posted
I am no historian, so please feel free to correct the following as only Hatrack Experts can:
The US has attempted "Nation Building" or the creation of free, democratic, thriving nations and communities often in its history. Here is my historical tally:
REVOLUTIONARY WAR: 1783 war ends with the Treaty of Paris. It takes 6 years for the present Constitution to be created and ratified. During that time separatist movements and armed rebellion from disastisfied citizens errupt (Shay's Rebellion being the main one).
Time 6 years: Results Very Good.
Indian Conquest From before the Revoluition to present day the US government has been responsible for building Indian nations. From the successful Cheyenne towns in Georgia that were eventually stolen by settlers and created the "Trail of Tears" to present Interior Department Law Suits where "It will take over 50 years to even determine how much money the Federal Govenment owes the various tribes for mismanagement of their accounts by the Interior Department." (See This page for details on ongoing problems)
Time 225 years and going. Result: Abysmal
War of Texas Independence:
A group of Americans move to Mexican territory for cheap land. They clash with present government and calling on their fellow US citizens for help, proceed to win their Independence. While the US Government did not help in the Nation Building that was Texas, it was privately supported.
Result: Nation lasted 10 years, then was aborbed by the US. Mixed.
The US Civil War: President Lincoln had great humanitarian plans for rebuilding the Southern states. He was shot. Instead "carpet baggers" from the north flooded the area and pillaged the already devastated states.
Time: 3 years to be brought back into the US. Political Machinery was placed by the corrupt carpetbaggers that lasts to this day. Whole sections of the populatior were stripped of fledgling civil rights, mostly Indians and African Americans. Result: VERY poor.
Spanish American War:
We became a world empire with this bit of media hyped made for politics war. Cuba and the Phillipines fell under our control.
The Results was a corrupt, gangster run, casino filled Cuba that was so corrupt Castro and gang were forced to rebell and conquer it. The Phillipines we kept under our thumb as a territory until WWII, some 60 years later.
Time: 60 years at minimum. Results: Poor.
WWI
Again, President Wilson had wonderful plans for reconstruction and nation building. Instead, the US and Congress retreated from the expenses.
Result: WWII Very Poor
WWII Thanks to the threat of a Soviet War, the brilliance of General Marshall, the tenacity of General McArthur, the unity of our allies and the morals of President Truman we rebuilt Germany and Japan.
Time: 10 years. Results: GREAT!!!!
(Appears in Iraq no one bothered to create a Marshall Plan)
Korea:
Since the war is not over, we can only talk about the help we had in rebuilding the southern half of the country.
Time: Unfamiliar with the time scale of turning defeated South Korea (defeated by Japan in WWII) into the powerhouse it is today. Result: Very good.
Vietnam: This is not a post war reconstruction, but a reconstruction during the war. The US did not try to solve problems with the corrupt Vietnamese government. We didn't critique it at all. Instead we fed it men and money in the hopes that it would at least stave off defeat by the North Vietnamese and thier sugar daddy, Russia. Time: 15 years. Result: Total loss.
The Drug Wars: Grenada, Panama, Columbia and any other little country that we supply troops and money in exchange for a country free of corruption and open to elections.
Our own peoples dependence on cocaine and other drugs means we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
(Grenada is actually a leftover Cold War battlefield. I have no idea how it is doing today.) Result: Poor.
The 90's Wars of Concience: Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo.
None finished or growing.
Only Bosnia is showing signs of improving.
Basically, what this shopping list boils down to is that for every Germany and Japan that people point to as victories, we can point to a Cheyenne nation or WWI Germany to prove where we either failed terribly, or refused to even show up.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to be oversimplifying WW2. I think the US did a stellar job in Japan, though I think that was mostly due to the Japanese culture's present sense of honor and shame at the time.
[ September 05, 2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah - Reconstruction was an utter failure that left the South improvrished for a hundred years.
