Megan McArdle (August 31, 2007) - Wanna bet? (Politics)

I would say the Marshall plan and the occupation of Japan are bigger reasons for Truman's recent popularity among politicians and journalists.

Posted by mad6798j | August 31, 2007 6:06 PM

I think you're misreading Rove's point slightly, Megan. I suspect it is actually aimed at people like yourself who are suffering from "political buyer's remorse" over their 2004 votes for GWB.

Let's not forget that elections are never between the guy you voted for and some mythical perfect candidate: in this scenario, the choices were GWB or John Kerry.

Now, I am prepared to entertain an argument on your part that Kerry would have been a more effective prosecutor of the Iraqi war and the War on Terror generally. But you'll need to make out the case based on the public knowledge we have of Kerry, and I think it will be quite difficult.

And if your argument is that Kerry would have pulled out of Iraq (and maybe Israel as well) and we wouldn't have to have been bothered with the Middle East and its discontents any more, that's certainly a defensible position as well: just not one I can accept.

I remember us pulling out of Saigon in the final days: I was just sixteen at the time. It wasn't a pretty sight, I can tell you. I can't speak for you, but I for one do not have the stomach for that again...quite aside from the larger, practical implications of what people around the world will think about lining up with us in the future.

Going back to Truman...I wonder if you realize quite how much he was reviled in his final days? After all, he'd gotten us into a seemingly endless and pointless meatgrinder of a war too (and one in which 3000 dead over four years would have seemed almost unnoticeable). But now historians universally agree that it had to be done.

I expect that this will presently be history's judgment of GWB as well...though I suspect the entire boomer generation will have to die off first, allowing a history of the present time to be written that is untainted by the onus of historians' distaste for GWB.

That is, assuming we all survive that long.

Posted by David Hecht | August 31, 2007 8:12 PM

"It must, then, be Rove's brilliance that allows him to perceive that Bush will also be vindicated even if history judges the Iraq War to have been a disaster..."

That strikes me as a biased reading of Karl Rove's argument. Rove was saying that if we persist in Iraq and succeed, the George Bush will get a fair amount of credit from historians; but, of course, if we persist there and still fail, then Bush will get the blame. On the other hand, Rove argues, if we fail only because Democrats force us to leave--say by cutting off funds--then Democrats will get the blame.

So, at any rate, Rove was not saying "If things go well Bush will be vindicated and if things go poorly Bush will be vindicated."

Posted by Isocrates | August 31, 2007 8:20 PM

Megan I'll take the other side of that bet.

Posted by Charlie (Colorado) | August 31, 2007 10:38 PM

I must disagree slightly Mr. Hecht - GWB may very well be credited by future historians who "universally agree it had to be done" vis a vis Afghanistan, but I cannot think the same will be thought vis a vis Iraq, which has by now been proven to be a war based on in-the-end false pretenses, with a strong whiff of "war of choice" about it. There in fact was no threat of a mushroom cloud hanging over the USA, and there is even some suggestion that those pushing the war knew the evidence they pushed had no truth to it.

Not to mention the aftermath.

Posted by N M | August 31, 2007 10:40 PM

if we fail only because Democrats force us to leave--say by cutting off funds--then Democrats will get the blame.

We've already failed in Iraq, and Democrats will get the blame no matter what happens.

Posted by liberalrob | August 31, 2007 11:03 PM

Of the three members of the Axis of Evil, we attacked the one without a nuclear weapons program. Having won a quick victory, we threw hundreds of thousands of Sunni soldiers out work and into the hands of the insurrection by disbanding Saddam's army. To give the insurrection some way of fighting us, we failed to secure weapons depots. To give the insurrection leaders, we fired all upper level Baath civil servants. To fuel the insurrection, we tortured and sexually humiliated Arab prisoners. At a time when the insurrection could have been suppressed, we refused to provide an adequate occupation force for domestic political reasons. The list of blunders is endless, and the administration compounded them by branding opponents of the war here and abroad as wimps and cowards. No, dear Megan, it's going to be a long time before any historian says anything good about George Bush.

