War games and war in Iraq

[IDF_TANKER]

Just came across this video - a lecture hold by prof. Martin Van Creveld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld)
about war games in general and why they didn't succeed to predict what happened in Iraq after it had been conquered. The most interesting part of the video IMHO is the second part (about 50 minutes from beginning) where he is answering the questions. Especially I found interesting his explanation why establishing democracy could be very problematic in the Arabic society (maybe it's because his theory fits my own thoughts about it:) ).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9189835443710009614

[INAT]

He is a little hard to understand.

[IDF_TANKER]

He is a little hard to understand.

I actually hadn't any trouble understanding him. But maybe it's because we have the same accent.:)

[Moose]

IDF_TANKER could you tell me where democracy has successfully been established in a country by a foreign entity. I am not trying to say anything I simply need some help refreshing my memory.

[INAT]

I actually hadn't any trouble understanding him. But maybe it's because we have the same accent.:)

I can understand most of it but with the accent and then the way his mouth is formed i miss every few words.It is very interesting so far.

[IDF_TANKER]

IDF_TANKER could you tell me where democracy has successfully been established in a country by a foreign entity. I am not trying to say anything I simply need some help refreshing my memory.
Germany, Japan, South Korea, ...
The reasons he's talking about are purely cultural/anthropological. In anyway this not the main point of the lecture, just one of the things I found interesting...

[Moose]

Thanks that gave me something to use. By the way weren’t the countries you mentioned governed by a strong military style leadership “like the one they had in Iraq after mission accomplished” under a considerably longer time then Iraq. Do you thing the USA is making a mistake by changing its strategy and allowing an Iraqi political sector to evolve so quickly?

By the way I had no problem understanding what he was saying I personally don’t agree no 9 out of 10 things however I do recognise that he does have some point.

[Noble713]

His last comments about Germany vs Yugoslavia compared to US vs Iraq, and how modern armies "don't occupy countries but carve them up" are quite thought-provoking.

[mudbunny]

The key to understanding why democracy won't work in Iraq is to understand the Nomadic and Bedouin culture way of thinking that these people adhere to. Democracy places the importance on the individual and their rights, the Bedouin/tribal culture places the importance on the tribe>clan>family>individual, in that order, and their faith (islam) arose from that line of thinking. In Western culture coming out of the rennassaince and enlightenment we went in the exact opposite direction, individual>family>clan>tribe. And then you add in their faith; these people do not have "seperation of church and state", their "state" is their "church" if you get what I'm saying. Anyways, there is an enormous amount of ignorance in our society about what makes the people of that region tick, and you don't get inside these people's heads from watching CNN or FoxNews for 15 minutes, either. People who have their Docterates in Middle Eastern Studies still have trouble in their understanding of them.

[IDF_TANKER]

The key to understanding why democracy won't work in Iraq is to understand the Nomadic and Bedouin culture way of thinking that these people adhere to. Democracy places the importance on the individual and their rights, the Bedouin/tribal culture places the importance on the tribe>clan>family>individual, in that order, and their faith (islam) arose from that line of thinking. In Western culture coming out of the rennassaince and enlightenment we went in the exact opposite direction, individual>family>clan>tribe. And then you add in their faith; these people do not have "seperation of church and state", their "state" is their "church" if you get what I'm saying. Anyways, there is an enormous amount of ignorance in our society about what makes the people of that region tick, and you don't get inside these people's heads from watching CNN or FoxNews for 15 minutes, either. People who have their Docterates in Middle Eastern Studies still have trouble in their understanding of them.

This is pretty much what Van Creveld said (except the religion part). The best book I read so far, explaining the laws by which ME works, was "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Thomas Friedman.

[mudbunny]

This is pretty much what Van Creveld said (except the religion part). The best book I read so far, explaining the laws by which ME works, was "From Beirut to Jerusalem" by Thomas Friedman.

I've never read it but I'll have to check it out; it's simply frustrating to hear/read these idiots spot off about spreading democracy, and it's as if these retards have never picked up a history book. Another comparison you could make is the trouble that the early settler's had in converting the native Amercians to their line of thinking, as far as in christianity and gov't. It didn't stick with them until we had literally beaten and murdered them into submission, pushing them into little crappy plots of gov't land, and they still have no interest in that way of thinking. The people there are not gonna adapt to out alien/western belief systems, we're gonna have to adapt to them, or simply leave them the hell alone. I don't see it as being as difficult a proposition as people make it out to be. Yet that's what the U.S gov't had to sole intention on doing there. It's called Imperialism, wikipedia it.

[IDF_TANKER]

I've never read it but I'll have to check it out; it's simply frustrating to hear/read these idiots spot off about spreading democracy, and it's as if these retards have never picked up a history book. Another comparison you could make is the trouble that the early settler's had in converting the native Amercians to their line of thinking, as far as in christianity and gov't. It didn't stick with them until we had literally beaten and murdered them into submission, pushing them into little crappy plots of gov't land, and they still have no interest in that way of thinking. The people there are not gonna adapt to out alien/western belief systems, we're gonna have to adapt to them, or simply leave them the hell alone.

I absolutely agree with you, but the problem with bringing democracy to some society totally unprepared for it goes even beyond just cultural differences.

Democracy cannot be imposed from outside, democracy has to grow from inside and it takes damn long time. Take a look at the cradle of the European democracy - France. It took around half a century to them before they finally succeeded to establish the Republic (what is it -5th now?) after endless blood spilled during all the revolutions and restorations. And we are talking about one the most progressive and enlightened European nations in the post-renaissance era. Establishing of democracy in other countries took much more time (if maybe less blood).

Democracy can work only when people want and understand it. Democracy assumes realizing by each individual the responsibility he has and willingness to bear this responsibility. Only very long and difficult process of education, of learning such basic (and yet difficult to understand) ideas as pluralism(the very cornerstone of democracy and the very opposite of fundamental Islam), human rights, freedom(of ...) etc can eventually make democracy to work.

Without deep and profound understanding of this responsibility people will be apathetic to what happens in their country and the essential feedback link between them and their governments will be broken - the government will assume more and more power, the corruption will be the only form of rule (in a way that's what happened in Russia after break of USSR).

Said that, the question remains - how despite all this democracy succeeded in countries like Japan and South Korea? I'm not sure there is a complete answer on this one...

I don't see it as being as difficult a proposition as people make it out to be. Yet that's what the U.S gov't had to sole intention on doing there. It's called Imperialism, wikipedia it.

I finish reading now the amazingly fascinating book of Peter Hopkirk "The Great Game". The book is about struggle between Russia and Britain through the whole 19th century for control over central Asia (yes - Iran and Afghanistan:)), because these countries were the buffer states between India(the greatest treasure of Britain at the time) and Russia(which was aiming for this treasure). And this is incredibly interesting to see that exactly the same political processes and geopolitical games that we watch today were also going then (only then they hadn't invent stuff like GWOT to excuse their moves).

I'm not sure that Imperialism is the right term to use though. The goal of war in Iraq eventually to establish a "friendly"(=puppet) government in strategically very important region, only this time the treasure for which we are playing this game is oil. The goal of the war is not to make Iraq a colony or another state of US, although one of course can argue that the difference between "friendly" regime and colony is not so big...

[afreu]

Some interesting thoughts in this thread, thx!

[ElHombre]

Thanks for the link. It's always good to hear more from van Creveld.

Even if I have trouble understanding what he's saying. :lol: