Unfortunately for Bush, he just can’t declare all Iraqis slaves of the American Empire, even though that was the idea.
As political entities only. They were blown to hell and back, hence the necessity of the Marshall Plan and nation building.
Not so. It does support my thesis because they haven’t been back. Fallujah was essentially pacified. Now, were we to do that everywhere the insurgency would largely go away and then we could commence to rebuilding with little interference. Again, though, we don’t do carpet bombing and indiscriminate destructyion anymore, so we’re still fighting when we should be well past that. 60 years ago this wouldn’t have been the case.
I don’t understand. Yes, the isurgency would be gone if we bombed the entire country out of existence, but we didn’t do that in Germany. There was NEVER an insurgency to begin with in that country.
I know that, because we bombed the hell out of that country. You don’t think Dresden and Hamburg were abberations, do you? We took that country down to the ground and built it back up.
Does it mean we can stop studying the lessons of Vietnam now?
Stalingrad, Dresden, Hiroshima…Bring it on!
Yeah, and besides it would scorch all those rose petals they are continually strewing in our path.
Rather than ask you for a cite, may I request you read a bit more about post WWII Germany and the level of infrastructure -and national identity- which still existed? Or hell --ask David Simmons; I’m pretty sure I read him post once that he was there at the time. Yes, Dresden and Hamburg were deliberate attempts to crush morale and discourage support for the war. But no, that doesn’t make carpet bombing a model for the pacification of an occupied country and no, it’s not why there was no insurgency in post war Germany.
And by the way, “tak[ing] into account civilians and their sensibilities” has always been a recipe for post war success. It’s just that through most of history that consisted of making terms with the chieftains, royalty or other usually hereditary rulers of a country. In latter day democracies, that comes down to the electable rulers, who must find a path that allows both cooperation with the occupying entity and enough popular support so that their election or appointment is credible.
Difficult to allow them that path while you’re blowing the shit out of their electorate.
Allow me to respectfully note that they had no national identity after the war. They were a divided, occupied country at the mercy of the Four Powers following an unconditional surrender which abdicated any sort of government. They didn’t get to vote on it, they were told what to do. I’m sure that we took into account their firm desire to be outright subjugated by foreigners when we did it, too. As far as carpet bombing goes, we sent waves of medium and heavy bombers over their country and dropped dumb. If that isn’t carpet bombing I don’t know what is. The only difference between what happened at Dresden and Hamburg and everywhere else was the type of munitions. We rained random death from the sky. We don’t do that now.
In other words, we made no deals, we shook no hands, we just beat the shit out of them until they quit and then we essentially made them our bitches until such time as we decided to let them get on their feet. Contrast that with Iraq where we left virtually everything intact, including the populace.
A. Dissolution of government != “loss of national identity”
B. The sensibilities of German civilians post war were most assuredly considered in the implentation of the Marshall plan. This included decisions which validated the authority of most lower level governmental officials in Germany. Police forces weren’t dissolved and the Germany army wasn’t released into monolithic unemployment by the Western occupiers.
Even more importantly, deals were made among the Allied nations which determined the fates of West and East Germany. In US/GB controlled Germany, the civilians had their cultural landscapes left largely unaltered, and were also able to return quickly to an independent democratic state. And while their real infrastructure was particularly damaged in the industrial centers, much of the rest of the country was left practically unmolested, allowing the foreign relief and rebuilding efforts of the Marshall plan to be implemented largely by and with German labor and in many cases, German organizational leadership.
At the same time, the vengeful Soviet occupation of East Germany, utilizing an approach much more akin to the one you’ve recommended in this thread, produced after a much longer post war period a much weaker economy and a satellite state which continued to take central resources away from Moscow rather than contributing in any major way to hegemony or even social order.
But you should be happy to note that the Soviets could claim with quite a bit of validity that they’d successfully “cowed” the East German population. This, however, was another decisive feature of post war Europe which helped produce a largely cooperative West German population. The alternative to a US/GB framework was very clear, and not attractive.
I have absolutely no reason to believe that’s even remotely close to true. The countries occupied by the United States in WWII were all modern, ethnically homogenous nation-states. The people were naturally inclined to concede defeat once the state was defeated. Furthemore, those states had been at war for many years, and were experiencing significant war weariness even before Allied troops got anywhere near their borders. The relative ease of occupation wasn’t just a product of U.S. bombing, it was a product of years and years of wars which were characterized by THOSE states sending millions of their sons and husbands abroad, never to return.
Iraq was a state, but not really a nation, and unlike Germany, Japan and Italy, there was little war weariness in 2003 because it was an esentially defenseless country bushwhacked (pun unintended) by a superior power. Iraq had NOT, at least very recently, been sending millions of its boys overseas to die. Indiscriminately bombing the place would make the populace, as well as the populaces of the surrounding area, even more thirsty for revenge.
With all due respect, the difference is primarily scale, not the effect. I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that most of the victims from U.S. aerial bombing in Iraq are civilians. The press got bored of reporting it a long time ago, but it’s still true, and I don’t think the relatives of the victims much care for the details.
This really deserves special treatment. I don’t know where and how you got the idea the Iraqi public infrastructure was virtually intact.
Briefly, unlike most Iraqis today (two years after the end of major hostilities), most Germans had operating sewers, easy access to clean water and -most of the time- electrical power. Along with centuries of national identity and the immediate hope of quick return to national independence. Along with occupiers who shared much of the same cultural heritage, and many of whom knew or quickly learned the language. And importantly, the ability and encouragement to actually participate in their country’s rebuilding.
Might want to check your Civil War math, sport. April 1861 to April 1865 = 4 years. And GW and the Continental Army defeating the most powerful nation in the world in seven years is a good comparison only when compared to how long it will take the insurgency to defeat the US.
3 1/2 years for World War II? According to this site http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html
the US lost some 291,557 soldiers…compare that to the 1,800 or so lost in Iraq.
Also, Saddam was captured, placed in irons and will stand trial for his crimes against humanity. Hitler was allowed to take the coward’s way out.
Hmmm…comparing the two, one suspects that GW knows how to wage a war. Right?
It’s also worth noting that the U.S. Revolution succeeded in part because U.K. attention and resources were diverted by wars with Holland and France. Our current sabre rattling at Iran and North Korea can be looked at in that comparison.
So as not to gloss over the real problems of reconstructing Germany, I’d like to submit the following record of a meeting on December 3, 1945 held by the Council on Foreign Relations with Allen W. Dulles, who had been Bern station chief for the OSS during the war. Dulles’ remarks indicate a worse situation than probably I’ve portrayed, but also illustrate the marked differences, right from the start, between the American/British approaches and means, and those of the Soviet Union.
Perhaps you should read this wikipedia article on World War II before you embarass yourself again.
OK. So your source gives an even higher number of US military casualties: 407,000. Thanks. Bush looks even better by comparison.
Oh, and by the way: it’s embarrass. You know, your lame attempt at sarcasm would’ve been so much more effective had you been able to spell the insult correctly. Just a tip.
Do you believe that had Bush been president during WWII, the war would have been won with “only” 1800 U.S. dead?
The 291,000 number is accurate. When you speak of casualties you speak of dead and wounded. He specifically said “lost”, implying killed in action. I don’t see how that is embarassing.
Nope. Never said that. I’m simply comparing US losses over comparable time frames in each year. 300,000 (or whatever) KIA over 3.5 years in WWII…versus 1,800 (or so) over 2.5 years in Iraq. (By the way, I don’t necessarily agree with the “3.5 years” for WWII…I’m simply using what the OP listed).