The failure of the "nation build" by military intervention
On the anniversary of us invasion in iraq, there is really not much to celebrate. A year after the bombs have fallen, the coalition troops have been well set in iraq, but the country is by no means under their control. The demonstrations against the us and their puppet government, together with the further attacks across the country, are a proof of that that iraq is not the minkile and inflowing country, as george bush has promised. Even if most saddam hussein as a brutal dictator, this does not necessarily mean that what has replaced him is better.
The pentagon potenated the art of war: "british maj. Andy flax, with the 7th armored brigade, pops out of the commander’s hatch of armored fighting vehicle 436 command vehicle along the iraq border, march 19, 2003. Sft. Jack m. Carillo sketched this image in graphite."
In addition to iraq, where the reality of the crew is largely not laceable, the first anniversary of the invasion and occupation is a less duster affair, albeit for another reason. The statistics actually says everything. So far, the us and its composites are in their since 11.9. Started "war against terror", by the invasion of iraq was justified, for the death of over 13.000 civilians responsible. After the website iraq body count this number will be about 10.000 civilians who have been killed in iraq, but also the 3.000 dead in afghanistan, whose number continues to rise, even if the attention of the world-specificity has turned away.
Bad is also the increase in the fallen of the coalition troops. So far, nearly 700 were killed. 575 us soldiers died in iraq. The number of wounded is disturbing. The usa has after the iraq coalition casualty count 3.300 injured to complain, including 3.000 through enemy actions.
Otherwise, paramilitarian pencils that the us and their western allies have gained 408 civilians worldwide in 18 attacks. If you pay the official deaths of the 11.9. From 29. In october 2003, so you come to a total of less than 3.500. This is about a quarter of the people who have been killed by the us and their allies.
Through the 11.9. Not everything has become different
This bloody balance of the "war against terror" permitted, many have always warned, namely that "nation building" simply does not work through military intervention. However, what most people have forgotten, it has been exactly what george bush and his team had promised in the last election campaign. Your position at that time was clear: the us militar is stationed to dunn worldwide and the us will not be in the business of the "nation building" get in. You meadow clinton’s policy of "humanity intervention" return.
Of course, the quick answer was the 11.9., through the "everything has become different". If you look at that, but it is obvious that through the 11.9. Under no means everything has become different, but he has gained an excuse to continue certain american politics in the years after the cold war – with coarse intensity. Since the 11.9. Has stationed the us militar troops in another 37 additional countries, so that the total number of countries with us militarprasence is now at 138.
The 1990s were a difficult period for us aufenpolitik, because no global crusade was fought. The cold war was over and the war against terror had not started yet. So the concept of the "nation building" by military intervention after the maid of the "humanoid war" defined (human bellicism or the new moral strategy of the human war). After an initial failure in somalia, this new concept was put into practice for the first time in the balkans, first "to stop the war in bosnia" (when all pages already showed signs of waricrafts) and then the so-called "liberation" to tackle kosovo. These two actions brought two general misunderstandings to the table, namely that the un is ineffective and powerless (hence the massacre in srebenica) and that the usa the "last of woman man" should (expressly proved the eu as powerless to finish blood injury before their ture).
Rudyard kipling: the white man’s burden
Take up the white man’s burden – send forth the best ye breed – go bind your sons to exile to serve your captives’ need; to wait in heavy harness on fluttered folk and wild – your new-caught, sullen people, half devil and half child.
Take up the white man’s burden – in patience to abide, to veil the threat of terror and check the show of pride; by open speech and simple, at hundred times mad plain. To seek another’s profit, and work another’s gain.
Take up the white man’s burden – the savage wars of peace – full full the mouth of famine and bid the sickness cease; and when your goal is nearest the end for others soought, watch sloth and heathen folly bring all your hope to nought.
Humanitar wars are not guided to the benefit of those affected
Even today, american experts refer to the success of such interventions as a justification for the present urge to "nation building", even if the problems were not solved in both cases. Therefore, it can not surprise that in the balkans the same problems have emerged again and that nato quickly sends new troops into the region to steam the conflict (terror in kosovo). Nevertheless, this only confirms the failure of the "nation building" by military intervention: both bosnia and kosovo are political problem trap. They are unlovely for self-government and need a constant military prasence.
This will result in disturbing questions for the middle east, especially for iraq and afghanistan, where the concept of "humanitaren war" and "nation building" confronted by military intervention with even more obstacles. Ironically, george bush had criticized the un before the invasion of iraq, not to support his war, whereupon american experts equally questioned the future of the un. Most of them concluded that the un has actually lost importance in the modern world.
Strangely, the same experts and politicians today consider the un as security guarantee. They try desperate to bring the international organization back to iraq to the task of "nation building" to support. You would like to have the fact that the un seals your consent to the new government structures that are just set up.
Even if the un has a few examples of a successful one "nation building" if you can have in the past, your main problem insists in the structure of the international organization itself. It is handkered by its present structure because of the funf permanent members in the security council with veto power. This inclined power distribution is not a good sign for international cooperation.
Both in afghanistan and in iraq, the un and the red cross could still make a lot before the war against the terror despite the restrictions imposed on them. Only with the beginning of the military intervention would they have to go for themselves. You could even say that the un and the red cross could help the afghans and iraqis better before the war against the terror, as they were now in the shadow of the us militar. All that does not escape the members of the us coalition, which seems to break up one year after the invasion. Not only spain, poland has already regretted to have joined the us in iraq. In the case of poland, regret is sometimes greeted by a general dispute to the west, which rules from experience with the process of eu membership.
"Nation building" is not operated to the advantage of those who are helped or freed, but for the benefit of those who make the reconstruction. During the west, people false false falsely believe that "nation building" an honorable or fair task is, people in the rest of the world see what it really is: for a new form of colonialism and imperialism. The difference between then and today is that the commodities of the 21. Years do not have the eloquence of poets like kipling to the "last of woman man" to justify.