Posted by Stan | September 1, 2007 5:08 AM

Mr Harding didn't have much chance to defend his reputation, then? Anyway, Bush II and Clinton I will both go down as duds. Good luck with Clinton II.

Posted by dearieme | September 1, 2007 12:29 PM

N M and Stan -- your responses are a perfect illustration of why it will take a good 30 years IMHO for the historians to come around (please re-read my next-to-last 'graf).

Truman managed to get us into a shooting war in Korea because his Secretary of State--the illustrious Dean Acheson, whom I greatly admire, in fact--gave a speech in which he implied that we didn't consider Korea a "vital interest" (April Glaspie, call your office!). He then sent troops without the benefit of a declaration of war or any other sort of Congressional authorization (gasp!) and tried to nationalize the steel mills by executive order (an action overturned by the S.C. in the _Youngstown Sheet & Tube_ decision).

So there is a litany of errors and abuses far more egregious than what GWB is supposedly guilty of. Yet Truman has now risen into the relatively rarefied company of "near-great" presidents (pretty much the top guys except for Washington, Lincoln, and possibly FDR).

History is funny that way--it takes perspective to understand it.

I stand by my prediction--and Mr. Rove's.

Posted by David Hecht | September 1, 2007 3:12 PM

I suspect that the end result and the overall effort will be judged more than the specific steps. No human endeavor is without mistakes and blunders and acts that "seemed like a good idea at the time."

We won't know if Rove is correct for a long time, but I won't be surprised if he is.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 1, 2007 5:35 PM

I guess if I had to go searching for a historical parallel to our current aggressive war of choice based on false pretenses in Iraq, a war to defend an allied nation-state against invasion by its neighbor wouldn't be the first one I'd choose. But then again, maybe my Serious button is broken.

Posted by TheF79 | September 1, 2007 6:50 PM

David Hecht: "I remember us pulling out of Saigon in the final days: I was just sixteen at the time. It wasn't a pretty sight, I can tell you. I can't speak for you, but I for one do not have the stomach for that again...quite aside from the larger, practical implications of what people around the world will think about lining up with us in the future."

1) Most of America does indeed have the stomach for it again. Something about their kids not getting killed and maimed for 10 more years in Iraq. But for some perhaps that isn't a big part of the equation.

2) Yeah, remember how after Vietnam and the fall of Saigon no one would 'line up' with the US ever again. I'm sure that history will repeat itself.

Posted by Andruw | September 1, 2007 7:23 PM

"I guess if I had to go searching for a historical parallel to our current aggressive war of choice based on false pretenses in Iraq, a war to defend an allied nation-state against invasion by its neighbor wouldn't be the first one I'd choose. But then again, maybe my Serious button is broken."

lol on that.

The salient point is that as time is going by, it is becoming more and more clear that Iraq did not pose a threat to the US. Unless we somehow get some jaw-dropping evidence that Iraq had nuclear tipped ICBMs, future historians are simply going to look at this war the way most logical people do today: It was unnecessary and harmful to US long term and short term interests.

There are two different scenarios possible in the future, with of course different odds of happening. Lets look at the doomsayers view that we will be attacked and under serious threat to the US in the future from some middle eastern or Islamic group. This is the situation that the Bush legacy will prosper most. Clearly, Iraq cannot do this in the guise of its nation state and will be unable to do this for at least 30 years due to infrastructure constraints . It must therefore be done by either another state, which means he attacked the wrong place, or a non-state actors, which is the standard liberal view of things and also means he attacked the wrong place. the other scenario is where the rights boogyman is not actually dangerous therefore GWB is a horrible president.

Rove is just trying to explain to the morons that, yes, of course we Republicans are going to use the "stab in the back" meme. We start by saying that George Bush is a visionary whos policies were not given time to bear fruit by those American-hating liberal fags.

Posted by mickslam | September 1, 2007 8:10 PM

The high respect Truman commands has always baffled me. As the only leader ever to use nuclear weapons, on civilian targets, twice, and for no genuine military justification, he belongs in the pantheon of war criminals.

BTW, there is some libertarian-bashing going on at the link for those who can't get enough of that sort of thing!

