Nation Building
I keep hearing that "nation building (keeping a presence to guide the country's politics) doesn't work". Let's look at history:
We had a war with Mexico; we pulled all our troops out; Mexico is a corrupt narco state.
We had a war with Spain/Cuba; we pulled all our troops out; Cuba is a Communist dictatorship.
We've had troops in the Philippines, on and off; the Philippines is a somewhat successful Democratic Republic.
We had a war with Germany; we kept, and still have, troops there; Germany is a successful Democratic Republic.
We had a war with Japan; we kept, and still have, troops there; Japan is a successful Democratic Republic.
We had a war in Korea; we kept, and still have, troops there; South Korea is a successful Democratic Republic.
We had a war in Vietnam; we pulled our troops out; Vietnam is a Communist dictatorship.
We had a war in Iraq; we pulled our troops out; Iraq is a puppet of Iran.
We have a war in Afghanistan; we are pulling our troops out: any guess on the outcome?
Simplistic? Yes. But instructive if the details are studied.
Let's expand on this. How can leaving troops in a country lead to a Democratic Republic? Let's use Iraq as an example.
US troops trained and aided the Iraqi Forces. They gave assurance to the political leaders (mainly PM Maliki) that they could make changes without danger of rebellion or coup. More importantly, the US troops and civilian/diplomatic personnel were a brake on corruption. Having the power of allocating aid funds, they could cut out the most corrupt and reward those who were dealing honestly. And the main reason for the backwardness of most countries is the financial and political corruption. In the West, we call it the Rule of Law.
Under the US tutelage, the Iraqi Forces, mainly Shia, were put under competent commanders who were mainly Sunni. This uneasy alliance was held together by US advisors.
The US trained NCOs, who are the most important piece of modern, US-style militaries. This takes a minimum of 5 years to gain competence in the jobs.
So when President Obama came into office, he inherited a stable country. Had a force of 10-20,000 troops been left, the military support and brake on corruption could have been continued, over time leading to a citizenry that would put more trust in the national leadership, moving away from tribalism to the modern nation state.
But Obama rejected Maliki's offer of a Status of Forces Agreement (Obama and Biden insisted the agreement be ratified by the Iraqi legislature, which Maliki knew would reject it. Maliki was willing to do an executive agreement leaving out the legislature.)
Once all troops were removed, Maliki had no support as a Shia leader of a country whose most able, most educated citizens were Sunni. He turned to a Shia state, Iran, for support. Fearing the possibility of a military-led overthrow, he replaced the competent Sunni military leaders with Shia sycophants, who were corrupt and incompetent. This loss of competent leaders led the NCOs to leave the military. So, nearly overnight, the Iraqi Army was deprived of able leaders.
Worse, the US took with it their air support, medivac capabilities, and intelligence gathering abilities. This, naturally, demoralized the army more.
With an Army that he could not rely on, Maliki was forced to move even closer to Iran, accepting Iranian troops and leaders in his country, both as advisors and actual fighting troops.
The invasion by ISIL and subsequent events are well known, and the direct result of not leaving a small American force in Iraq.
I keep hearing that "nation building (keeping a presence to guide the country's politics) doesn't work". Let's look at history:
We had a war with Mexico; we pulled all our troops out; Mexico is a corrupt narco state.
We had a war with Spain/Cuba; we pulled all our troops out; Cuba is a Communist dictatorship.
We've had troops in the Philippines, on and off; the Philippines is a somewhat successful Democratic Republic.
We had a war with Germany; we kept, and still have, troops there; Germany is a successful Democratic Republic.
We had a war with Japan; we kept, and still have, troops there; Japan is a successful Democratic Republic.
We had a war in Korea; we kept, and still have, troops there; South Korea is a successful Democratic Republic.
We had a war in Vietnam; we pulled our troops out; Vietnam is a Communist dictatorship.
We had a war in Iraq; we pulled our troops out; Iraq is a puppet of Iran.
We have a war in Afghanistan; we are pulling our troops out: any guess on the outcome?
Simplistic? Yes. But instructive if the details are studied.
Let's expand on this. How can leaving troops in a country lead to a Democratic Republic? Let's use Iraq as an example.
US troops trained and aided the Iraqi Forces. They gave assurance to the political leaders (mainly PM Maliki) that they could make changes without danger of rebellion or coup. More importantly, the US troops and civilian/diplomatic personnel were a brake on corruption. Having the power of allocating aid funds, they could cut out the most corrupt and reward those who were dealing honestly. And the main reason for the backwardness of most countries is the financial and political corruption. In the West, we call it the Rule of Law.
Under the US tutelage, the Iraqi Forces, mainly Shia, were put under competent commanders who were mainly Sunni. This uneasy alliance was held together by US advisors.
The US trained NCOs, who are the most important piece of modern, US-style militaries. This takes a minimum of 5 years to gain competence in the jobs.
So when President Obama came into office, he inherited a stable country. Had a force of 10-20,000 troops been left, the military support and brake on corruption could have been continued, over time leading to a citizenry that would put more trust in the national leadership, moving away from tribalism to the modern nation state.
But Obama rejected Maliki's offer of a Status of Forces Agreement (Obama and Biden insisted the agreement be ratified by the Iraqi legislature, which Maliki knew would reject it. Maliki was willing to do an executive agreement leaving out the legislature.)
Once all troops were removed, Maliki had no support as a Shia leader of a country whose most able, most educated citizens were Sunni. He turned to a Shia state, Iran, for support. Fearing the possibility of a military-led overthrow, he replaced the competent Sunni military leaders with Shia sycophants, who were corrupt and incompetent. This loss of competent leaders led the NCOs to leave the military. So, nearly overnight, the Iraqi Army was deprived of able leaders.
Worse, the US took with it their air support, medivac capabilities, and intelligence gathering abilities. This, naturally, demoralized the army more.
With an Army that he could not rely on, Maliki was forced to move even closer to Iran, accepting Iranian troops and leaders in his country, both as advisors and actual fighting troops.
The invasion by ISIL and subsequent events are well known, and the direct result of not leaving a small American force in Iraq.