Which Asian country will Iraq wind up resembling?

Great Debates
1

As I see it, the Iraq situation is headed toward one of three outcomes, each of which, to me, happens to be exemplified by an Asian nation who has been a foe of the US in a shooting war:

Result 1: Japan

Iraq becomes a free nation with a thriving economy, all due to reconstruction efforts by the US and other nations.

Result 2: Korea

As a PR move, the US pulls the “We won!” approach, where we declare victory, and bug out, leaving a residual force in place. This brings about short term satisfaction, but leaves the future greatly in doubt, with US forces settling in for an indeterminate stay which could stretch to decades.

Result 3: Viet Nam

The US, determined to win “an honorable peace”, escalates its involvement, resulting in heavy casualties and an eventual retreat by US forces.

While the cynical side of me guesses Viet Nam, and the optimistic side of me still holds out hope for Japan, I think I see us heading for another Korea here.

Bush is too much the poll watcher to let it slide into a Viet Nam-style quagmire if he is capable of avoiding it (although that’s still a serious “if” in my book as I see things now), and there’s no way the US under Bush would allow the development of an essentially independent economy, which may become a serious economic competitor to the US (the way Japan and Germany ended up), especially one that’s run on all that oil that I believe Bush imagines to be his birthright, so the Japan result is probably out.

Bush’s most recent noise about turning over sovereignty as soon as possible suggests to me we’ve got another Korea on our hands. No sane person could imagine that the Iraqis are currently in a position to defend their borders and institutions while rebuilding their country on their own. If we were actually to abandon them in the next few months, I think the world media would be soaked in Iraqi blood just in time for next November. Again, ain’t gonna happen if Bush can help it.

Therefore, a defense force must remain to keep a lid on the situation, and I fear the situation being left at an indeterminate stalemate, which will get passed down from president to president, the way Korea has been.

I also think we are racking up too many of these non-victories. The US may have a short memory, but the rest of the world does not. I think they will look at Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and whatever else comes down the pike, and wonder just how mush they really have reason to respect us.

2

I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. I suspect that, 5-10 years hence, Iraq will have another strongman in power (after a brief experiment with Democracy). I suspect that the US will ensure that it’s a Musharraf-type strongman-- someone who isn’t too terribly nasty and is generally pro-US.

3

Myself, I think they will end up with a democracy…of sorts. Iraqi’s are well educated, many have a secular outlook…they aren’t poor ignorant peasants from Palistine…and if they and we can hold it together (big IF, admittedly), I think they will end up with something that resembles democracy, but is unique to them and their culture. Maybe like the difference between US democracy and European democracy…but still recognizable as such. Maybe its wishful thinking (ok, it probably is) but thats what I think they will end up with.

Which Asian country? Korea I’d say. Basically I think that SOME US troops are going to be there for quite a while. Years at the least it looks like to me now. BTW, the US’s (USers? :)) current plans as far as I know are to turn over the government to Iraq…not to withdrawl troops at this time. I think that the Iraqi’s will re-activate their own military some time in the near future, maybe shortly after the turn over of power to them, maybe earlier. There is both good and bad in this…oppertunity and danger.

-XT

4

Afghanistan

5

I don’t think East Asian countries are good sources of comparison, really. I think Iraq will end up like Lebanon with a roughly democratic government but with lots of outside interference, strong sectarian divisions and Hejbollah-style militant groups with a fair amount of independence from the central government. Such groups will probably be more dangerous to the US than Saddam was.

John Mace’s scenario of a Musharraf-type strongman is also possible.

6

I think the best comparison might wind up being Turkey. Or maybe Jordan. A democracy, but without all of the trappings of full liberal democracy. Mostly free and peaceful, but still with religious influence in the government (although not control). There will still be occasional terror attacks for years to come, and the standard of human rights will be somewhat lower than they are in the Western democracies. Somewhat like Turkey, again.

The key difference is Iraq’s large reserve of oil. That can be a double-edged sword, because oil revenue can help a country built a good infrastructure, or it can corrupt the government.

7

Oil’s all in hock, Sam.

I’m thinking you’d need to look to Africa for the appropriate chronic civil war comparison.

Yep, the history books are gonna look back real favorably on good ol’ George.

8

I’m sorry, but you need to seriously brush up on east Asian history. Unlike Iraq, Japan had a thriving and powerful industrial sector before the war. Most of the reconstruction was just getting existing companies and plants back in production mode. There is no parallel possible with either Germany or Japan. They were super-powers; Iraq never was.

Rebuilding infrastructure is easy. Not so easy is the task of building an economic culture conductive to growth. Such a culture existed in Japan and Korea and that is why they are the kinds of places they are today. Foreign aid was accessory.

