I've been kicking this idea around for a few days, and I'd like to know what y'all think about it. Particularly those of you who have served or have visited in Iraq or Afghanistan
( Read more... )
Yeah, I see what you're saying. It's like Colonial South Africa. Obviously, the Brits had no good intentions for wanting to colonize the Africans, because that was not their single-minded goal. They could care less about building a nation; all they wanted was the gold and diamonds. But there are civilizations out there in the past who have solely exploted colonialism on certain corrupt and impoverished countries with intentions to only want to colonize them because there was nothing to take. Keep in mind, though, the reasons for the practice of colonialism, especially between the years of 1740-1914 include:
The profits to be made. To expand the power of the metropole. To escape persecution in the metropole. To convert the indigenous population to the colonists' religion.
I think we're past the age of colonialism - overt colonialism, anyway. Besides, a country working to improve another country doesn't necessarily make it a colonial or a harmful power. Canada seems to be rather adept at going on aid missions without acquiring colonies, for example.
Also, if you'll forgive me for a bit of rambling on history:
I think the original intentions of the British were to take South Africa because they could control trade with the Far East if they did.
I believe the first Europeans to set up shop in South Africa were the Portugese. They were the first nation to start the trend of European expansion, and they weren't such bad folks. The Portugese set up a network of armed trading posts around the world. They didn't bring masses of settlers or missionaries. The commerce helped enrich the local powers, so they were pretty well tolerated.
Oh, yes I know! I was just using colonialism as an example.
Yes, the Portuguese were the first to set up trading ports in West Africa before the Atlantic Slave Trade. Then the British and the eventually the Italians followed. The powerful matriarch of the Asante tribe (Ashanti) drove them off when they tried to colonize modern-day Ghana in what is known today as the Berlin Conference.
I think both of you forget there had been a slave trade ongoing for quite some time by then: the Islamic Slave Trade which targeted non-Muslim Africans. Europeans didn't need African slaves for some time because they had the Slav. Which is why English uses "slave" and not "Thrall" the Native word for slave.
Re: Two thingsreadherringFebruary 11 2010, 22:53:48 UTC
1.) America spends a very smal amount of its budget on foreign aid. The portion spent on defense is much, much larger. If we have the opportunity to ensure that a hostile force won't take root near our border, we could save a lot of money in the long run. Suppression of hostiles is expensive. But that doesn't directly answer your question - how about taking it from Israeli aid? We give them the lion's share of our aid, and they haven't been terribly deserving.
2.) You tricked me into listening to Merle Haggard. I curse you.
The last time I checked aid to Israel hovered around $2 billion +/- some per year. Do you think that would be enough? Just shifting it from Israel to Haiti would do nothing to change the fact that the US is drowning in red ink and it's only getting worse all the time. Now if you wanted to talk about expeditious withdrawal form Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Korea, Germany and about 150 or so other countries then you're getting somewhere as long as you do something about the current $12 trillion debt and the roughly $50 trillion or so coming up for medicare, medicaid and social security over the next few decades. My point is your talking like someone with their house in foreclosure contemplating buying a new Maserati.
I'm not a big Merle Haggard fan myself, though as I get older my musical taste are considerably wider than they once were. Also, that song does a bit too much flag waving for my taste, but the point is the US is deteriorating rapidly; if were going to do any nation building, it might be better to start with ours
( ... )
The rebuilding that Haiti needs has almost nothing to do with bricks and mortar. We could pave every road, rebuild every building as strong and fine as anything in the US and it would do almost no long term good. Until the political structure of the country is changed, financial aid and reconstruction money is going to flow into the pockets of the corrupt and the people are going to be left with nothing.
By doing something I am not sure this country, or this administration, is willing to do.
Stay and fight with Afghans who want us there (a substantial majority) against those who don't (a determined minority). Stay and fight, and stay and win. This means the first thing we do is kill a whole lot more Afghans. As many as we have to, for as long as we have to, without remorse. After that, we stay and help our allies rebuild. This means we spend a whole lot more money and time. In the end, perhaps, we get an Afghanistan that isn't 100% horrible. Perhaps.
As it is, we don't have the stomach for it. Which seems a shame. But, there it is. The Afghans get fucked in the ass, in slow motion. If I were in their shoes, I'd envy the Haitians.
Except Afghanistan got screwed up from a Soviet invasion. Not many people would encourage the Russian Federation to try its hand at nation-building there. Since we propped up guys like Papa Doc Duvalier, why are the Haitians going to welcome us with open arms? Especially since their screwed-up political system does not arise entirely from them?
You realize it would probably just be used as a rallying cry for those who hate American anyway: [i can imagine them saying] "They spent all their money helping Haiti and none helping us! They hate us, they hate good Muslims, you must fight the US and their heretical ways."
