Thursday, October 05, 2006
STOP THE OCCUPATION!
The Militant Moderate came of age during World War II, and entered military service voluntarily while still 17 years of age. During his youth, the military occupation of which he knew most was the German occupation of France, Poland, and parts of Europe. There was also the Japanese occupation of Korea, regions of China, and the Philippines.
These occupations were basically "successful," although not without resistance from freedom fighters. The reason they were successful was the cruelty of the occupiers. If a German soldier were killed, then ten or twenty villagers were lined up and shot. Still there was token resistance. In the Orient, the brutality and inhumanity were amplified further. Rape, murder, and pillage were common. Torture and other repressive methods were used to control and rule the populati9on.
Americans have not normally been good occupiers. We have been good warriors, but we have not been good rulers of occupied territory. We had trouble in the Philippines after acquiring them from Spain. The Yankees were poor occupiers of the South after our Civil War. Our colonial experience has been limited, and self-governance alleviated problems. Viet Nam was certainly not a good occupying experience in support of an unpopular government.
We had a good experience in Germany after WWII, principally because Germans were sick of war, and we closed our eyes while Patton and others recruited former Nazis to help run the country for us. We had a good experience in Japan following their defeat, because we backed away from "unconditional surrender," and we allowed their deistic imperial head to remain in a respected but non-authoritarian role. This understanding and respect for their traditions and religious customs brought a compliant spirit to the occupation of a people haunted by the atom bomb devastation.
In Iraq our troops and their commanders proved once again to be an unbeatable foe in war. Defeating a weakened Iraq army was no challenge for our trained and technologically superior force. However, once again we proved ourselves to be poor at occupation. First, we stood aside and allowed a period of anarchy. There was no governing authority. We disdained use of Saddam's former army or commanders to keep order or to perform governance functions to keep the electricity on and the garbage collected.
With the proliferation of weapons available in the region, things spun out of control. We never gained the support and respect of Islamic leaders. The culture of the Middle East is antithetical to that of westerners, and neither understands the other. The hazards of cocupation are many.
We have again shown ourselves to be poor occupiers. We tried to form a democracy in a sectarian and cultural milieu where democracy is an anathema. We failed to respect regional ethnic and sectarian differences. Force, power, and cruelty are feared, and thus respected. But Americans are notoriously not brutal or cruel. When our troops begin to act in such ways, we condemn them publicly and put them on trial.
Since we are neither brutual nor cruel in our nature, manner, or style, and we do not want to become so, we should get out of the military occupation business. We need to say to Iraq and to the world:
"We have removed a brutal dictator, a threat to the peace of the region, and we have set the people free. We have no desire to occupy this land or to rule it. It has been our desire to see an orderly democratic government established, but it has become clear that our presence in Iraq is a hindrance to the process. Polls show that our presence is not wanted. So now the people of Iraq must assume responsibility for their own future as a free and sovereign nation. We are redeploying our forces within the next 90 days. However, we caution the Iraqi people never to allow the formation of any government which allows forces within to threaten the peace of the region or the world."
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
These occupations were basically "successful," although not without resistance from freedom fighters. The reason they were successful was the cruelty of the occupiers. If a German soldier were killed, then ten or twenty villagers were lined up and shot. Still there was token resistance. In the Orient, the brutality and inhumanity were amplified further. Rape, murder, and pillage were common. Torture and other repressive methods were used to control and rule the populati9on.
Americans have not normally been good occupiers. We have been good warriors, but we have not been good rulers of occupied territory. We had trouble in the Philippines after acquiring them from Spain. The Yankees were poor occupiers of the South after our Civil War. Our colonial experience has been limited, and self-governance alleviated problems. Viet Nam was certainly not a good occupying experience in support of an unpopular government.
We had a good experience in Germany after WWII, principally because Germans were sick of war, and we closed our eyes while Patton and others recruited former Nazis to help run the country for us. We had a good experience in Japan following their defeat, because we backed away from "unconditional surrender," and we allowed their deistic imperial head to remain in a respected but non-authoritarian role. This understanding and respect for their traditions and religious customs brought a compliant spirit to the occupation of a people haunted by the atom bomb devastation.
In Iraq our troops and their commanders proved once again to be an unbeatable foe in war. Defeating a weakened Iraq army was no challenge for our trained and technologically superior force. However, once again we proved ourselves to be poor at occupation. First, we stood aside and allowed a period of anarchy. There was no governing authority. We disdained use of Saddam's former army or commanders to keep order or to perform governance functions to keep the electricity on and the garbage collected.
With the proliferation of weapons available in the region, things spun out of control. We never gained the support and respect of Islamic leaders. The culture of the Middle East is antithetical to that of westerners, and neither understands the other. The hazards of cocupation are many.
We have again shown ourselves to be poor occupiers. We tried to form a democracy in a sectarian and cultural milieu where democracy is an anathema. We failed to respect regional ethnic and sectarian differences. Force, power, and cruelty are feared, and thus respected. But Americans are notoriously not brutal or cruel. When our troops begin to act in such ways, we condemn them publicly and put them on trial.
Since we are neither brutual nor cruel in our nature, manner, or style, and we do not want to become so, we should get out of the military occupation business. We need to say to Iraq and to the world:
"We have removed a brutal dictator, a threat to the peace of the region, and we have set the people free. We have no desire to occupy this land or to rule it. It has been our desire to see an orderly democratic government established, but it has become clear that our presence in Iraq is a hindrance to the process. Polls show that our presence is not wanted. So now the people of Iraq must assume responsibility for their own future as a free and sovereign nation. We are redeploying our forces within the next 90 days. However, we caution the Iraqi people never to allow the formation of any government which allows forces within to threaten the peace of the region or the world."
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
