A dangerous myth

The demise of the mythical dream of nation-building will be short-lived. The following threads of thought will revive it in the post-Iraq environment:

• Support. We never really lost, the support on the home-front collapsed at the very moment we were starting to win.
• Spending. If we had made the investments in a civilian/military force that was adept at nation-building prior to invading, we would have won. Another variant of this: we need a bigger Army.
• Leadership. Mismanagement was to blame for the loss. We would have won with a competent Administration.

Comments

[zenpundit]

"The demise of the mythical dream of nation-building will be short-lived"

John, "nation-building" comes about only when the collapse of another state is perceived to have real spillover costs more harmful to national interests than attempting some level intervention.

At times, that perception is vastly overblown, as with South Vietnam. At other times, like Western Europe and Japan in the aftermath of WWII, the call was on the money ( if not an underestimate).

[Walter]

Nation-building? We can't even handle CITY-building, even when there are no armed insurgents or religious conflicts to contend with.

I don't see how anyone can believe that a government incapable of rebuilding a medium-sized city and a couple dozen small towns after a hurricane is going to be able to establish a functioning society in a foreign, hostile environment.

That said, I think you're absolutely right that the unbowed and unbowable talking heads are going to say exactly what you're predicting, and a depressing number of Americans will believe them, or pretend to believe them.

[subadei]

Walter, I agree with the spirit of your comment but I think you're comparing apples to oranges.