Putting aside the controversy around whether what’s happened in Iraq is good or bad, have there ever been cases similar to it in the past – where an outside nation/force comes in, topples the government and infrastructure of another country, then tries to rebuild it? Seems like there must be plenty, but there doesn’t seem to be much mention of them. (Lip service is given to Vietnam now and then, but it seems like a different situation, and tends to muddy the waters with its own, still-active controversy.) Could any knowledgeable historian dopers out there provide some insight into how situations like this in the past (either recent or ancient, with the exception of Vietnam) have turned out and the factors which affected their success or failure? Watching the news and hearing the bigwigs talk, it doesn’t seem like anyone’s basing their opinions on knoweldge gleaned from experience or history. What events in our geopolitical past could we look to for lessons?
Sure. Germany and Japan after WWII. Success stories both. And examples which misled the neocons into thinking they could make a success of Iraq.
There are some pretty interesting parallels with Iraq earlier this century, when Britain ran everything under the League of Nations Mandate system. Apparently they had a change in government and there was intense pressure to back out of expensive military engagements because it took up a ridiculous proportion of the budget. What ended up happening was Britain making all sorts of attempts to divest itself of commitments under the Mandate to establish a viable, self-sustaining state in Iraq (force monopoly, viable government, “standard of civilization”, etc). This included redefining the Mandate itself to lessen obligations as a Mandatory and pressuring the League to recognize Iraq as a state even though it didn’t really measure up to original Mandate requirements.
Haven’t really looked for an online cite for this, but Iraq under the British Mandate is described in Inventing Iraq (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0231131666/qid=1098334302/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-6286607-9128017?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
Current parallels include increased talk of exit strategies across the political spectrum (Kerry’s 4 point plan was mostly direct/indirect references to reducing troop strength) and the whole notion of “going through the motions of statehood” (e.g. election preparations) even though basic things like security and force monopoly aren’t yet in place.
There are probably plenty of lessons in the British experience, Inventing Iraq tends to emphasize the weakness of having preconceived notions of Iraqis (well, Orientals in general) and how this affected policy development and execution in negative ways.
Probably the most comparable event in recent history, in my mind, is the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan.
Similiarities: Soviets invaded because of a non-specific feeling that Afghanistan would be a problem for them sometime in the future if left alone.
The most ideological elements of the Politburo, especially in the International Division, were the most rabid supporters of intervention, whereas the less-hardcore members were more skeptical of the need for invasion.
The invasion was viewed as a breech of international law, and a good number of countries – excluding those who were tied most closely to the invading power – condemned the act.
The invasion and takeover of the country was accomplished very quickly.
The Soviets generally expected that they would be more or less welcomed as they believe that they could raise Afghanistan from a Third World country into something resembling a Second World country.
Afghanistan became a focus for radical, violent Muslims who sought to exclude that country from the control of the invader.
The USSR was convinced for the longest time that military power would eventually crush the insurgency.
Dissimilarities: Afghanistan was a communist state at the time of the election, so it was not antagonizing the USSR in the same way that Iraq antagonized the US for a decade… the USSR was more concerned about Afghanistan going wobbly (and ending up either pro-China or pro-fundamentalist Iran.
There were not a long litany of UN resolutions condemning Afghanistan.
Soviet casualties and disease were much, much higher than US/coalition casualties and disease in Iraq.
There were state sponsors of the insurgency in Afghanistan (US, Saudi, Pakistan). No strong evidence of a state sponsor of the insurgency in Iraq.
Many other countries have pledged aid for the reconstruction of Iraq. (Of course, 90% of this aid hasn’t arrived yet, and most of it is loans, but still.) That sort of international involvement to try to end the crisis in Iraq never happened in relation to Afghanistan.
In 1979, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew the Khmer Rouge. This was widely seen as an indefensible act of aggression and expansion at the time (although the poor souls rescued from Pol Pot’s ‘killing fields’ undoubtedly felt pretty good about it). After installing a puppet government, the Vietnamese army remained in Cambodia for 10 years before withdrawing.
The UN sponsored democratic elections in 1993 and the government is currently classified as a ‘multiparty democracy under a constitutional monarchy established in 1993’.
The country has been relatively peaceful since 1999.