Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

It happens more along the lines of whenever we try nation building. If we're not going to invest the thirty years and more of putting troops there, it's effectively just leaking money into the wind. It's a matter of our leadership hoping for a great victory in a country suddenly becoming a country, then deciding that the long stalemate to victory wasn't worth it. So surge it up, salvage the best we can, and gtfo.

Of course, now we're back, chasing more effort after what was effectively a write-off.


Why We Lost is a decently interesting and somewhat informative read on the progress and especially late-term planning that went into the pull out.

[Sheb]

It's not sure 30 more years would have helped. Both Germany and Japan (which are the most successful US-invaded country I can think of), were doing pretty well a few years after their respective occupation.

It's not so much a long stalemate to victory as a long stalemate to got knows where.

[LordSlowpoke]

take note that germany and japan were, to speak bluntly, actual nations before the us invasion

hardly anyone in iraq considers themselves iraqi, it's shiite or what will you with saddam oppressing that mess into coherence

you'd basically have to beat nationalism into them, then beat it out of them so they don't just go and invade others or fuck the kurds over, and it took europe circa 200 years to do that organically

[smjjames]

I'm curious, if the Iraqis don't see themselves as Iraqi, then do they have an unifying ethnic banner that they can fly under? Besides being Shiia or Sunni because being Sunni doesn't make you any more Egyptian than it does make you Saudi, or any other nationality.

Or rather, what I'm wondering is, if they don't see themselves as Iraqi, then what nation-state do they identify under? Like the Kurds for example.

[LordSlowpoke]

it's kinda weird, way i see it

kurds, turks, they have something to rally behind because well

turks had an empire and later ataturk, kurds had a common enemy which made the nation pretty closeknit

meanwhile in iraq and all you're got arabs all over stuck in their little postcolonial borders because the higher ups can benefit from it

now that's kinda ignorant because while i'm aware arab equals arab does not equal arab (f.ex. moroccan arabic is related to but not exactly like saudi arabic) i can't at the moment look up the whole thing, but i believe that they have a sort of heimat going on if you pardon the transplantation of terms - citizen of a local area first and foremost

[Sheb]

Well, you had something going on with Arab nationalism in the 70's, of which Saddal Hussein's Baath party was a decedent. Note that it still wasn't an Iraqi identity, but it was at least a secular, nationalist identity. Sadly, it did not survive Nasser's huge ego, the Arab's leader despotic tendencies and repeated humiliations of the Arab armies against Israel, so no the only ideology left with any traction seems to be various brands of radical Islamism.

[Strife26]

Korea is the example to look for. Clusterfuck of a war turned to stalemate to American victory by keeping troops in a short-term pointless situation.

[Sheb]

American victory? The result post-war seems mostly a cementing of the statu quo.

[Strife26]

North Korea is one of the objectively worst countries in the world, and South Korea is a thriving relatively secure, capitalist, democratic, and America-friendly country.

If that's not a victory for American interests, you've got a weird definition of things.


Edit: forgot the word secure in my little list.

I'm curious, if the Iraqis don't see themselves as Iraqi, then do they have an unifying ethnic banner that they can fly under? Besides being Shiia or Sunni because being Sunni doesn't make you any more Egyptian than it does make you Saudi, or any other nationality.

Or rather, what I'm wondering is, if they don't see themselves as Iraqi, then what nation-state do they identify under? Like the Kurds for example.

No, it's largely Shia, Shiite, or Kurdish. It's *not* a nationalist sentiment (disregarding counting Iraqi Kurdistan as a nation-state which is a stretch of the modern definition). To an extent, there's obviously tribal identity, but tribal lines do not generally breach those religious lines.

[smjjames]

@LSP: Sounds somewhat like the Greek city-state system, except the Greeks DID have an unifying culture and religion.

Korea is the example to look for. Clusterfuck of a war turned to stalemate to American victory by keeping troops in a short-term pointless situation.

Over 50 years is not 'short term'.

[Strife26]

Yeah, short term it was a bloody little standoff to little gain once the lines stabilized on the 38th parallel. Long term, it's a strategic victory.

[Lt_Alfred]

No, it's largely Shia, Shiite

Shia and Shiite are the same thing, also they're called Shia their name doesn't even have a letter "T" in it.

[Strife26]

Gah, my bad. I wrote that on too little sleep. Shia and Sunni.

[Sheb]

Okay, I see what you mean. Of course, because it worked in Korea doesn't mean it'd work in Iraq.

[Zangi]

It's not sure 30 more years would have helped. Both Germany and Japan (which are the most successful US-invaded country I can think of), were doing pretty well a few years after their respective occupation.

It's not so much a long stalemate to victory as a long stalemate to got knows where.

Mostly, national/ethnic/cultural unity before occupation.

Though... There is also the fact that its students are taught that their past was a shameful thing and people are actually criminalized for expressing their stupidity/ignorance expressing illegal viewpoints.  At least Germany on the latter point, in one form or another.