What are the Lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan? By Walter Pincus, Washington Post
What lessons should we have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Put in current terms: Who wants to forecast the ultimate result of U.S. commitments to increasing military and economic support for selected insurgents in Syria and the new government of President Petro Poroshenko in Ukraine?
President Obama, backed by Congress, is making these critical moves.
My questions about it all arose while I was reading a Rand Corp. paper released Thursday: “Initial Thoughts on the Impact of the Iraq War on U.S. National Security Structures.” …
Comments
Lesson: Regime change -- as a means of achieving our political objective (the transformation of states and societies more along modern western lines) -- is not the way to go. This, because regime change is as likely -- or more likely -- to produce negative rather than positive results, such as:
a. States and societies becoming allied with our enemies (example: Iraq's alliance with Iran).
b. States and societies tending to dissolve, degrade, disintegrate or otherwise descend into chaos (think what might occur in Syria).
c. States and societies remaining cohesive, but only by adopting ways of life and ways of governance that are even more detrimental to our interests (example: by becoming organized, ordered and oriented along Islamist lines).
Lesson: The idea of universal values is pure BS. Thus, one cannot base one's actions (for example: invasion/regime change) on the idea that states and societies -- liberated from their oppressive regimes -- will, quickly, easily and mostly on their own, adopt, for example, modern western ways. In stark contrast, states and societies -- liberated from their oppressive regimes -- (and specifically because of differing values) are as likely, or more likely, to conform to the "a" - "c" models shown immediately above.
Lesson: (Related to the lesson immediately above.) We cannot rely on our "soft power" to get the (state and societal transformation) job done. Herein, the so-called "shinning house on hill" having -- in many parts of the world -- much less influence, and much less "pull," than we originally thought.
So: What to do?
Accept that -- in spite of the end of the Cold War -- a "new era" has not dawned. And that, accordingly, one must, as in the days of the Cold War, work by, with and through often odious and oppressive regimes (rather than via populations) to get the state and societal transformation job done.
Herein, the proper examples are China, Russia and Vietnam; wherein, our instruments of power and persuasion allowed these regimes to:
a. Maintain control of their states and societies themselves, as these regimes, themselves,
b. Transformed their countries -- more incrementally -- along modern western lines.
How to summarize these 21st Century/post-Cold War lessons/learning? As follows:
1. A "new era" HAS NOT dawned.
2. Thus, one cannot base one's actions -- as we did recently -- on "new era" (example: "universal values") thinking.