In the course of history, has any nation ever succeed at what the US is attempting in Iraq?

Question

So, TG, the effort is unprecedented? Vietnam was different because the US did not overthrow an existing government, but supported one side in the struggle to determine the course of a reunified country.

open4one, I deliberately left open to interpretation. In answer, though, I think that the US is trying to manage the occupation of a nation whose culture is alien to it in such a way that the country will be stable when it eventually departs.

Answer 1

Nobody has ever really tried what the US is trying, except for the US. A number of times they have invaded countries to overturn governments and install a different type of government, believing the poeple would support them. It didn't work too well in Vietnam, isn't working very well in Afghanistan, and won't work in Iraq.

Answer 2

And what is it that you think the US is attempting in Iraq? Setting up a more freedom-oriented government than the nation has ever seen before? Like what the US did in Germany and Japan after WWII? Establish a nation that can make it on their own? Like the UK did with India?

Or perhaps you think the US is destroying a major culture. Spain did that with the Aztecs if I recall correctly. In fact, every culture in the world that has come and gone was driven out by some other culture; I'm not aware of any that just fizzled from lack of interest.

It doesn't take much knowledge of History to know that EVERYTHING has been done before.

Answer 3

I think Y.O.C. is the closest to it - both the Romans and the British built their empires by consciously attempting to replace 'original' governments with more, um, 'friendly' rulers. Obviously the new government was not allowed to be in any way 'representative' (too risky for the occupying (or 'avuncular') power), but then the new government of Iraq was never intended to be really representative either, for the same reason. For that matter, the present government of the United States is not intended to be really representative of anything more than the 'right sort' of citizen.

Answer 4

Yes.

First, the Romans went around spreading "Pax Romana"; Roman law and Roman tax.

And then the British with "Pax Britannica"; British law with British taxes.

They were a lot better at that than the Romans were; almost 2/5ths of the world to be exact... Overthrew tribal cultures and introduced "civilization".

The US fails because its people aren't imperial enough. The patriotism is false.

Answer 5

Of course not. It's a ridiculous idea to bust your way into a country riven with ethnic and religious divisions and with no traditions of government except despotism, and try to turn it into a democracy over the space of a couple of years, and then leave everybody smiling.

Answer 6

it didnt work in vietnam because of candy ..?#*@ who were too afraid that they might have to actually get off of their buts and do something for a change and im not talking about the men who were there im talking about the losers at home who spat on returning soldiers it can work in iraq but we have to stop playing around and get to work the insurgents we are fighting and i repeat INSURGENTS who are terrorists NOT iraqi sitizens dont want a democracy there because they couldnt aid their own agendas which are aimed at the west we are there i dont agree with how it was done but we need to win this one so it doesnt turn into another vietnam

Answer 7

not that i can think of, the closest you can get to successes in scenarios similar to Iraq would be the colonization of other countries which in most cases failed, one of the only European colonies that exists today is dutch aruba

Answer 8

Yes but I think that they were all dictators!