Do occupations work?

[Cooch]

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.

Well I'd suggest that as the effort of US military to provide security for the Iraqi populace against the relatively small number of "insurgents" (most of whom appear to have foreign backing and who are killing more Iraqi civilians than coalition soldiers) is hardly analogous to The Rape of Nanking, and that the Italian Government (or whatever passed for it on the day) had officially signed a declaration of war on Germany ...... the issue is a little more complex than you appear to be arguing. But your logic does have some force.

Therefore I will settle for a recognition by those participating in this discussion that an "occupation" can indeed be both benign and beneficial.

Likewise it would be proper for us to recognise that - while the presence of a large number of foreign troops in your country is not always pleasant (as Australia discovered in 1942) - the majority of Iraqis appear to support the current presence of Coalition in Iraq as a "necessary evil" while only a very small minority are actively endeavoring to force them to leave.

I will confess that I grow a little tired of hearing the term "occupation" used as a term of opprobrium, as though that alone rendered the Coalition presence unjustifiable.

Back to topic............. Peter

 

[Cooch]

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.

Not quite as clear as you'd like us to believe. If Iraq were such a prime example, the US administration would not be expressing quite the level of frustration at the internal politics of the Maliki government, and Democrats in the US Congress would not be so noisily pointin the finger at a supposed lack of progress by the Iraqi government in initating certain legislative reforms.

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?.

I suggest that y ou are at risk of judging by the wrong criteria.
Popular support is determined by the ballot box, not who has the best arms.
If the government is legitimate and popularly supported, but threatened by either an armed minority, foreign interests, or both ,, and due to a combination of circumstances is unable to fully support itself...... then foreign troops supporting that government and providing increased security for the population are not an occupying force.

As you have noted yourself WRT Iraq, the elected government there has not yet requested the Coalition troops to leave, so that question is moot.

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.

It's easy. The Goodies always wear white hats.

Cheers............ Peter

 

[merocaine]

I think the key thing about this to remember is we can't change the meaning of the term occupation every time a country is invaded to fit that set of circumstances.
What we can do is judge each occupation on its merits, by what it seeks to create, what it seeks to achieve.
Now we all have difference opinions on Iraq, but iraq is a different situation to Poland during WW2.
Using the term occupation should'ent imply moral eqivalence, they were both occupations, but they had/have radically different goals.

 

[Cooch]

I agree that the accurate use of terminology is important if we're to have any form of rational and useful discussion. You are quite correct.

Regards......... Peter

 

[Chrom]

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.

Hmm, from that POV it indeed looks like short occupation.

 

[Chrom]

Not quite as clear as you'd like us to believe. If Iraq were such a prime example, the US administration would not be expressing quite the level of frustration at the internal politics of the Maliki government, and Democrats in the US Congress would not be so noisily pointin the finger at a supposed lack of progress by the Iraqi government in initating certain legislative reforms.

Everyone play its game within possible boundaries. Even generals often "creatively" fulfill MOD orders, and sometimes even oppose it. In short, yes, Iraqi administration is not slaves of american administration. And yes, Iraq government is controlled (and brought to power) by USA.

Moreover, very often USA administration like to publicaly blame Iraq administration on the things which is out of control for Iraq administration. Just a show for public. Everyone understand it, but someone must be blamed for failures.

And better blame Iraqi government, than Bush. After all, it is win-win for both. Iraqi government shows some "independent thinking" to local population, Bush team trying to relay own mistakes to someone else before election.

I suggest that y ou are at risk of judging by the wrong criteria.
Popular support is determined by the ballot box, not who has the best arms.
If the government is legitimate and popularly supported, but threatened by either an armed minority, foreign interests, or both ,, and due to a combination of circumstances is unable to fully support itself...... then foreign troops supporting that government and providing increased security for the population are not an occupying force.

This is of course tricky question. But generally, even in that case, it is still intervention in civil war at very least. Further, if foreign troops are uncontrollable by local government, AND to large extent control that government - it is clear occupation.

As you have noted yourself WRT Iraq, the elected government there has not yet requested the Coalition troops to leave, so that question is moot.

But how they could if they are
1. Controlled by occupation troops.
2. Will be hang on nearest tree next day without said troops?

 

[Chrom]

I agree that the accurate use of terminology is important if we're to have any form of rational and useful discussion. You are quite correct.

Regards......... Peter

But, in such formal definition, we shouldnt give too much attention to "formal' government letters, "forced" invitations, actions of "puppet" governments, etc. Else we would invent meaningless definition, totally inapplicable in real world.