If we do to Iraq what the Union did the Confederacy, everything they say about America will be true.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I recall, after WWI, the U.S. had very little to say about the reconstruction of Europe. I seem to remember reading that France and England were adamant about punishing Germany and making them pay for dragging everybody into the war. Since the U.S. was pretty much a Johnny-come-lately to the fighting in any real strength, their opinion didn't count for that much, and the reps didn't push it since the nation didn't want to get involved in European squabbles anymore, anyway. The U.S. tried to get everybody interested in a League of Nations (precursor to the UN) but it dried up due to lack of interest from the rest of the "civilized" world at the time.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the discussion has some merit with the exception of the badly named "Drug War." You may as well put up the "War on Cancer" or "War Between the Sexes" or, if really troubled, "The Battle of the Network Stars" (outcome: Poor!). The "War on Drugs" is a poorly created drug and econmic policy that has done little to stem the tide of illegal drugs (which now reaches younger and younger children...11 percent of drug addicts in this country are 12-17) or assist those who are addicted. I don't want to turn this into an indictment of the "War on Drugs" but that policy doesn't seem to fit your discussion of "Nation Building." Just a thought.
posted
NATO countries have been heavily involved in Bosnia and Kosovo. Other than that, I can think of little nation building (not counting colonialization) by other countries in the 20th century.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Three limitations of the Marshall Plan, as it relates to 21st century geopolitics:
1) It cost an arm and a leg. Without a booming economy like the go-go 90's, Americans are unlikely to support any nation building approaching the scale of the Plan. And even in the 90's we weren't too thrilled about shelling out cash overseas.
2)IIRC, the Plan included major support for France, England and other allies from WWII, not just Germany and Japan. This made it much easier to sell to Congress and Americans in general.
3) By rebuilding Germany and Japan, yet isolating them from costs associated with the Cold War (Japan had strict limits on military spending written into it's constitution, and I believe W. Germany did as well), their economies were able to grow unconstrained compared to the US and UK and became serious economic rivals.
Notwithstanding these caveats, the Marshall Plan was very visionary and bold diplomacy, and turned determined enemies into allies. WWI lead directly to WWII, in fact I think some historians see it as one prolonged conflict. Better economic rivals than WWIII. It also led to America's current role as a leader in world affairs.
Good thread topic, Dan. It's often surprising to see summaries of topics like this, it challenges us to think about our political stances instead of just spouting the party line.
posted
Wow Kayla, you think there might be a chance they are counting chickens before they hatch there?
I mean, they dashed off some predictions about how this is all going to turn out, how can they do it so well? Oh yeah,they do it every week here!Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is counting chickens before they hatched any more than "the major fighting is over in Iraq" was counting chickens. Sure, we don't have giant troop movements like we started with, but the AP News today said that there are something like 15 attacks a day on US troops in one form or another. If there were a plan, even one as expensive as the Marshall plan, then I would say "wait and see." But there really isn't a plan. I think they expected Iraq to act like Kuwait and cheer the US in the streets from dusk til dawn. Which the people did for a bit, I am sure. ( If anything to differentiate themselves from those with the car bombs and ambushes). So no, I don't see this as counting chickens.
As the start of this thread kind of points out, after WW2, we have a pretty abysmal record with "nation building." I disagree with the Korean assessment, though. A divided nation with our troops fully armed and ready to shoot (for a long time, it was the only hot spot of that sort for the US since Viet Nam) on the border, I wouldn't call that success. A nation with an identity crisis and a madman with genuine access to weapons of mass destruction and threats to use them doesn't sound like a success, regardless of S. Korea's advances. My $.02, of course.
Speaking of nation building, I heard something about Canada making some huge strides with their aboriginal tribes in the NW Territory. They have created a model of relationship between Territory and Tribal law that really sounds like it works well for both parties and is being used in other nations to work with their own native populations. Very cool.
posted
fil, we don't exactly have a lot of influence in North Korea, or any way of getting it short of crushing their puny little military and waking a Sleeping Giant (TM)--ie, getting China angry with us, which would be a Bad Thing. There doesn't seem to be any way of changing their attitude toward us short of agreeing to do whatever they want--usually a bad policy, but the only terms mad dictators are likely to agree to (cf. Saddam Hussein). Considering these difficulties, I don't think it's inappropriate to claim success in South Korea.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Marshall Plan wasn't a plan in the sense of a strategy to build nations, but a way to prevent European countries from turning to communism. Basically it involved putting so much money into Europe that it was strong again. The Marshall Plan wasn't just for the former Axis Powers either, it was for virtually all of Western Europe. So you really can't blame the current administration for not creating a "Marshall Plan." You also couldn't really create a plan for the current situation because we don't when and how everything will fall into place.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
everytime i see this thread i think it is referring to a building called "american history of nation." and then i'm confused for a few seconds until i realize what it is actually saying. oh well.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
