracy and believe in it, then they will oppose anyone who tries to take that away. In Latin America education about democracy and a sense of "National Pride" were missing. People didn't care who led so long as they weren't bothered.
I'd have to disagree with you. You'd have to indoctrinate a country, not just a person, and I don't think that's very feasible when they see you as an occupier. Furthermore, in Latin America, at least in some instances, national pride did exist and led to uprising against dictators and endless political strife.
quote: Ask your professor about Japan, West Germany and South Korea.
Well, he brought it up in class. He said that those nations (at least Japan and West Germany) had other powerful institutions other than the military that aided in checks and balances. He also said about all 3 that the commitment of time, money, and troops was vastly higher than in the current struggle. And it wasn't just the US, the Allied nations aided greatly with the number of troops, thus ensuring the security of the nations. Was culture a factor? I would think probably, but the two situations don't even seem too comparable since the troop numbers alone are so different.
posted
Democracy can only fluorish with a few very important cultural traditions and economic conditionsin place. The cultural conditions include a tradition of participatory government of some sort, a sense of responsibility for the direction of the country, and a willingness to fight for one's beliefs. The economic preconditions include, as was mentioned, a diversity of powers (ie state governments, local governments, business, army etc) and a middle class with some power. Wherever democracy has failed it can be noted that several of these factors are lacking. However, the fact is that technical modernization and involvement in trade which allow nations to prosper also force the development of the conditions for democracy. Any country with a healthy technical community and healthy trade must develop a middle class. The complexity of dealing with all the many aspects of a modern country require a large, well-developed bureaucracy which can become the source of opposition political leaders and which by their very size become a form of participatory government.
The muslim world is not made up of fools. For a long time now there have been many leaders who have watched the development and prosperity of countries around them. In the last couple of centuries the muslim countries have tried a number of strategies to modernize. The old Ottoman empire tried to buy a modern army, but a lack of economic infrastructure as well as other factors doomed that project to failure. Many of the muslim countries became client states of european powers. Some leaders in these countries drove their governments to adopt european models for government, economy etc, but the colonizing powers were bent on exploitation rather than development and an independent, democratic colony was much more troublesome than a poor, backwards nation and so the attempts at europeanization failed. Many of these countries then underwent nationalistic revolts, some flirted with communism, but generally the spirit of pan-islam dominated and a return to fundamentalism ensued. If they could not beat the eurpeans at their own game then they would play the game they knew. However, pan-islamicism has been a disaster for the muslim world. The return to fundamentalism, in the same ratio to which it has been successfully instituted, has succeeded in nothing more than driving the countries deeper into poverty, ignorance, tyranny and failure. The people of these countries can see where this road is leading them. However, since most have no middle class and no experience with self rule the power of the people is coerced, muffled and stolen. However, I think that the increasing desperate violence which leads muslim fanatics to kill themselves and those they see as their tormentors, often at a tremendous cost to their own countrymen and co-religionists is a clear sign of a turn in thought away from islamicism by the majority. The more that wild-eyed madmen remove all pretense of a civilized verneer from their actions, the more they stain their religion with desperate attacks and cause tremendous suffering to their own families and friends the more revolted the masses become and the more likely that a movement of peace and democracy will develop.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The country has no other competing powers (like the strong businesses and State National Guards in the US) and has no firm attachment to the idea of democracy.
I am still undecided and on the fence. I will probably vote libertarian. For the sake of checks and balances, I may vote either republican or democrat for president and vote the opposite party on the state level.
That being said, I believe another difference between Iraq and South America is the huge oil reserves. Oil is money, business, and power. Establishing a strong national guard and a strong infrastructure that can support the export of oil to benefit the Iraqi business people may afford hope where hope lacked in South America. Oil more likely will polarize the rich and poor with the oil profits continuing to go into a handful of people.
If there is a way to spread the profit of oil across the country and promote business, there may be hope yet in Iraq. Unfortunately, I think a civil war is inevitable. Fortunately, I have been wrong multiple times on foreign issues.
posted
Germany, remember, was divided into four parts by four major powers. Well, I guess only three mattered.
Germany also had a parlimentary democracy up until the rise of Hitler. It's a different animal entirely than Iraq.
Japan is also different. Iraq has three ethnic groups that all dislike each other; a peaceful balance of power will be nearly impossible to find, and unlike Japan, Iraq isn't a prosperous industrialized nation.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agree absolutely, and this just further proves that the war is pointless. Since there's no way to force them to adopt it and no reason to think that they would, why waste lives and money?
We're not forcing anyone to accept our standard. We're giving the people the choice to decide for themselves.
If you are thinking we have no reason the think they would, read about the election today in one of the worst countries in the world (well it was one of the worst, but that is changing).
Also read up on Iraq during the late 60's as well as Afghanistan. There was prosperity and "progress" at one time in those countries.
quote: I'd have to disagree with you. You'd have to indoctrinate a country, not just a person, and I don't think that's very feasible when they see you as an occupier. Furthermore, in Latin America, at least in some instances, national pride did exist and led to uprising against dictators and endless political strife.
That is what we are doing over there. We're not building thousands of schools so they can continue to be Madrassehs. Madrassehs are the reason for the problem. If you teach that Russians are evil in school, guess what the kids in the schools believe?
Look at the Middle East under British Colonial Occupation (and it's influences) and compare that to the Middle East after.
Also the National Pride is not what existed in Latin America. What existed was "tribal pride" or "communal pride" which is very different and very internal. They were fighting for their Village or Race or Tribe, not for the benefit of the entire country.
Take Efrain Rios Montt in Guatemala and others.
quote: He said that those nations (at least Japan and West Germany) had other powerful institutions other than the military that aided in checks and balances.
I would say your Professor is in fact not telling the truth in this circumstance. In Japan you had the supreme Emporer who besides being viewed as a God, was also the supreme puppet of the military which ruled the entire island and dictated ALL of public and private life.
Words to be associated with this is Shoguns and Tokugawa.
Tokugawa's Code included this: Common people who behave unbecommingly to members of the military class...may be cut down on the spot".
Also look at Meiji's Constitution and the word for the People of Japan wasn't "citizen" it was "shinmin" which means "people who obidiently compy with their orders".
Japan up until it's fall was a Military Dictatorship. The schools were all taught by Military Leaders. There was no Judicial System, there was the military.
I can't state that enough.
quote: And it wasn't just the US, the Allied nations aided greatly with the number of troops, thus ensuring the security of the nations.
Please list the coalition of allies who occupied and rebuilt Japan.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