And herein lies the problem in the op’s question. You simply cannot draw this kind of simplistic comparison. The social structure and economic of the countries are different, the historical context is different, the players’ intents are different, etc.

Iraq will not turn into something it alread isn’t overnight. You can impose any arbitrary governmental system you want, you can pour in all the billions of dollars you have, in the end, what Iraq will become depends mostly on the micro-level organization of its society.

9

Oil is not necesarily in hock. As the various re-construction etc agreements are illegal and not enforceable under international law, a future Iraqi government may choose to use the money elsewhere.

10

How about South Korea then? South Korea didn’t have the industrial history, but certainly developed into a fairly wealthy and democratic country. It didn’t go as smoothly as Japan for many reasons, but they did get there.

11

Presuming Iraq remains with it’s current borders and doesn’t fragment into something resembling it’s Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish demographics (and please, we don’t need a civil war to follow the Gulf Wars) the best example is Pakistan.

12

I suspect we’re talking about different things here. The oil was in hock before the invasion and any “reconstruction” agreements.

13

Malaysia is more likely… pro US and not democratic.

Like Japan ? haha… you should stop smoking wierd stuff. Iraq will never be like Japan… and if they do become one day like Japan it will have to be something internal… not US sponsored. (Do remember that the Japanese managed to get out from Feudalism into a modern economy on their own… the US post WWII just helped them recover.)

14

South Korea is a much more homogenous country than Iraq ;nothing like the three-way split between Sunni, Shia and Kurds over there. And it did take several decades of a fairly repressive dictatorship before it became a democracy. So the South Korean example would imply Iraq becoming democratic in 2040 or so which isn’t exactly what people have in mind.

As for Turkey and Jordan you have very specific individuals and institutions with power who were responsible for their relatively modern orientation: Attaturk and the Turkish military in Turkey and the Hashemite royal family in Jordan. Who are their equivalents in Iraq? Even then it was a very slow evolution towards democracy in both countries and Jordan isn’t there yet.

No, Lebanon is the best comparison. Huge sectarian divisions upfront, no clear authority figure unlike Turkey or Jordan and every possibility of countries like Syria and Iran interfering for their own purposes.

15

Some good points, jovan, but in your citing of the pre-war Japanese economy as a key difference in the two situations I detect an assumption that Iraq was little more than a dot in the desert before we took it over. IMO, nothing could be further from the truth.

Before we took it over, Iraq was a major player in the world oil game. It’s not just a question of happening to be sitting over a field, you need local expertise to keep the stuff coming out of the ground, and an economy that supports it. All of this is simply waiting to be rebuilt, just as it was in Japan.

However, my main point in making the comparison is that the redevelopment of Japan was promoted and perceived at the time as exemplifying America’s benevolence to its former foes, helping them to create their own system rather than imposing our own and never letting go the reins. However, in succeeding decades, Japan has become a serious economic competitor.

Therefore, I don’t see that being the approach in Iraq any time soon, while a pro-business conservative is running the show.

16

Ah, but where would South Korea be without American troops more or less permanently posted at the DMZ?

17

Why does that matter? THey aren’t taking significant casualties. I think it’s something like one or two a year, isn’t it? Same as Germany, where would they be without our protection all those years? Japan too? And if Iraq wants us to stay and we aren’t taking casualties there, that’s fine too.

18

True… if it wasn’t for those naughty Americans they wouldn’t have to face the horrors of Capitalism and Democracy…
They could be basking in the Communist Paradise of Kim Jong…

19

Exactly my point, mascaroni .

I thought that adaher 's post was meant to draw a similarity between Korea and Japan in terms of their postwar economic success.

I, however, feel such a comparison must be qualified by the fact that American troops are still in Korea, complete with shooting and killing. Without them, there is little doubt that Kim Jong Il would roll right over the country.

I see no such level of troop activity in Japan. Is there a giant naval blockade protecting the archipeligo, similar to the armed-to-the-teeth DMZ? There was an exchange of fire along the DMZ as recently as July. Where is the recent Japanese parallel?

You can say their economic success is similar, building cars and electronics for the world market. But when one nation is doing it on their own, and the other wouldn’t have a prayer without several thousand US troops, I think they are much less comparable.

20

I decided to do your work for you and find a cite for your “two per year” esimate.

I found this webpage.
While many of the writer’s stories from other soldiers about Korea are simply hearsay from unnamed sources, his account of his own experience is quite telling.

It estimates the deaths at around 8 per year, which is a lot more than we ended up with from, say, Bosnia .

You got different numbers? Show 'em.

Even better: Show me where there is this level of activity and loss defending Japan from its enemies anytime recently.