Do occupations work?
- Thread starter paul1234
- Start date
I may be a little behind the times, but last I heard, anti-US violence was well down and falling. Of the violence that continues, a fair proportion of that is not directed at the US, but at Iraqi civilians. I'm not sure that it is appropriate to describe such violence as resistance to a US occupation.
It's also worth recalling that the stated aim of the US is to have a sovereign Iraqi state governed by a popularly elected , democratic government which is self-supporting and capable of ensuring its own security and that of the Iraqi people. Achievement of this aim would result in the end of any supposed occupation. I say "supposed", because the troops that are there now seem to be so with the agreement of a democratically elected Iraqi government
and I'm not sure that that meets the definition of "occupation" much more than the presence of US troops in Sth Korea, or Germany constitutes a current occupation of those countries.
Of course you may disagree.
Peter
A very large share of USA military causalities are hidden among so-called "Security Companies". These security companies provide a major part of all security and guard services in Iraq for USA government and private companies, taking corresponding causalities in the process. To tell the truth, i also dont see much difference between USA soldier and USA security company guard.
Also, killing USA supported government in most eyes = resistance to USA invasion. So, all these tens of thousands casualties among USA supported Iraq government and police structures should be also attributed to "resistance".
Only problem, you omitted 1 small, but vital requirement for such government - it should be friendly (i.e. USA controlled) government. Sadly for USA, democratically elected and friendly to USA - is not possible simultanisly in Iraq case. So they must choose either one or the other.
As we all know, USA gone the way with "controlled" election of friendly government - as such, the government dont have any support within Iraq citizens and dont control anything outside "green circle".
As Iraq dont really have any external threat to warrant the presence of foreign military, iraq citizens concentrated all they hate on american occupants and they local supporters. The latter are pretty much unprotected, so causalities among them are very high.
There is some difference in perception of these occupations. Formally, they are the same deal. Stronger country occupy weaker county. But as we all know from the history, occupation is not always working. Right now it looks like Iraq occupation will end up unfavorable for USA.
Besides, i already answered about "democratic" election.
Yup. The level of violence in Iraq remains fairly constant. USA is very much lucky it didnt rise.
The occupation in Germany ended officially in 1994. The only visible effect was that on the streetsigns pointing to bases, the US flags got a NATO symbol added to show that these bases are now NATO bases instead of occupation power bases.
You are correct, casualties are down for both U.S military personnel and U.S government contracted security firms, After a few bad years of taking a bloody nose we have learned to fight them due to the following reasons:
Better tactics, intelligence, technology including vehicles that we are using. We should also give the Iraqi military and security elements some credit for this also even though they are in need of additional training and assurance from the U.S that we are there for the long haul.
Last edited:
We have around 50.000 US citizens living in the area (Rhine-Neckar), and about a dozen US bases.
The local communes are primarily harping on the US to leave really - because these bases and housing communities are blocking urban development on prime real estate nowadays. We're talking real estate and housing that could depressurize the tightened rental market in the area worth up to $1 billion.
The effect of the US Army on "the economy" (buying locally) isn't as high now as it used to be - first off, US presence has been significantly reduced since the troops normally stationed in Germany are 60-70% deployed to Iraq, and also of course - in particular lately - the low dollar pressures soldiers and dependants to avoid "the economy" wherever possible. Even the rental and real estate market is affected, since the US Army doesn't really allow (ie support) soldiers to live off-base anymore with all the in-house housing available.
Off course though - the Bundeswehr has never been a factor here. There have never been any Bundeswehr bases in the (closer) area. Similar for most areas where US and other Allied bases have been traditionally (western Baden-Württemberg; most of Rhineland-Palatinate; central Hesse; most of Northrhine-Westphalia) - of course in the 90s a lot has been reshuffled there, but for the most part just in downsizing presence.
Mmmh, I remember very well how the mayors of these regions cried when it became clear that the US is significantly reducing it's troops.
For example the normal guy/company who lives from sending bakery items to one of the bases gives a sh** about how the bases affect the real estate market or block urban development.
The same goes for all the other guys who work in or for the bases.
The closing of Bundeswehr barracks is just an example of how this affects the local economy.
I remember that even a small barrack like the one in Bad Segeberg is pumping some millions into the local economy every year without including the private consumption of the soldiers living on and around the base.
For example the normal guy/company who lives from sending bakery items to one of the bases gives a sh** about how the bases affect the real estate market or block urban development.
The same goes for all the other guys who work in or for the bases.
The closing of Bundeswehr barracks is just an example of how this affects the local economy.