That's part of the reason why I suggested sending teams of Afghanis and Iraqis to help with the Hatian project. It would be important to show that there is an intention to bring the knowledge back East. Also, charity is a tenet of Islam, and the image of good Muslims working together with America would make it easier to diffuse those claims.
To the extremist there is no way to win; it's like Glen Beck--if he finds out Democrats are working with Republicans then suddenly it's about "progressives" (who are pure evil, apparently) and the D or R doesn't matter.
So while I think it's great in theory, I don't think the practice would quell the hatred as much as actually re-building their country.
I think while your heart is in the right place there is some danger in sending teams of Afghanis and Iraqis to Haiti. It could possibly reinforce the notion that the US went to the Middle East to "enslave" their people into doing our work. I see a lot of misunderstanding that can stem from your suggestions.
Like the old saying says the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I am not optimistic about this. Haitian society is not some amorphous mass of undifferentiated clay that can 1)receive aid and 2)become better. The european-creoles there are the only ones with connections, and they are accomplished at skimming their cream off the top. The pure blacks are economically and socially disenfranchised, but susceptible to demagoguery.
Any time you declare an area a "disaster area" and inject lots of cash, corruption goes up, as the temptation of all that lucre gets to even the most enlightened creole.
Good. I'm just saying that the reason Haiti was so vulnerable to an earthquake was structural problems in their own culture. The solutions to those problems are not likely to come from without. Aristide was supposed to be the great man that turned it all around, but by all accounts he was getting as vindictive as a petty warlord.
The best we can do is nudge those people who are working positive change upwards and cut the air supply off from those that would exploit them. Too heavy a hand, and we risk making our assets look like stooges and our villains look like martyrs.
In the European model of empire, it would be so much easier. Just inject yourself into the existing class hierarchy at the top, and reward the oligarchs richly for doing what comes naturally: subjugating the rest.
Comments 54
The profits to be made.
To expand the power of the metropole.
To escape persecution in the metropole.
To convert the indigenous population to the colonists' religion.
Reply
Also, if you'll forgive me for a bit of rambling on history:
I think the original intentions of the British were to take South Africa because they could control trade with the Far East if they did.
I believe the first Europeans to set up shop in South Africa were the Portugese. They were the first nation to start the trend of European expansion, and they weren't such bad folks. The Portugese set up a network of armed trading posts around the world. They didn't bring masses of settlers or missionaries. The commerce helped enrich the local powers, so they were pretty well tolerated.
Reply
Yes, the Portuguese were the first to set up trading ports in West Africa before the Atlantic Slave Trade. Then the British and the eventually the Italians followed. The powerful matriarch of the Asante tribe (Ashanti) drove them off when they tried to colonize modern-day Ghana in what is known today as the Berlin Conference.
But yes, you are absolutely right.
Reply
Reply
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrHPjm4qKM
Reply
2.) You tricked me into listening to Merle Haggard. I curse you.
Reply
I'm not a big Merle Haggard fan myself, though as I get older my musical taste are considerably wider than they once were. Also, that song does a bit too much flag waving for my taste, but the point is the US is deteriorating rapidly; if were going to do any nation building, it might be better to start with ours ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Stay and fight with Afghans who want us there (a substantial majority) against those who don't (a determined minority). Stay and fight, and stay and win. This means the first thing we do is kill a whole lot more Afghans. As many as we have to, for as long as we have to, without remorse. After that, we stay and help our allies rebuild. This means we spend a whole lot more money and time. In the end, perhaps, we get an Afghanistan that isn't 100% horrible. Perhaps.
As it is, we don't have the stomach for it. Which seems a shame. But, there it is. The Afghans get fucked in the ass, in slow motion. If I were in their shoes, I'd envy the Haitians.
Reply
Reply
[i can imagine them saying]
"They spent all their money helping Haiti and none helping us! They hate us, they hate good Muslims, you must fight the US and their heretical ways."
Just thinkin'
Reply
Reply
To the extremist there is no way to win; it's like Glen Beck--if he finds out Democrats are working with Republicans then suddenly it's about "progressives" (who are pure evil, apparently) and the D or R doesn't matter.
So while I think it's great in theory, I don't think the practice would quell the hatred as much as actually re-building their country.
Worth a shot tho; I don't think it's a bad idea.
Reply
Like the old saying says the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Reply
Any time you declare an area a "disaster area" and inject lots of cash, corruption goes up, as the temptation of all that lucre gets to even the most enlightened creole.
Reply
Reply
The best we can do is nudge those people who are working positive change upwards and cut the air supply off from those that would exploit them. Too heavy a hand, and we risk making our assets look like stooges and our villains look like martyrs.
In the European model of empire, it would be so much easier. Just inject yourself into the existing class hierarchy at the top, and reward the oligarchs richly for doing what comes naturally: subjugating the rest.
Reply
Leave a comment