Posted by mtraven | September 1, 2007 8:14 PM

Something else to remember about Truman was that his legacy was pretty quickly reinterpreted. His vision didn't require a century to be vindicated.

By the time I was growing up late 1970s, he was already had a good reputation. Bush isn't going to have anything like that happen with his legacy, if simply for the reason that it is completely obvious that he's botched the occupation. The end result of Truman's Korea was the one of the greatest economic success stories in world history, where south korea jumped centuries in a few decades. Already by the 70's there was ample evidence that South Korea was going to be an economic powerhouse.

Iraq has only an extremely small chance of imitating SKs economic miracle which was responsible for a significant portion of the reinterpretation of Trumans policy.

Posted by mickslam | September 1, 2007 9:58 PM

A little research would reveal that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were, in fact, military targets. The funny thing about facilities for building weapons and ships is that they tend to be located in or near cities... where the workers live and the infrastructure required to bring supplies is located.

As far as why we attacked Iraq, a quick glance at a map will show you one answer. We had no real way to attack Iran and Iran would have been a tougher target. Also, Iran actually has a moderate movement that is opposed to the insane theocratic government. Iraq had no such significant movement and was, in fact, aiding and harboring terrorists. Also, while we couldn't attack Iran, we now have Iran surrounded.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 2, 2007 12:13 AM

Congrats Megan for landing a paying blogging gig!

It's too bad for you that you so regret your 2004 vote. I too, voted for GWB -- but I have no regrets.

You need to remember that your choice in '04 was between GWB and the fecundite John Kerry. And, in '00, between GWB and the unctuous Al Gore. Are you so blinded by BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) that you truly believe you could have made better choices? Be serious!

I really like GWB! Why? Because he has character and principle and common sense. Because he has both courage and conviction and the ability to combine them. Can you honestly make the same statements about Kerry or Gore?

Why do I like GWB? Well, as Lincoln said of Grant, "He fights!" Whether you agree or disagree that America should have taken the fight to our enemies, GWB did it!

And please don't assume that I'm not critical of our President or think he hasn't made mistakes. I just think he's a man of uncommon good sense and principle who's trying to do the right things and most often, succeeding.

And I do think removing Saddam was the right thing to do -- as did most of America at the time. And I truly believe that if we are steadfast and perservere in Iraq (and possibly Iran), that it will be a very long time before we are again obliged to commit our forces to fight on foreign soil.

You need to remember how and why the world got to 9/11. The US of A seemed to (much of the world) to be feckless and irresolute. It all started when we abandoned our ally, South Vietnam and refused to support them when they were invaded and conquered by North Vietnam. And the feckless Jimiminy Carter threw the Shah overboard and then was surprised when the Islamists ransacked our embassy -- and then was worse than ineffective in the aftermath. And, even Reagan -- who made it his mission to defeat the (evil) Soviet empire, appeared ineffective to the Islamists when we foolishly put undefended troops (Marines no less!) in harms way in Lebanon and they were massacred and then we took no reprisals. What did we do? We retreated. We just tucked our tails between our legs, moved the survivors onboard, and sailed away.

And what did we do when our embassies were blown up in Africa, when the WTC wa attacked in '93 (OBTW -- there was definite Iraqi involvement in that one /a>)

Or when the USS Cole was attacked and nearly sunk? Oh yeah, when Saddam tried to assasinate our former President, George H. Bush -- we blew up an aspirin factory in Africa and a camel in Afghanistan! Just consider the lack of response by the US to the Islamists from Carter through Clinton /a>

And you also ought to remember that we'd been fighting Saddam since 1991. The Gulf war never ended -- we were involved in a continuing shooting war with Saddam to enforce the no-fly zone. We were spending a billion dollars a year -- and we were losing! Saddam's enablers (France, Russia, Germany, et al) were pressing heavily to lift the sanctions and Saddam was bribing the UN to the tune of tens of billions of dollars (remember Oil-for-Arms?).

Now, as for you morons who think that Iraq is a disaster -- please, give me your best example of a war better fought by these United States in all our history. Let's have some fun. Maybe I can help you morons gain some perspective (and learn some history).