I remember that even a small barrack like the one in Bad Segeberg is pumping some millions into the local economy every year without including the private consumption of the soldiers living on and around the base.
What I was questioning was the definition of "occupation".The occupation in Germany ended officially in 1994. The only visible effect was that on the streetsigns pointing to bases, the US flags got a NATO symbol added to show that these bases are now NATO bases instead of occupation power bases.
I suggest that the mere presence of foreign troops does not meet that definition.
If the threat from the Eastern Bloc had ceased 20 years earlier, and if the (West) German government had formally requested the departure of US troops from Germany, would they have left peaceably, or would they have remained by force of arms? I am inclined to believe the former, and hence argue that they ceased being an "occupying force" many years ago.
Regards.......... Peter
I could be wrong here, but the Iraqi Government has no leagal jurisdiction over the US army or control over thier operations,
Also the US invaded the country and toppled the previous Government, seizing control by force and holding the the territory by force of arms. This I think is what the Geneva convention uses as its yard stick for defining what an occupation is.
If what Cooch is saying is that because the present government is broadly accepting the need for the Americans that means it is no longer a occupation then I think he is wrong.
Because by that logic, the Germans never occupied Italy during the War, or Japan never occupied Manchuria, because in those Countries the Government was accepting of the need for foreign forces.
Your could say that the American occupation is benign, and argue it from that angle. But I'm afraid an occupation is what it is.
Also the US invaded the country and toppled the previous Government, seizing control by force and holding the the territory by force of arms. This I think is what the Geneva convention uses as its yard stick for defining what an occupation is.
If what Cooch is saying is that because the present government is broadly accepting the need for the Americans that means it is no longer a occupation then I think he is wrong.
Because by that logic, the Germans never occupied Italy during the War, or Japan never occupied Manchuria, because in those Countries the Government was accepting of the need for foreign forces.
Your could say that the American occupation is benign, and argue it from that angle. But I'm afraid an occupation is what it is.
In these cases, we can quite simply, albeit informally, differentiate occupation:
If local government cant hold on without foreign troops (which also dismantled previous government), AND do not directly control these troops - then it is occupation.
In Germany case USA forces do not occupy Germany any more as they withdraw will not lead to local government fall. In Iraq and Afghanistan case there is clearly an occupation.
Wouldn't take that as a definition.
By my definition, it's an occupation under the following conditions:
a) territory is legally separate from occupier state
b) there is no sovereign civilian government
c) even if a government exists, it can't ask the occupier to leave, legally
Whether the government can hold onto power shouldn't be of any concern in that context.
Quick history of (West) Germany postwar.
1945 : Allied Control Council, military occupation
1949 : Allied High Commission, legislative power over Germany, military occupation through Occupation Statute
1955 : legal sovereignty of Germany; Allies reserve full re-occupation; treaty requiring Germany to support Allied forces on territory; Allies reserve right to move and keep troops in Germany without German consent
1968 : Germany passes law that allows it to declare State of Defense (war), before this was reserved for Allied Powers
1972 : Berlin declared separate from West Germany in treaty between Occupation Powers
1991 : 2+4 treaty; Occupation officially ended, certain sovereign actions still forbidden by Allies (no nuclear weapons in East Germany, enforced reduction to 370,000 troops)
1992 : 2+4 treaty ratified by all Allies, legally in power.
1994 : Russian forces removed from East Germany.
By my definition, it's an occupation under the following conditions:
a) territory is legally separate from occupier state
b) there is no sovereign civilian government
c) even if a government exists, it can't ask the occupier to leave, legally
Whether the government can hold onto power shouldn't be of any concern in that context.
Quick history of (West) Germany postwar.
1945 : Allied Control Council, military occupation
1949 : Allied High Commission, legislative power over Germany, military occupation through Occupation Statute
1955 : legal sovereignty of Germany; Allies reserve full re-occupation; treaty requiring Germany to support Allied forces on territory; Allies reserve right to move and keep troops in Germany without German consent
1968 : Germany passes law that allows it to declare State of Defense (war), before this was reserved for Allied Powers
1972 : Berlin declared separate from West Germany in treaty between Occupation Powers
1991 : 2+4 treaty; Occupation officially ended, certain sovereign actions still forbidden by Allies (no nuclear weapons in East Germany, enforced reduction to 370,000 troops)
1992 : 2+4 treaty ratified by all Allies, legally in power.
1994 : Russian forces removed from East Germany.
Hmm. I guess, else we can call it annexation... somewhat true, but in many cases the border between these 2 is very slim.
This is very tricky point. The government might be formally "sovereign" (and is in most cases), but (more or less) controlled by occupying forces in fact. Iraq is prime example here.
