Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.
That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
My reaction to the thread title was "oh god".
Yeah didnt disappoint.
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.
That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
What type of colonialism would you have suggested? Exploitation of manpower and resources by an elite or providing incentives for Americans to settle there?
I suppose the realists answer is that the potential for blowback is greater longterm (see European attempts at colonialism and present day resistance protracted into perpetuity), the question of who would claim the colony since it was a coalition invading and a national ethos on the part of the hypothetical coloniser that is generally anti-colonialist and democratic and thus incompatible with long term investment in a colony.
How about just taxing them to support social services and exporting oil?
Taxation without representation? Hmm, seems familiar....
Colonize Iraq? We'd need more colonies in the region to justify it. The logistics alone are a nightmare, and protecting colonists would be an indefinite 24/7 detail. The cost is greater than the gain.
The invasion force was already supplied and monitoring their people. If anything's a nightmare, it was humanitarian RoE in the way.
Fyi, the second option makes little sense. If we were to take Wolfowitz and others seriously, many would just want hegemonic influence in return for what they see as liberation from a tyrannical government. It allows for more flexibility than a traditional empire, while still gaining some of the benefits from it, at the same time as it is seen as satisfying the need for self-government. Cheney and Rumsfeld may have only wanted removal of a threat to American interests, and to allow the freedom for investment in Iraq's economy.
I don't entirely buy this.
American engagement in Iraq is a leftover from a bloated MIC following the Cold War which saved Western Europe for democracy. Furthermore, the Middle East was interpreted in globalist context throughout the Cold War in contrast to Soviet influence. Iraq was also a target of opportunity from tarnished Cold War reputation. It engaged Israel repeatedly, had history with Iran which was our ally, and afterwards invaded Kuwait.
Wolfowitz even admitted that the rapid planning after 9/11 for Iraq's invasion took place because of its history, suggesting that Cold War nostalgia for European geopolitical stature was a priority. Besides, America already struggled to gather European allies for the "Coalition of the Willing".
Didn't the west try that before, with Israel? Not sure how well that is working.
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.
That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
Didn't the west try that before, with Israel? Not sure how well that is working.
Basically, it's this: the age of colonies ended after WWII.
Realistically, I can't picture that anybody else in the world would have put up with the United States going in and replacing their dictator with a colonial dictator. It also wouldn't go along with Bush's narrative that we were helping Iraqis by freeing them from Saddam ("Yay, we're free....sort of.")
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.
That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).
Serious answers only please. This is not a troll thread.
That is not a sarcastic comment (ad infinitum).