We (Americans) don't seem to do "interim" very well. We are totally tits at accomplishing specific tasks - deposing evil regimes, incapacitating opposing militaries, yanking down odious statues - with efficiency and alactrity, but seem to drift when the mission isn't well defined, as during "interim" periods such as Iraq's, between war and functioning self-rule. Victor Davis Hanson has a suggestion:
- As was the case in Afghanistan, our victory in Iraq was achieved so quickly that most enemies were more likely to run or surrender than fight, thus allowing a number either to drift back within the civilian landscape or fool themselves into thinking we were far from being exacting victors. What a funny world for a soldier fighting Americans: One day in a trench can get you blown to smithereens by a GPS bomb; the next, after surrendering, you are ensured of impunity in a street rally to throw rocks at Americans before international cameras.
To meet such challenges, perhaps it is time to create a permanent division-strength body of peacekeepers, police, and civilian reconstructionists. Their duties would be to follow the military into captured enemy cities and - within a matter of days, if not hours, rather than the current months - hunt down government criminals in hiding, keep order and security, provide the populace with food and water, resurrect infrastructure and utilities, and begin near-immediate resumption of television, radio, and newspapers. [National Review]
Article comments
1 - mike
I have to say, I agree with that. I'd also think that it would have been done if Al Gore, the winner of the 2000 election, was in power.
This is what the neo-conservatives decry as "nation building" when Democrats propose it.
I'm against Iraq-style wars, but if you're going to do it, you might as well do it right.
2 - Eric Olsen
I'm glad we have found an area of agreement: if you're going to do it, do it right.