Posted by Norman Rogers | September 2, 2007 10:14 AM

Andruw: I can only conclude that you are too young to have lived through that time, which was a very scary one if you had any sense of history.

Either that, or you don't believe that actions have consequences, and that we can keep throwing our allies off the sled without its having an effect.

Ever hear the term "Finlandization"? You might look it up some time.

Mickslam: Interesting argument...how, exactly, can you be so sure? Korea was still a backwater in the 1970s: heck, in the 1960s when I was growing up, "Made in Japan" was synonymous with "cheap, flimsy crap". It wasn't until the 1970s that Japan started exporting quality products, and the "little tigers" (including S. Korea) were another decade behind them.

If you are really so certain that Iraq can't become the Middle Eastern equivalent of a "little tiger"...you clearly have better vision than most.

Posted by David Hecht | September 2, 2007 12:13 PM

Hecht: "you don't believe that actions have consequences, and that we can keep throwing our allies off the sled without its having an effect."

Is this a Rummy parody?

Name ONE ally that would abandon the US for withdrawing from Iraq.

Posted by Andruw | September 2, 2007 11:34 PM

I must add more Hecht: "keep throwing our allies off the sled".

Keep.

Posted by Andruw | September 2, 2007 11:42 PM

"Now, as for you morons who think that Iraq is a disaster -- please, give me your best example of a war better fought by these United States in all our history. Let's have some fun. Maybe I can help you morons gain some perspective (and learn some history)."

Is Iraq better off now than it was two years ago?

Posted by mad6798j | September 3, 2007 1:59 AM

Andruw: If you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, I have nothing further to say to you.

Furthermore, if you don't accept the premise...then may God help you. I certainly can't.

Posted by David Hecht | September 3, 2007 9:36 AM

While the liberation of Iraq has had its share of problems and steps forward and backward have been made and the Iranians have been doing their best to sabotage our efforts, the Iraqis are better off trying to form their own, elected government than they were under Saddam's brutal dictatorship.

Yes, we could have done a better job. Yes, their government is struggling. Yes, the terrorists and Iranian saboteurs are causing a lot of misery and death. But progress is being made.

Should we leave? What would Iraq be like in two years if we left?

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 3, 2007 11:49 AM

"how, exactly, can you be so sure? Korea was still a backwater in the 1970s: heck, in the 1960s when I was growing up, "Made in Japan" was synonymous with "cheap, flimsy crap". It wasn't until the 1970s that Japan started exporting quality products, and the "little tigers" (including S. Korea) were another decade behind them."

By the late 70s, South Korea had over 15 years of 7%+ growth. By the time I was a frosh in high school ('82), you had articles with titles "The next Japan?" talking about south Korea.

It is pretty easy to be sure that Iraq wont be an high growth exception, as Japan, SK and a few other asian countries are the exception, not the rule. Most countries never make it to the first world. They don't make it to the first world with policies like those instituted in Iraq, with the kind of govt we are supporting in Iraq, with the lack of national will we are supporting in Iraq. Additionally, Iraq is a desert. I don't see them becoming economic powerhouse simply because it is so hot there.

Lets look at a likely timeline, and note that Iraq is already longer than the Korean War, which only lasted 3 years.

IF we started an orderly withdrawl today, it will be 2 years until completion. Assume roughly 4 years of semi-anarchy, if you see some miracle govt appearing out of this low-scale civil war prior to that, you are not paying attention. Then the rebuilding of infrastructure begins - 10 years to complete. As bad as Korea was, Iraq is more throughly destroyed.

Then, we have to assume that this pie-in-the-sky govt is not only competent, but far sighted enough to be one of the exceptions, where they become incredibly economically successful over a 40 year period. Remember, it was govt policy that has forged Japan, China, SK and the other little tigers - well intentioned, well thought out govt that did many, many hundreds of major and minor policies that formed a govt/private sector alliance completely designed to boost these countries into the modern world. I just don't see any of these things happening with any high probability in a country that has large oil reserves.

