Change policies, not states

[OSfollower]

The differences between the US occupation of Japan and Iraq are suggestive. The US fought Japan in exhausting war and had every reason to hate its government. Democratic America detested Japanese monarchy. The Western Christians were xenophobic about very strange customs of the Japanese. Yet the US was wise to change none of that.

America strengthened the very Japanese institutions that underpinned the war, and only eliminated Japanese army, the direct threat. Then the US used those institutions to change the Japanese outlook from within. The mid-term result was hugely successful: Japanese ambitions were channeled in the economy, and the economy directed outward. The long-term change in mentality is unlikely, and Japanese imperialism would re-surface, reinforced by economic successes. Hardly any policy, however, could provide more than mid-term results.

Contrast the American policy in Iraq. The US destroyed the institutions such as the strong government and police which cemented the multi-ethnic religiously diverse Iraq. Reforming a failed state is impossible; only strong states survive the reforms. America made the situation still worse by directly enforcing the law and pushing for the unwelcome political changes like democracy and Westernization. No people would accept new ideology force-fed to them by hostile outsider. They will fight or, at best, remain contemptuously passive. Once the occupation force withdraws, locals will run for the golden old values in their most extreme form. Population will firmly connect the resistance fighters with idealized old values, and elect them to power.

America could follow the Japan example in nuclear Egypt, Iran, and North Korea. All of them still have strong security apparatus and reasonably conformant population. America may concur their capitals, install acceptable rulers without damaging the security framework of the countries, and have the new rulers brainwash their citizens with local variety of the Western ideology, from schools to mass media. Ataturk was almost alone when he started secularizing Turkey. Totalitarian governments plus the Western ideology could solve the problem of nuclear rogue states.

[BoarSpear]

Iran, what an ironic country for this thread.

Changing the government in a country doesn't always work out the way you planned...or maybe it did.

[Tom Yum]

The differences between the US occupation of Japan and Iraq are suggestive. The US fought Japan in exhausting war and had every reason to hate its government. Democratic America detested Japanese monarchy. The Western Christians were xenophobic about very strange customs of the Japanese. Yet the US was wise to change none of that. .

Not only that, but the Japanese Imperial Army attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Japan picked the fight; we decided to enter the war because of their aggression against us.

The WTC attacks during 9/11 are parallels in many ways, except that the attackers do not represent an organized government, rather a radical religious organization - not localized in one country.

This form of radicalized religion cannot survive with western values. It is their goal to kill all non-believers.

America strengthened the very Japanese institutions that underpinned the war, and only eliminated Japanese army, the direct threat. Then the US used those institutions to change the Japanese outlook from within. The mid-term result was hugely successful: Japanese ambitions were channeled in the economy, and the economy directed outward. The long-term change in mentality is unlikely, and Japanese imperialism would re-surface, reinforced by economic successes. Hardly any policy, however, could provide more than mid-term results.

Yes, we allowed Emperor Hirohito stay in power, I believe. The Japanese channeled their post-war imperialism into their economic power rather than their military power, which is why they are considered a friend to most of the western world.

I cannot recall a recent event, where the Japanese government has made an aggressive military move against another nation, but I could be wrong.

Contrast the American policy in Iraq. The US destroyed the institutions such as the strong government and police which cemented the multi-ethnic religiously diverse Iraq. Reforming a failed state is impossible; only strong states survive the reforms. America made the situation still worse by directly enforcing the law and pushing for the unwelcome political changes like democracy and Westernization. No people would accept new ideology force-fed to them by hostile outsider. They will fight or, at best, remain contemptuously passive. Once the occupation force withdraws, locals will run for the golden old values in their most extreme form. Population will firmly connect the resistance fighters with idealized old values, and elect them to power.

True.

America could follow the Japan example in nuclear Egypt, Iran, and North Korea. All of them still have strong security apparatus and reasonably conformant population. America may concur their capitals, install acceptable rulers without damaging the security framework of the countries, and have the new rulers brainwash their citizens with local variety of the Western ideology, from schools to mass media. Ataturk was almost alone when he started secularizing Turkey. Totalitarian governments plus the Western ideology could solve the problem of nuclear rogue states.

Each of the countries you've mentioned have completely different circumstances concerning their people's relationship with their government,the government's concern for its own people's welfare and guiding belief systems.

While the Japan model worked for Japan, it may not work in Iran, Egypt or even North Korea.

[BoarSpear]

Actually, Boar, that's my point. We created a horrible situation in Iran trying to do what we needed to do to contain the USSR. It's hard to blame anyone in particular, but it's easy to see it went bad.

Yeah, we CREATED the entire hateful regime in Iran...interesting how often we seem to have Created the very enemy that is suddenly threatening the whole worlds safety...perhaps a look at the policies and leaders who KEEP creating these nightmare enemies is in order?

Geesh we created, trained and financed EVERY current enemy we are engaged in a war with...maybe if Bush manages to get a war going in North korea he will have one country we're at odds with We didnt create the entire problem.

[gregimotis]

Iran, what an ironic country for this thread.
did.

When I read this, I thought the 'irony' Boar was getting at was that Mike had brought in yet another country that needs invading rather than deal with the existing problems. AS IN: Why the heck are we talking about what to do with Iran when we've got Afghanistan and Iraq to fix first?

See, I think that would be a good place to start a productive argument. Boar could make some valid points about creating problems rather than solving them, Mike could make a case that we need to deal with Iran before we can talk about stability in the region, I might learn something about real-politic from two people who have seen it first hand, and this new guy with a good first post might stick around and contribute.

But no, instead we are going to talk about leftovers from the cold war and play 20/20 hindsight from twenty-three moves ago and then we will degenerate into a spitting match. 'New guy' is going to back quietly out of the room, Brewer is going to ban Boar, Boar is going to storm out to the bar with KOTF and STABBY, and I'm going to have to go do some actual work 'cause nothing good is happening here. Great.

Christ, I even agree with many of your positions, but you're just picking fights now.