On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 several people quoted the New York Times to the effect that:
> The U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report
>
> By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
So here we finally see the true face of the true faith: American Messianism.
> Instead, officials said, the administration is studying the military
> occupations of Japan and Germany.....The military government in Germany
> stayed in power for four years; in Japan it lasted six and a half years.
There's a couple of things that strike me off the top of my head about this comparison.
Such a thing had never been done before Japan and Germany. Nor ever after. It was touted all through the cold war as a remarkable achievement by any standard. It was quite the enormous undertaking. And off hand, I can think of at least a couple of reason why this should be considerably harder.
Japan and Germany were already advanced industrial countries. That made them much more fertile ground for democracy, despite their recent political past. The social structures that accompany advanced economic development are generally considered to be the most congenial foundations for setting up a stable democracy. Without them, the task is undoubtedly harder.
Perhaps just as important, this also meant that both countries had the preconditions for an economic boom whose good effects were widely distributed across the populace. Those enormous booms played a central role in cementing those reconstructions.
Now, if we could develop Iraq from bombed-out third world country into an advanced industrial country that would be a great thing for the world precisely because it's never been done before. We've never even been able to develop a non-bombed out country from the third world into the first. We've never given any sign that we have the vaguest idea how to do it.
Arguably the closest we ever came was Korea. But that parallel, like so many in this area, makes one gasp. It had US-occupied military authoritarianism for 40 years before democracy even got started. And its economic boom was powered by (1) a neighboring war in Vietnam (is that something we want here, a long-term neighboring war?) and (2) a state-centered economic policy I very sincerely doubt we'll see in action this time. And which, come to think of it, was in force in Japan and Germany too.
Another thing that made Germany and Japan more fertile ground for our ministrations was culture. With Germany, we shared a common European heritage. Our adminstration contained large numbers of people completely fluent in the language and admiring of the culture. In Japan we were dealing with a culture which, for reasons I don't pretend to understand, had arguably already displayed a unique genius at several key points in its history for absorbing outside cultures and making rapid and utter transformations. So in the one case we had competence, and on the other receptiveness. In Iraq, on the other hand, we are dealing with a culture of which we are not only ignorant, but actively hostile. Traditionally, intensively and down to our toes. And which at the moment is pretty hostile in return.
So if we really want to produce democracy on the model of Japan and Germany, we should start out by realizing that the task is enormously daunting -- like nothing that has ever been accomplished before.
Of course, if we all we want to produce is democracy on a model of Marcos' Phillipines -- i.e., tyranny with a cover story -- it might be a lot easier. Except that the regional side effects might be even worse and therefore costly that way.
Two other things to keep in mind. The occupation of Germany and Japan cost the modern equivalent of 100s of billions of dollars each. Not the war -- the occupations.
Secondly, the military occupation of each of those countries lasted ... well, forever, essentially. The military presence we have in both countries is still enormous compared to our presence anywhere else. But for the first two or three decades, it was and felt like an occupation, long after "occupation governments" had officially transitioned.
Now Iraq, as it is presently constituted, will always face large military threats to its unity from its neighbors. If it is to stay peaceful and unified, it will have to have a permanent military strong enough to deter the likes of Iran and Turkey. And Kurdistan and the Shia holy places will always be potentially huge bones of contention. So if we are ever to set up Iraq as a stable, self-sufficient, independent country, it will have to be with an army about the size of Saddam's. Which means that either we will have to control it indefinately, or we will be left with the same agent/proxy problem we had with him.
And this is all just for Iraq. If there is any opposition, and it is supported by neighboring countries, it would have to be dealt with. Given the sign in which all this conquering is being done, a terrorist attack on our forces supported by someone across a border -- and is there any other kind of terrorist attack? ;o) -- would demand a response. And if there are revolutions -- or even elections -- in neighboring countries that bring to power hostile regimes, that too would call for intervention. And would it be crass to point out that revolutions -- or elections -- in neighboring countries are purportedly exactly what we want to produce?
Meanwhile the countries next door are each more daunting in their own way than Iraq. Iran, for example, has a legitimate government that was supported by a much bigger turnout at the last election than ours was. There are 60 millions of those people. And they marched to their death in their *millions* in a war that ended less than 15 years ago, under a government they supported much less than the present one, to fight off a country they hadn't been denouncing as the Great Satan since before most of them were born. It would not be, how you say, a walkover.
So when I say this is a messianic urge, I'm not kidding. The task being annunciated is nothing less than changing the world. By force. It's very much like the urge that got us into Vietnam. But if it's anything purer in its messianism, since here there is no admixture of fear for our own survival. We are not here to ward off dominos. We are here to push them.
It's also reminscent of the urge that drove the Puritans to build their Zion in the wilderness in 1620, to be a City on the Hill, to show the world how it's done so that they could reform and be like us. Of course, the first time we had this urge, in the Bay Colony, utopia actually triumphed. Which might be why we've always thought we could do it again.
But that people can talk about a task this huge so matter of factly is astonishing. And the size of the commitment. We plan to occupy Iraq for 6 years at a minimum?? This is stated matter of factly on the front page of the Times?? I'd say this deserves more publicity, but you can't really get more than that. Is anyone out there listening?
And remember, once we occupy with plans like this, we can't just cut and leave if something goes wrong. Our precious reputation will be caught in the door. So once we're in, it's forward ho from that point on.
If this is really what we plan to do, of course.
Michael