Again, see previous point. Government might formally be able to ask foreign forces to leave, but in fact be controlled by said forces - so the moot point.
But this is single most important point! If government is not supported by local peoples, and hold in place only by foreign, uncontrollable military force - it is occupation. May be not formally - but should we stick to the letter rather than spirit?
This is where occupation formally ended. In Germany case, the line was very blur. I would say since 1955 Germany was only partially occupied by Allied forces, and every year occupation grade gradually decreased.
If i'd be forced to draw the line, 1955 probably would be my choice. Government was very stable and supported by population by then, even if controlled in many areas by foreign countries.
Last edited:
Hmmm... maybe some past examples would be good there... though i can't think of all that many for that exact situation.
Afghanistan wouldn't really be a good one, leaving aside the current situation. I mean the 1978 to 1992 period, during which, between 1979 and 1989, the Soviet Union occupied the country in spirit, but not in letter (as it had been invited by the government to assist against local uprisings). Doesn't really count as the government wasn't installed by the Occupying Force.
One example could be Somalia, with UNITAF and UNOSOM II in particular. However, in that case there was no regime supported by the occupying forces.
A somewhat interesting case might be Panama, as technically the US post-invasion installed a new government there, maintained bases in the country for ten years, and reserved the right for military intervention. Not really much local dissent though during that time, i think.
Vichy France, of course. Best historic example, probably.
Oh yeah, and the Rhenish Republic, 1923 to 1924, although that one was a real mess.
The rounding-up of the rural Boer women & children didn't happen until the Boer field armies had been defeated, their states occupied, & the Boers had resorted to guerrilla warfare. It wasn't due to Boer military superiority, but a result of their defeat in conventional warfare.
The internees weren't deliberately starved. Rations were insufficient for a time, because too little money had been allocated to feed the number of internees (blame Kitchener), but that was corrected, as were the poor sanitation & medical provision, when the conditions became known in Britain (caused public outrage), & the camps were transferred from military to civilian control.
BTW, Kitchener eventually switched from rounding up the Boers families to leaving them in place - after he'd successfully destroyed their crops & driven off or killed their cattle. That left the Boer guerrillas trying to feed their families, instead of being fed by them.
Interestingly enough the DRA in Afghan had it's greatest success as an independent power after Soviet departure, where it pushed back the Mujahadeen in the 89-91 period. Until Russia refused to sell oil to the DRA communists after the collapse, the DRA looked like it might've won the struggle.
EDIT: I would classify Afghan War as Soviet intervention in a civil war, rather then a pure occupation.
EDIT: I would classify Afghan War as Soviet intervention in a civil war, rather then a pure occupation.
Same, really. Contrasting that, i would classify the 1968 "Soviet Intervention" (as it's usually called) in Czechoslovakia as a clear-cut classic short occupation.
No, again, the forces were invited by legal government, which was already in place for many years, stable, and although not fully independent (but who is?) - wasnt controlled by much higher degree than USA controlled e.g. Japan or Germany by that time.
Also, the mere fact what the riot ended so quickly with so few causalities prove what it was at most intervention in civil conflict. I wouldnt call it even civil war.
huh? The sequence was a bit different...
- reformers including Dubcek oppose Novotny; Novotnik invides Brezhnev for evaluation, Brezhnev decides to remove Novotny
- Dubcek comes to power with Soviet support, starts liberalization effort, well supported by population
- Soviets attempt to stop CSSR liberalization, political movement ensues, Soviet troops are removed from CSSR as compromise for now
- Warsaw Pact invades CSSR suddenly four weeks later, occupies territory; Dubcek calls for population not to resist; Dubcek arrested by Soviet Forces
- non-violent civil protest ensues in CSSR for next 8-9 months
- Dubcek is removed from political system, replaced by Husak, who overturns most of Dubcek's liberalizations
There was some alleged "invitation letter" from the CSSR Communist Party, however such a letter has never been proven to exist, in fact had been denied to exist in an immediately convened party congress. And the USSR never really "justified" the invasion on this letter, but on the Brezhnev Doctrine.
If we divide the world into Goodies and Baddies we don't have this problem anymore.
Goodies are invited into a country to help the population.
Baddies invade the country and occupy it.
Once we identify the Goodies and Baddies in a particular situation we will instantly be able to say weather that is an occupation or not.
Simple.
Goodies are invited into a country to help the population.
Baddies invade the country and occupy it.
Once we identify the Goodies and Baddies in a particular situation we will instantly be able to say weather that is an occupation or not.
Simple.