The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Paprika]

The big lesson is to consider the quality of the people involved

Seems to me that the key criterion is not 'quality' but whether the people actually submit to the occupiers.

[Truthseeker]

Seems to me that the key criterion is not 'quality' but whether the people actually submit to the occupiers.

Would you please expound that? Anyhow, people can't enjoy prosperity if they don't have peace.

[Paprika]

Would you please expound that? Anyhow, people can't enjoy prosperity if they don't have peace.

Epo was claiming that the one key factor behind the success of nation-building is the quality of the people. However, I think the key criterion to rebuilding a foreign nation one is occupying is whether the natives (or a significant part thereof) are fighting you at many different levels over time which would naturally obstruct nation-building.

The Japanese and the Germans submitted. Did the Iraqis and the Afghans?

[Darth Executor]

Shias and Kurds did in Iraq. So did most of Afghanistan (in which the Taliban was itself an occupier anyway). I don't see either of those regions turning into economic and technological powerhouses anytime soon.

[Paprika]

Shias and Kurds did in Iraq.

And the Sunnis?

So did most of Afghanistan (in which the Taliban was itself an occupier anyway).

Right, but there had remained the Taliban as a significant force, and the many previously civilians who would turn against the US after the relatives being killed as 'collateral damage' or the like.

[Darth Executor]

And the Sunnis?

They did for a while but the Shias screwed up by marginalizing them. They also love barbarism themselves. In other words, quality matters.

Right, but there had remained the Taliban as a significant force, and the many previously civilians who would turn against the US after the relatives being killed as 'collateral damage' or the like.

The Taliban had (and on their own, still have) no chance to do anything, they only conquered most of Afghanistan in the first place with Pakistani support. The point was that the majority of these countries did submit but their people are of questionable civilization material (unlike the Germans and Japanese who had advanced societies before World War 2). Advanced civilization is not something you can turn a people into overnight, even when they cooperate.

[Paprika]

They did for a while but the Shias screwed up by marginalizing them.

Which the US allowed.

But the point is not who is 'responsible' for the antagonism, rather that when the people or a significant subset don't want to cooperate with the nation-building it will be difficult to achieve.

They also love barbarism themselves. In other words, quality matters.

I'm not sure what you mean by barbarism.

The Taliban had (and on their own, still have) no chance to do anything, they only conquered most of Afghanistan in the first place with Pakistani support. The point was that the majority of these countries did submit but their people are of questionable civilization material (unlike the Germans and Japanese who had advanced societies before World War 2).

It was never realistic that either Iraq of Afghanistan could be turned into Switzerland. However, intermediate reaslistic goals such as creating a stable state exists.

Advanced civilization is not something you can turn a people into overnight, even when they cooperate.

Indeed. You also need the willingness and commitment of the occupiers, but just as the Yankees were eager to invade Iraq they were eager to get out as fast as possible while maintaining face.

[Truthseeker]

Occupied or occupying: Need quality both sides.

[Paprika]

On a related note limiting immigration which was once branded rayciss by much of the European left is now seriously considered as politicians try to salvage their careers in the face of the inevitable nationalist revivals.

Completely predictable but still quite hilarious.