It's no big secret that we have a history of jumping into nations where we don't belong, installing a government or leaders whom we think will best serve America's interests, and then leaving that nation to self-destruct under their tyrannical and corrupt rule.
The most recent examples of our nincompoopery lie in the utter failure that is the Iraqi nation and government, and the unmitigated disaster that continues in Afghanistan, but this isn't our first attempt (and subsequent failure) at nation building. In fact, America has a long, storied history of failed attempts at dabbling and sticking our noses into political environments where we don't belong.
If you need any further proof, look to the American South.
Mind you, this is not to say that I am Pro-South (as I'm certain that anyone who's read this blog can gather I am anything but supportive of South); it is, however, to say that Reconstruction didn't quite go as planned.
<hr>
If you want a fantastic look at how poorly we succeed at nation building, our efforts during Reconstruction provide an excellent and prescient example of how we continue to go about entering wartorn regions, installing governments and leaders, and then standing idly by while they fail to create a sustainable society; after these attempts fail, we're long gone, having burnt our bridges, and are on to our next attempt to successfully spread our version of freedom and democracy to someone else.
Without going into too many details, Reconstruction was the attempt by the U.S. government to put back together the South during and after the Civil War between 1863-1877, repatriating the eleven seceding states, and get them reseated into Congress.
Now, let us define our parties here:
Republicans of 1863 - Abraham Lincoln & Andrew Johnson: Anti-slavery, Progressive, Big Government approach to governance.
Democrats of 1863 - White, Racist, Pro-Slavery, Anti-North, Violent, Conservative, Small Government enthusiasts.
So...basically, the exact opposite of the two political parties we have, right now.
Anyway, so the 1863 Republicans go on this big nation building experiment in the South after they've just crushed them in the Civil War in a state-by-state process). When a Southern state came under Union control, that state began the Reconstruction process.
When it gets really interesting is in the summer 1865 when Andrew Johnson, in an attempt to follow in the recently assassinated Lincoln's footsteps, appointed new governors. This was done in an attempt to keep the Southern Democrats from retaking control of Congress and basically undoing everything that had just been accomplished via a bloody skirmish. In case you're wondering...this didn't really work out the way Johnson intended.
If this tactic sounds familiar, you've might recognize it from our most recents attempts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But, prior to that, we installed the Shah in Iran, we were all for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s (I mean, hell...Donald Rumsfeld, himself, helped to arm Iraq with chemical weapons), and we helped to put Augusto Pinochet in power during the Chilean military coup.
As with the South...the results were mixed, if not disastrous.
<hr>
Now, before anyone goes and accuses me of being a Ron Paul supporter, I should set a few things straight:
1.) I am not against intervention in extreme circumstances. Genocide? Absolutely intervene; Persecution? Evacuate 'em and provide amnesty. But, extreme circumstances are not around every corner; these circumstances do not exist in every nation.
I'm sad to say it, but we can't help in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict(s); we can't solve the governmental problems in Africa; we can't fix anything that we see as "out of step" with the Middle East. These nations are not our nations, and though many will argue with me that we live in a global economy and global society, if that were the case, the plights of these disenfranchised people would be getter rather than getting worse.
Frankly, the same problems we had with nation building in the South during Reconstruction are the same problems we have when we try to replicate that dubious process elsewhere: we don't have the resources.
We don't have the human resources, the financial resources, or the support of either the "lucky nation's" citizens or even the support of our own citizens. We just don't have it. And the more we continue to delude ourselves that we do have these resources, the more we continue to incur the wrath of the global society we're supposed to be helping.
2.) We need to stop pretending that we're good at this game, because we really suck at it.
For those friends of mine who have been affected by our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm certain you're probably just as well aware of this reality as I am. Things aren't going as well as either this or the previous administration would have the nation believe. If further proof is needed, just check any foreign news source - we're not winning.
We're not winning on the ground, we're not winning the "hearts and minds" of anyone, and we haven't ever been "winning."
None of this is the fault of those who are doing the actual work - it all falls down to the fact that we entered into this "War on Terror"with no tangible or reachable objective. We entered two conflicts with no realistic goals, got there, and said, "Well...what the hell do we do, now?"
The truth is, no one really knows. We thought when we caught Saddam, that would be the end of Iraq...but, no. We finally caught Bin Laden after nearly ten years, so that would be the end of Afghanistan, right? Nope. Instead, we keep pumping money and resources into these dead end wars, and for what?
Try as they might to put a mid-20th Century propaganda spin on these two wars, most Americans caught on to those techniques after Vietnam.
3.) We will never win the "War on Terror," because "terror" is a purposely vague target designed to justify any number of misdeeds and questionable actions.
It was very specifically crafted to be as nebulous as possible so that the very usage of the term "War on Terror" would leave most Americans feeling as if we're making a difference in the world; it was designed so that the enemy was a silhouette with a question mark on it just waiting to be defined as the new "Public Enemy #1."
We will never win the War on Terror, because terror will always exist; people will always be terrorized by individuals, political parties, militias, and governments who are unafraid to use whatever means necessary to control their victims.
They will blow themselves up; they will behead their captives; they will shoot doctors in churches; they will educate their followers that anyone who is different is evil, a threat to their way of life, and form them into mobs of misinformed people out to prove a point - that their way of life is sacred to them.
<hr>
The primary reason we will always fail at nation building is because we cannot see past our own hubris to admit that we are not good at it. We are chronically incapable of objectively looking at the end results of our prior efforts to remember what happens every time we try our hand at this onerous task, and our enemies are more than delighted to play their parts, watch us fail, and strike at us where we are the weakest.
Nation building is hurting our economy, hurting our military forces, and forever damaging our reputations. I fear if we continue along this path, there won't be much of a nation when we finally come home from all of our fruitless work.
<hr>
Next up in the series - Reason #6 - Those Who Cannot Remember The Past Are Condemned To Repeat It.
No comments:
Post a Comment