Nation Building

The United Sates is currently embroiled in the questionable experiment of Nation Building in Iraq. Having recently removed Hussein, we are now engaged in the occupation of that country with the intention of creating a new, democratic government.

We could easily have stayed just long enough to let the majority Shiites take over the country and help them subdue the Sunnis. Arrangements could have been made with the Kurds and we could have withdrawn our troops and gone home. When other problems surfaced, they could work it out for themselves. If a civil war ensued, Iran and Syria would probably stepped in and the area would be destabilized for several years. But we didn’t withdraw! Regime change alone was not the goal of this administration.

From the very beginning of the first Bush administration, there has been a plan to democratize the country of Iraq and other parts of the world. If Iraq could acquire a democratic government, it would be far less aggressive with its neighbors and at the same time become friendlier to other democratic countries. Once a seed of democracy was established, people in the surrounding Arab countries would hopefully be inclined toward the same kinds of freedom seen in Iraq. And perhaps eventually hostilities of the Arabs toward western culture would diminish.

This administration is of the opinion that freedom is a mystical force, ever glowing deep within the hearts of all men. If given the opportunity, people of any race, national background, or cultural persuasion will immediately embrace it. It will be wonderful, if they are right. Having friendly governments around the world would make it safer for all of us.

The plan is that if we can get some leaders of the three sects, Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds to sit down together and talk, the battle is half-won. We can then explain to them what freedom and democracy are all about and direct them to form such a government. The belief is that any sane, sensible person can easily understand the advantages of democratic government.

It has not really been difficult to find a few leaders of each sect willing to cooperate. I would suspect however, that these are men who prize power and prestige far more than they are excited by ideas of freedom or democracy.

As familiar as they may be to us, concepts of freedom and democracy are alien to the Arab psyche and culture. These are seen as attributes of western culture. Western culture is generally viewed as degenerate. Their understanding of democratic western culture has been formed only by what they have observed through our music, movies, television and other media.

The mainstream Iraqi does understand authoritative government. He knows how to get along with authority. He is comfortable with it in his religious life as well as in his national life.

These are not a beaten and submissive people. They are proud of their heritage and culture, just as we are of ours. Their culture has been strongly reinforced by their religion. Religious leaders have greater personal and political influence in the Muslim world than religious leaders have in most of the developed countries of the world..

This is a primary reason the Iraqis were frustrated with us when we would not restore peace and tranquility. Why didn’t the Americans restore law and order? Why didn’t the Americans restore the electricity and water? Why? Why? Why? The Americans were in charge now. Americans were the new authority. Providing necessities is the responsibility of authoritative government! It could not be that such a powerful force was unable or inept. Obviously, we just didn’t care about them! And the Arab newspapers and television agreed!

Nationalism is an ingrained sense of communal understanding and appreciation of one’s culture. People all over the world have this sense of nationalism. If we were suddenly occupied by a culture such as theirs, how soon would you embrace it? Never in your lifetime! You may have to submit, but you would always long for that which you knew, understood, and believed in. Why should we think they are any different?

Nation building is not a new idea to the Unites States. It was recently put in motion in Serbia under the Clinton Administration in cahoots with the UN. Only time will tell how these changes imposed from the outside will work out.

This is not to say that nation building cannot work. Proof that under certain circumstances nation building can work is seen in Germany and in Japan.

Circumstances were altogether different from Iraq in both of these cases.

At the end of WWII, Germany was completely devastated. The major cities had been reduced to rubble. The people were beaten. Everyone over thirty-five, remembered when Germany lost WWI as well. Everyone younger than twenty had known only one leader, Hitler. There was no religious animosity toward the occupiers as both Germany and the occupiers were “Christian”.

When the populace learned of the Holocaust they were ashamed and felt guilty. Because the humiliation of the holocaust was so grave, it was seldom spoken of, even in private.

A generation grew up under a new democratic government. They also grew up under occupation.

Most important, half of their country was cut off and under Soviet (communist) occupation. West Germany was staunchly on our side during the ‘Cold War’ period, because they had a common interest with us. They had hopes that at some point the western democracies would repatriate their ‘brothers’ enslaved by the Soviet occupation. By the time the cold war was over, people in Germany, less than fifty years of age had only known a democratic government. More important perhaps, their lives had been focused, waiting for their fellow citizens who were in subjection to the communists.

Throughout those years and even today, after sixty years we still maintain a substantial military force in Germany. Though probably not for much longer.

In Japan, the devastation was neither as heavy nor as widespread as in Germany. Japan had been at war for two decades when the war ended. Pride of race and nationalism, and patriotism were the most common traits of the Japanese. Not much has changed in this respect. The nationalistic spirit was embodied in the Emperor. The Emperor was believed to be a direct descendent of the Sun God in their national Shinto religion.

Truman had insisted on unconditional surrender, When the Emperor was required to publicly surrender, the whole populace surrendered in obedience and disgrace. Two atomic bombs certainly had a devastating effect. The atomic bombs so affected the people of Japan that for sixty years they have chosen not to have a standing military force. They still depend on the United States for their national defense, of their own choice. With the passing of the surviving generation, this attitude has been changing. Soon, a new Japan will emerge.

The circumstances after WWII and after the second Iraqi war are plainly different. There has been little structural devastation of the Iraqi country. The people have not been subdued. Even at the height of the war, the populace had little or no fear of our troops. It may be that populace views this whole war as nothing more than a ‘Coup de tete” and they are not so patiently waiting for this strange, foreign occupation to end.

It seems that an occupation of less than another five or ten years will not yield the results hoped for by this administration. Although there may come to be a reduction in subversive retaliation toward the occupiers, the resentment toward foreign troops will grow over the years. The Americans did not appreciate being directed by British troops in Boston and elsewhere during Colonial times. The resentment would have been much worse if they had been of Muslim or Shinto persuasion trying to impose an alien political system. Why should we think people in Iraq would like it any better?

The Iraqi’s also firmly believe that we are there to steal their oil. They believe that anything we do or say is, in the end, intended to get their only natural resource, oil.

After a democracy is established, how long can it survive when surrounded by traditional Arab/Muslim countries? How long are we willing to stay and nurture a fledgling halfhearted democracy? Iraq’s neighbors have governments and a culture that is familiar to the Iraqi’s. The new government will face hostilities from both internal and external subversives. Permanent change in Iraq will require considerable changes in the attitudes of the countries that surround them before we can leave. Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will have far more influence on Iraq than we can bring to the table. Even changes in these countries may be of little help. There may be swelling seeds of discontent in these countries, but freedom and democracy are not the dreams of these people either.

Success in nation building is tentative at best, and requires great patience. How patient will the American people be? How much longer will we be willing to bear the high cost of the war? How much longer will we be willing to lose our sons over there?

Regime change is only the first step in a long journey even when circumstances are favorable. Iraq does not have the best climate for nation building. Even if successful, it is questionable how long a democracy in Iraq can endure.