- This topic has 5 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
Consider this excerpt from an article from the Canada Free Press:
Insurgents bombed a police station, claiming the lives of five Americans and thirty-nine civilians. Loosely organized terrorist cells plant mines, snipe at American occupation forces and assassinate mayors and officials collaborating with the occupying forces struggling to rebuild the country.A quagmire? It might sound like it, but no.This is post-war Germany, not present-day Iraq.
One thing we know - the Allies were successful after WWII in suppressing any sympathy or stragglers from the Nazi regime who stuck around after Hitler fell in 1945, including the Werewolf troopers.? No, Nazism did not die with Hitler, but when the Allies occupied Germany they were able to counter any resurgence.? From what I understand, this was done with brute force; in other words, swift and extensive punishment for even relatively small infractions.Today we see our military in Iraq, attempting to complete the change in sovereignty to Iraqi leaders.? Unfortunately, insurgents exist in sufficient numbers to cause injury to both political and state stability.? My question: can the lessons learned from post-WWII be applied to today's Iraq situation?? Are the two episodes similar enough, or do differences quash any attempted implementation of plans based on wisdom and knowledge of past experience?
The lesson is we must move swiftly and ruthelessly to crush the insurgency all the while strengthening and encouraging the new fledgling government to defend itself from malcontents and terrorists.
Would that be able to happen in today's world, though? Anti-American propaganda is strong over there even as it is over here.
Would that be able to happen in today's world, though? Anti-American propaganda is strong over there even as it is over here.
I don't know. If we did what was necessary to destroy the insurgency, we could hasten our departure of Iraq and maybe the animosity they show us would diminish once we were gone.
I wonder what is preventing our defeat of the insurgents. I wonder how much the Iraqis themselves are at fault here….not individual Iraqis, but Iraqis as a whole. I think it's likely that there are groups of them who support the insurgents. Otherwise, how could people like Zarqawi have gone on for such a long time after the U.S. arrived? One thing - with the end of WWII, Germany saw a multitude of countries setting up shop there. The U.S., Great Britain, the Soviets, etc. That may have played a part in the average joe Nazi-supporter's decision not to oppose the quashing of Nazism. Although the coalition in Iraq is multi-national, I bet it is perceived to be a U.S. operation by average Iraqis.
I wonder what is preventing our defeat of the insurgents. I wonder how much the Iraqis themselves are at fault here....not individual Iraqis, but Iraqis as a whole. I think it's likely that there are groups of them who support the insurgents. Otherwise, how could people like Zarqawi have gone on for such a long time after the U.S. arrived?
I think the Iraqis live in great fear of helping us. But if we did more of this:
From what I understand, this was done with brute force; in other words, swift and extensive punishment for even relatively small infractions.
it will instill some confidence in them.
No, Nazism did not die with Hitler, but when the Allies occupied Germany they were able to counter any resurgence. From what I understand, this was done with brute force; in other words, swift and extensive punishment for even relatively small infractions.
Who was punished and how? Any links to events?
My question: can the lessons learned from post-WWII be applied to today's Iraq situation? Are the two episodes similar enough, or do differences quash any attempted implementation of plans based on wisdom and knowledge of past experience?
There are several important differences: -The allies, specially the US, were welcomed as liberators - support for the Nazis was not as widespread as that of the Japanese population for their regime, for example. Germany was ravaged by war and most were looking forward to the end of the war.There was no war in Iraq before the invasion, and while the invaders may have been seen as liberators by some, for the overwhelming majority of the population the situation has gotten worse, not better.-Germany was similar in culture religion etc. to the allied forces, i.e. Western and predominantly Christian.Western or US culture are alien to Iraq, and US troops chanting Christian songs at the gates of Falluja, which hosts Islam shrines, certainly didn't help bridge the gap. The Iraq scenario is seen as a religious conflict by many, not only in Iraq itself, but in surrounding countries and by a number of Americans, too.-Germany had been a democracy before, with a history of 'liberal' philosophy, Iraq hasn't.-the Iraq invasion was and is primarily US driven, and is perceived as such. It adds to the sentiment that the US is expanding its influence in the region by military means. Which is supported by websites such as the PNAC - an invasion of Iraq was conceived long before 9/11 or any alleged WMDs.So, no, a comparison of the 2 doesn't hold.
The U.S. and it's allies had a much better handle on Post war Germany then they do on Iraq, which really isnt post war as it is every bit as violent now as it has been.
PNAC is simply military strategy written by foreign policy (not necessarily military) experts. Syria, China, Iran, and North Korea are also mentioned in those documents as possible theatres of war. Removing Saddam has been discussed far longer than GW Bush has been president.Although the majority of Iraqis look at us as occupiers, many of them still want us there. Whenever there's a problem they come to us first because their government is really powerless right now to do anything. Many of the insurgents we and the Iraqis are fighting are from outside the border, most of the problem there now comes from Syrian and Iranian influence and support. This isn't one of President Bush's or the Right's talking points, this comes from the Generals and Commanders who have found much evidence of this.We're not there to change them to a Christian nation. Many western-friendly Arab nations are still predominately Islam.
US troops chanting Christian songs at the gates of Falluja, which hosts Islam shrines, certainly didn't help bridge the gap.
Could you provide a valid link for this please? This is the first I've ever heard of it.
Who was punished and how? Any links to events?
Aggressive tactics were taken by both Allied and Soviet forces in the aftermath of Germany's fall. For example, I found this:
...the Allies and Soviets reacted to the movement with extremely tough controls, curtailing the right of assembly of German civilians. Challenges of any sort were met by collective reprisals -- especially on the part of the Soviets and the French. In a few cases the occupiers even shot hostages and cleared out towns where instances of sabotage occurred. It was standard practice for the Soviets to destroy whole communities if they faced a single act of resistance.
I'm not so sure we can get away with this in Iraq because they didn't start a World War and they didn't have concentration camps like Auschwitz and Dachau. The sensativity of the way we control Iraq is based on the nature of Islam that is suspicious of Western influence to begin with. The German population did not have this cultural paranoia so we figured they would be more compliant than what the Iraqis figure to be.
Could you provide a valid link for this please? This is the first I've ever heard of it.
Sorry, don't have one at hand, it's some time ago. wasn't it in connection with the speech about David and Goliath? I don't think it's that important, but will look for a reference if you insist.
Aggressive tactics were taken by both Allied and Soviet forces in the aftermath of Germany's fall. For example, I found this:
Thanks for the link, yeah, French and Russian, I am not surprised.
