Quote:
Originally posted by legion
This model did work in Japan and Germany after the war.
|
When you say
this model, what do you mean, exactly?
Are you saying FDR cobbled together some phony excuse to invade Japan and Germany?
Bushies love to tout Japan and Germany as justification for Iraq, but really, GWB himself hasn't been dumb enough (yet) to try to make that comparison (that I know of, anyway).
Japan and Germany were utterly and thoroughly subjugated militarily before any nation building began, and the justifcation for doing so was crystal clear.
Mission accomplished claims to the contrary, this was not the case with Iraq. Not for a lack of shock and awe, but because this isn't your grandfather's warfare anymore. WWII and Iraq are completely different types of wars, with completely different rules of engagement, strategies, tactics, and technologies.
Iraq isn't 'winnable' in the same way that WWII was, because of the thin facade of an excuse for the war in the first place. If Iraq had done anything like what Germany and Japan had done in WWII, nobody would be whining about 'collateral damage' or soldiers shoving glow sticks up the asses of Iraqi civilians. The longer this charade continues, the less winnable it becomes. If we had engaged Iraq at the same level as Germany and Japan, there wouldn't be an insurgency - hell, there probably wouldn't
be an Iraq - but there'd be Chinese and Russian tanks on the streets of Baghdad to contend with.