This is coolbert: A lot of nay sayers about the war in Iraq have been saying this: "The U.S. populace does not have the patience for such a war and occupation." "The U.S. is not good at that sort of stuff." "We do not understand the culture of this proud people." Etc. Well, it may seem a lot of this is true when you initially think about it, but with retrospect, it is not true that the U.S. IS NOT good at this "sort of stuff".

Think about the occupations that concluded the end of World War Two. Japan and Germany. Japan was an occupied nation for five years, until 1950, and Germany was occupied until 1955 and did not receive full sovereign powers until that time. And in both these cases the U.S. fought an even more determined enemy that was very resourceful and organized. And yet, when the war was over, the occupying power, the U.S. [with allied powers also], did a very good job of transforming those two societies into what we see today. You did not have any exports from Japan of Germany of automobiles prior to the Second World War. Now, what is it, 40 % of all cars the U.S. public drives are foreign imports? And mostly from Japan. And good stable government with rights and freedoms previously not had by the Japanese and German populaces was the result of U.S. occupation. These two societies did not have any real freedoms prior to the war, and yet, after the war, with U.S. tutelage, stable and free democracies that we see today emerged. And powers on the world scene that are also friendly to the U.S. Perhaps in peaceful competition, but not as military threats.

And do not forget that the U.S. was an "occupying" power in the Philippines for forty five years. Had a quasi-colonial status and did fight a war against the Filipino "insurrectionists". This war is variously called the Filipino Insurrection, the Fil-Am war, etc. After a cessation of hostilities, relations between the Filipinos and the Americans became normal and cordial. Of course you could always point to incidents that say this is not so, but by and large, the relationship between the Filipino and the American was amicable. The proof of this is the fact that of all the Asian peoples, the Filipinos were the only ones to fight with their "colonial masters" against the Japanese. For this they suffered very badly at the hands of the Japanese. Today's Philippines is a relatively prosperous place, although it has large pockets of poverty, but it does have democracy and a well adjusted populace of relatively happy people. And a recent survey seems to indicate that the Filipino of all peoples in the world have the highest opinion of the U.S. 95 % of Filipinos have a favorable impression of the U.S. By far the highest percentage in the world. During the "occupation" of the Philippines, something happened to make this so.


And a somewhat analogous situation exists for Korea too. We were not the occupying power in Korea. But the South Korea we see today is based to some extent on the model presented to it by the U.S. and the U.S. system as represented by U.S. forces. Troops in this land also have been good ambassadors and representatives of an alternative and "better" way of live. Does anyone disagree that South Korea is magnitudes better off with U.S. troops in that land?? I for one do not think so.

So why are critics so down on the U.S. war in Iraq and our attempt at nation building?? Well, they just do not like us starting a war, no matter what the reasons why. And occupation for them is not right under any circumstances. We are not held to be a model for countries such as Iraq. My own perception is that these critics would not be for anything the U.S. does in Iraq, no matter how well it went. As to why these persons feel this way, I am not sure, only that this IS the way they feel. Their attitudes contrast with what our government did successfully after World War Two, much to the betterment of the whole world in the long run.

coolbert.