As a result, even 30 years from today, Iraq is going to be a mess. GWB is going to be viewed as a president who made a horrible mistake, and one of the worst presidents ever, and without a doubt the worst president of the modern age.

Posted by mickslam | September 3, 2007 2:04 PM

Sorry I should have included this:

The best case for Iraq to become economically successful is for oil to go to $200 a barrel. Current prices in the $70 range don't do it for Iraq. Even at $100, there will simply become another Nigeria. Oil must go much, much higher than $100 a barrel for Iraq to have large economic success. And of course, $200 oil is the case, it will be clear the GWB was focused on the wrong priority during his presidency, making him a horrible president.

He has put himself into a situation where there are very few outs, to use a poker term. Thats why liberal commentators use the words "and a pony too"when talking about the war, because almost every situation where success happens has a magical pony appearing out of somewhere that saves the day for GWB.

Posted by mickslam | September 3, 2007 2:12 PM

A modest proposal: we amend the Constitution so that the President can be no older than 35, because such candidates have no doubt that they're right.

Those of us of a certain age (ahem) have seen so many dramatic (indeed, inconceivable) changes (e.g., the USSR and the PRC at each other's throats, or the fall of the USSR, or Nixon going to China, which was roughly comparable to Bush and bin Laden announcing that they had eloped) that we're a little reluctant to make oracular pronouncements on what will or won't happen.

Cases in point:

It is pretty easy to be sure that Iraq wont be an high growth exception, as Japan, SK and a few other asian countries are the exception, not the rule.

Something else to remember about Truman was that his legacy was pretty quickly reinterpreted. His vision didn't require a century to be vindicated.

Bush isn't going to have anything like that happen with his legacy, if simply for the reason that it is completely obvious that he's botched the occupation.

This last is priceless. Truman was absolutely flayed at the time for his prosecution of the Korean War, for losing China and Eastern Europe, and for sacking MacArthur. He endured some of the lowest public opinion ratings on record. Disaster seemed to be following disaster (laying the groundwork for McCarthyism - were these disasters the result of treachery?).

The catalyst for his reevaluation was the realization that he had stopped Communist expansionism (after it had taken over so much of Europe and Asia) without getting us into a world war, formulated the Truman Doctrine, and begun the rebuilding of Europe through the Marshall Plan (thereby saving it from Communism, which appeared poised to sweep the continent, specifically France, Greece, and Italy). As the Iron Curtain became more and more formidable, people realized what Truman had done for them.

The same thing could easily happen with Bush. If once he's out of office incontrovertible proof should surface that his actions spared us a terrorist holocaust, he will join Lincoln and Truman as Presidents considered hopeless bumbling hicks at the time, who only in retrospect are considered great.

I'm not saying this will necessarily happen, but that it could, and I think the chances are appreciable.

As for his prosecution of the war, read a history of the Civil War. The Union's war effort was a total disaster until the last nine months.

So a little humility is in order. You have no idea how Bush will be considered in ten years, much less 30, and neither does anyone else.

Posted by Occam's Beard | September 3, 2007 5:54 PM

Mickslam: Good response, and a decent set of arguments. In particular, the oil thing is a serious problem: I agree with you that places that have lots of easy-to-monopolize natural resources tend to develop weak institutions. One of the things that may preclude this is if the Iraqi government manages to pass the proposed new oil law, which would distribute profits from the "awl biz" to the citizenry on the Alaska model.

However, I respectfully suggest that your view that the Asian Tigers were somehow an exception to the normal rules, and that Iraq can't escape its terrible fate, seems overly pessimistic. People have said the same thing about Latin America, Central Europe, and even Asia in my lifetime. The fact is, we don't really know the sources of economic growth and stable liberal democracy (if we did, we'd implement them).

I won't debate you on the respective armed conflicts in Iraq and Korea, except to point out that in Korea, there were about 36 thousand American dead, or ten times what we've incurred to date in Iraq: and that's on a substantially smaller population base. So if we can be chased out based on a casualty rate less than ten times as high, I think it says more that we have a glass jaw than anything else.

