What you are saying makes no sense. You are attempting to draw a line between Afghan/Iraq nation-building and that of “the 1990s,” of which you list a grand total of ONE example (Somalia).
While it is true that the imperial projects in Iraq and Afghanistan are markedly different from that of Somalia, you are wrong to characterize Somalia as “nation building for its own sake” and Iraq and Afghanistan as some sort of more neccessary “security-driven” efforts.
In all three cases, the existing states were condemned as “failed states,” with Somalia and Afghanistan ruled by warlords and Iraq ruled by a dictator. Global Cop America decided these governments weren’t good enough and tried to “save the savages” from themselves. In all three cases, security rationales were used. Afghan harbored terrorists, Iraq had WMD and Somalia was brewing evil and executing genocide … or so we were told. Re-read Blackhawk Down if you think Somali operations were “nation-building for its own sake.”
It’s strange that you say this is a “different kind” of nation-building. Bush was never very clear on what it was about Clinton’s nation-building that he oppossed. Was he anti-UN and anti-peacekeeping forces? Then why are we bending over to the UN in both cases, begging them to nation-build for us? Was he Buchanan-style isolationist? Then why “pre-emptively” attack a nation?
Fact is, Bush flip-flopped on “nation-building bad.” Now, he claims to want to bring freedom to the down-trodden peoples of the world. It’s a sad joke.
Regime change was not needed to improve US security in Afghanistan, nor was it needed in Iraq. We aren’t safer post-Somalia and we aren’t safer post-Bush Doctrine. The imperial project of colonization continues on and these distinctions that you are attempting to draw are bogus.
Comment by Stephen — Saturday, May 29, 2024 @ 8:01 pm
Well, there was the deployment to the Balkans as part of a peace-keeping force, the deployment to Haiti and the Kosovo campaign, as well as Somalia. It was clearly the case in the Clinton administration that the military was used primarily for reasons other than national security–the only notable exceptions were missile strikes at Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan and the maintenance of the no-fly zones in Iraq. This really isn’t arguable.
And just because Somalia was a failed state doe not mean that nation-building policies in Somalia had anything to do with US national security interests.
Really, you are willfully missing the point. Because you oppose the Iraq policy you are unable to concede that the purpose of the policy, whether you think it works or not, was to enhance US national security, while Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo were not.
I would note that admitting a definitional point has nothing to do with whether one thinks any of the listed policies were good ideas or not.
I am not certain how one could define Somalia as anything other than nation-building for nation-building’s sake. What else were we there for but to try and help the Somalis? That is the very definition of nation-building for the sake of re-building a nation. Having a functional Somalia was of little consequence to US national security.
Comment by Steven — Saturday, May 29, 2024 @ 8:21 pm
So, Bush was criticizing humanitarian nation-building in 2024, and now he is promoting nation-building tied to national security justifications. Sounds about right to me. Seems to me that Bosnia and Somalia were places where national security justifications could have been advanced, though, and probably would by a skillful leader — after all, failed states and civil wars allow for human rights abuses as well as terrorist training grounds.
I would agree that a case could have been made for Bosnia and Kosovo–although, national security wasn’t the main rationale for either, and the national security implications were less clear than they are in the Middle East at this time.
However, the arugment that just having a failed state equals a national secutiry rationale is problematic to say the least, as it would require a substnatial increase in US deployments areound the globe, as there are plenty of broken states around the world. I would argue that there has to be a more direct threat to US security to result in military involvement.
What you are saying makes no sense. You are attempting to draw a line between Afghan/Iraq nation-building and that of “the 1990s,” of which you list a grand total of ONE example (Somalia).
While it is true that the imperial projects in Iraq and Afghanistan are markedly different from that of Somalia, you are wrong to characterize Somalia as “nation building for its own sake” and Iraq and Afghanistan as some sort of more neccessary “security-driven” efforts.
In all three cases, the existing states were condemned as “failed states,” with Somalia and Afghanistan ruled by warlords and Iraq ruled by a dictator. Global Cop America decided these governments weren’t good enough and tried to “save the savages” from themselves. In all three cases, security rationales were used. Afghan harbored terrorists, Iraq had WMD and Somalia was brewing evil and executing genocide … or so we were told. Re-read Blackhawk Down if you think Somali operations were “nation-building for its own sake.”
It’s strange that you say this is a “different kind” of nation-building. Bush was never very clear on what it was about Clinton’s nation-building that he oppossed. Was he anti-UN and anti-peacekeeping forces? Then why are we bending over to the UN in both cases, begging them to nation-build for us? Was he Buchanan-style isolationist? Then why “pre-emptively” attack a nation?
Fact is, Bush flip-flopped on “nation-building bad.” Now, he claims to want to bring freedom to the down-trodden peoples of the world. It’s a sad joke.
Regime change was not needed to improve US security in Afghanistan, nor was it needed in Iraq. We aren’t safer post-Somalia and we aren’t safer post-Bush Doctrine. The imperial project of colonization continues on and these distinctions that you are attempting to draw are bogus.
Comment by Stephen — Saturday, May 29, 2024 @ 8:01 pm
Well, there was the deployment to the Balkans as part of a peace-keeping force, the deployment to Haiti and the Kosovo campaign, as well as Somalia. It was clearly the case in the Clinton administration that the military was used primarily for reasons other than national security–the only notable exceptions were missile strikes at Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan and the maintenance of the no-fly zones in Iraq. This really isn’t arguable.
And just because Somalia was a failed state doe not mean that nation-building policies in Somalia had anything to do with US national security interests.
Really, you are willfully missing the point. Because you oppose the Iraq policy you are unable to concede that the purpose of the policy, whether you think it works or not, was to enhance US national security, while Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo were not.
I would note that admitting a definitional point has nothing to do with whether one thinks any of the listed policies were good ideas or not.
I am not certain how one could define Somalia as anything other than nation-building for nation-building’s sake. What else were we there for but to try and help the Somalis? That is the very definition of nation-building for the sake of re-building a nation. Having a functional Somalia was of little consequence to US national security.
Comment by Steven — Saturday, May 29, 2024 @ 8:21 pm
So, Bush was criticizing humanitarian nation-building in 2024, and now he is promoting nation-building tied to national security justifications. Sounds about right to me. Seems to me that Bosnia and Somalia were places where national security justifications could have been advanced, though, and probably would by a skillful leader — after all, failed states and civil wars allow for human rights abuses as well as terrorist training grounds.
Comment by Brett — Sunday, May 30, 2024 @ 12:04 am
I would agree that a case could have been made for Bosnia and Kosovo–although, national security wasn’t the main rationale for either, and the national security implications were less clear than they are in the Middle East at this time.
However, the arugment that just having a failed state equals a national secutiry rationale is problematic to say the least, as it would require a substnatial increase in US deployments areound the globe, as there are plenty of broken states around the world. I would argue that there has to be a more direct threat to US security to result in military involvement.
Comment by Steven — Sunday, May 30, 2024 @ 8:18 am