Finally, to qualify as "one of the worst presidents ever and the worst of the modern age", it seems to me that GWB'd have to beat out an awful lot of other contenders. It's always easy to see the huge mistakes the presidents of your own time make: it's much harder to see how history will wipe away most of that.

Heck, I'm old enough to remember when Reagan was going to be (according to his critics) "one of the worst presidents ever and the worst of the modern age", and that wasn't that long ago.

Anyhow, appreciate the thoughtful response, even though I am not persuaded. Good luck, brother! :-)

Posted by David Hecht | September 3, 2007 6:53 PM

Occam:

What you think might "easily happen", I think is exremely unlikely. I don't think we will find nuclear missles in Iraq or any bombs at all. The military has stopped looking for WMD. The programs didn't exist except in Saddam and GWBs mind.

I was clearly talking about 20-30 years as being "pretty quickly" I mentioned that my time frame for this reevaluation was the late 70s.

Plus, the prosection of the war is not important, the quality of the occupation is. Truman was flayed for his poor war decisions. Bush has completely botched the occupation. Two different things, with different responses.

You seem to miss the importance of the list of facts you present:

"The catalyst for his reevaluation was the realization that he had stopped Communist expansionism (after it had taken over so much of Europe and Asia) without getting us into a world war, formulated the Truman Doctrine, and begun the rebuilding of Europe through the Marshall Plan (thereby saving it from Communism, which appeared poised to sweep the continent, specifically France, Greece, and Italy). As the Iron Curtain became more and more formidable, people realized what Truman had done for them.

"

Bush has clearly not stopped militant Islamism. He has taken us further into conflict with militant Islamism. He hasn't rebuilt anything but a few schools, much less Europe and Japan like Truman did. Militant Islam isn't a sovergn threat to U.S. soil like Communism.

In Iraq, the U.S. presence is not welcome. Please contrast post Korean war fatalities in Korea with Iraq occupation fatalities. this is the appropriate comparison, not with actual fighting war fatalities.

Posted by mickslam | September 4, 2007 10:00 AM

George W. Bush was a drunk until 40. He got into Yale by his father's influence. He got every job he ever had by his father's influence, including the nomination for President. Given that resume, he's done much better than I expected - but shame on the Republicans for nominating him in the first place.

OTOH, the Democrats managed to nominate candidates that were even worse - twice.

Posted by markm | September 4, 2007 10:47 AM

What you think might "easily happen", I think is exremely unlikely. I don't think we will find nuclear missles in Iraq or any bombs at all. The military has stopped looking for WMD. The programs didn't exist except in Saddam and GWBs mind.

Incontrovertible evidence that invading Iraq disrupted terrorist networks would do. The collapse of Syria, which could easily turn up nasties sent there by Saddam, much the way he sent his air force to Iran (which on its face, given their history, would have been dismissed as impossible by critics if it weren't known to have happened).

Plus, the prosection of the war is not important, the quality of the occupation is. Truman was flayed for his poor war decisions. Bush has completely botched the occupation. Two different things, with different responses.

Meretricious. You're defining away the point, by dismissing prosecution of the war and focusing on the aftermath. Truman was flayed for losing China to Communism, for having an Administration riddled with Communists (not entirely untrue, actually), and for his prosecution of the Korean War. He was no longer President by the time of the Korean War armistice (technically, the War is still in progress), so of course he wasn't criticized for the aftermath. Also, back then, most Americans were, well, pro-American (even Democrats - how times change!) so their criticism was that he hadn't prosecuted the war vigorously enough.

Bush has clearly not stopped militant Islamism. He has taken us further into conflict with militant Islamism.

That's how it has to be stopped. It's going to take time, but providing a counterexample to the failed societies/cultures of Islam (Turkey doesn't count, by Arab reckoning) is the only way to deflect Middle East from its pathological trajectory. Running from them – a la Clinton (Somalia) and Reagan (Lebanon) – only encourages them, as bin Laden himself has said.

He hasn't rebuilt anything but a few schools, much less Europe and Japan like [sic] Truman did.

You have no idea what's been rebuilt and what hasn't, any more than I do. In any case, establishing security has to take precedence, obviously.

Militant Islam isn't a sovergn threat to U.S. soil like Communism.

Silly, and unimaginative to boot. (By the way, back in the day, leftist apologists said the same thing about Communism.) Neither Communism nor Islam were/are a threat in the sense of an army marching down Main Street.

But that's hardly necessary. The threat from Communism was the Finlandization of our allies, where we'd be surrounded by potentially hostile states, and suffering subversion from within. Only the latter is a problem now.

Islam doesn't need to physically occupy the U.S. either. That's a childish perspective. Imagine a vial of a chemical or biological agent (e.g., mustard gas – which I could make in an hour – or anthrax spores) tossed into a passageway at the Super Bowl. Casualties: maybe a dozen. Trivial, statistically speaking. Impact: massive. Within a week everyone would be searched before being allowed to enter any public venue. It'd be just like airport security is now. Our whole way of life would change overnight. That's the threat.

In Iraq, the U.S. presence is not welcome. Please contrast post Korean war fatalities in Korea with Iraq occupation fatalities. this is the appropriate comparison, not with actual fighting war fatalities.

As above, you have no idea how our presence is viewed, and neither do I. Koreans hate us to this day, as I learned from a Korean postdoc of mine (for reasons that are not entirely clear, although Communist agitprop among Korean students certainly plays a part).

But just to provide historical perspective, read this comparison of post-war Germany with post-war Iraq, excerpted below:

The links between European fascism and Nazism of the mid-twentieth century and the blend of nationalism, socialism and anti-Semitism in the Baath regime in Bagdad have generally received much too little attention. For reasons which Kenneth Pollack in The Threatening Storm laid out most convincingly, Saddam did indeed pose a real threat to the Middle East and over time to the United States and Europe. Yet the occupation of post-Baath Iraq is proving more difficult than the optimistic predictions of leading members of the Bush administration, especially those from Vice President Cheney.

In these difficult times, it is important to remember that the occupation of Germany, which was far more familiar culturally and socially to the Allies than Iraq, was also very difficult, lasted a long time, suffered setbacks and left much to be desired.

It is important to recall that the Western, not only the Soviet, occupation was in the early years, very harsh. The victors found a sullen, defeated, demoralized and disillusioned population. Visions of revenge that had flourished after World War I were largely absent.

In May 1945, the seven million members of the Nazi Party--and their families and friends--had much to hide and many networks and political skills with which to oppose de-Nazification. But after six years of terrible war followed by the full revelations of mass murder in summer 1945, there simply was no will among the Germans to continue fighting the Allies.

Yet the Allies took no chances. Between 1945 and 1949 the Western Allies alone interned 200,000 former members of the Nazi Party, its various organizations and former Nazi government officials. Over 100,000 were indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Of them over 6,000 were convicted and something over 800 death sentences were carried out. The Nazi party was crushed and outlawed and the German state ceased to exist as a national body for the four years of the occupation. The state apparatus, including the diplomatic and military leadership was dissolved and many of its leading officials were indicted and put on trial in the "successor trials" in Nuremberg between 1947 and 1949 which followed the main International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg of fall 1945 to fall 1946.

Posted by Occam's Beard | September 4, 2007 12:58 PM

buy online prescription viagra

Posted by buy cheap online uk viagra | November 12, 2007 9:08 PM

buy post this url viagra http://magic-pills-swicki.eurekster.com/Buy+Viagra+Online buy viagra online buy norway viagra

Posted by buy cheap online viagra | November 15, 2007 2:00 AM

promptive savageness definement fils crumber wertherism windfanner onetime
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RIhomeschool/ >Yahoo! Groups: Rhode Island Homeschool
http://www.canadakoiclub.ca/

Posted by Sonja Brooks | December 16, 2007 7:33 AM

MESSAGE

Posted by ISHMAel back | February 18, 2008 6:38 PM

MESSAGE

Posted by ISHMAel back | February 18, 2008 11:40 PM

MESSAGE

Posted by ISHMAel back | February 19, 2008 4:09 PM