After a nasty bout with military dictatorship and the associated nationalistic chest beating, the Japanese saw that it wasn’t working out (losing a war helped) and opted for a better system that although imposed upon them in no uncertain terms, was in their best interests. Maybe the elite saw the second and third-tier benefits of this.

The Japanese are essentially pragmatic. This is not the character of the Arab world, at least among the theocratic radicals that are gaining popularity with each passing day. Belief does not brook pragmatism, and unfortunately, this characterization seems to apply to our current administration as well. Notice that in our struggles with Islam, we never hear about Turkey, which is probably one of the only secular Arab states left, along with Tunisia.

If the U.S. decided to unwrap the nukes, it would not only be a bad public relations blunder (not to mention the incredible death and suffering) but it would not change the Islamic fundamentalist mindset one iota. It would in fact unite most, if not all Arab states against us.

After a nasty bout with military dictatorship and the associated nationalistic chest beating, the Japanese saw that it wasn’t working out (losing a war helped) and opted for a better system that although imposed upon them in no uncertain terms, was in their best interests. Maybe the elite saw the second and third-tier benefits of this.

The Japanese are essentially pragmatic. This is not the character of the Arab world, at least among the theocratic radicals that are gaining popularity with each passing day. Belief does not brook pragmatism, and unfortunately, this characterization seems to apply to our current administration as well. Notice that in our struggles with Islam, we never hear about Turkey, which is probably one of the only secular Arab states left, along with Tunisia.

If the U.S. decided to unwrap the nukes, it would not only be a bad public relations blunder (not to mention the incredible death and suffering) but it would not change the Islamic fundamentalist mindset one iota. It would in fact unite most, if not all Arab states against us.

After a nasty bout with military dictatorship and the associated nationalistic chest beating, the Japanese saw that it wasn’t working out (losing a war helped) and opted for a better system that although imposed upon them in no uncertain terms, was in their best interests. Maybe the elite saw the second and third-tier benefits of this.

The Japanese are essentially pragmatic. This is not the character of the Arab world, at least among the theocratic radicals that are gaining popularity with each passing day. Belief does not brook pragmatism, and unfortunately, this characterization seems to apply to our current administration as well. Notice that in our struggles with Islam, we never hear about Turkey, which is probably one of the only secular Arab states left, along with Tunisia.

If the U.S. decided to unwrap the nukes, it would not only be a bad public relations blunder (not to mention the incredible death and suffering) but it would not change the Islamic fundamentalist mindset one iota. It would in fact unite most, if not all Arab states against us.

And I guess “utterly demolished” could be an exaggeration — but I think what I was describing was that we basically used the threat of erasing entire cities from the face of the earth to suppress any insurrections. Same with post-war Germany — both nations surrendered (and I assume, abandoned any post-war resistance) because they realized that we would probably exterminate them all if they didn’t.

Would Iraq settle down if we had nuked Baghdad? It’s a disgusting question that I feel sick about even asking — but it’s one that our society basically said “yes” to when it came to Hiroshima. Is it overwhelming, annihilatory force what enables nation building, or is it the difference between cultures? I don’t know.

And I guess “utterly demolished” could be an exaggeration — but I think what I was describing was that we basically used the threat of erasing entire cities from the face of the earth to suppress any insurrections. Same with post-war Germany — both nations surrendered (and I assume, abandoned any post-war resistance) because they realized that we would probably exterminate them all if they didn’t.

Would Iraq settle down if we had nuked Baghdad? It’s a disgusting question that I feel sick about even asking — but it’s one that our society basically said “yes” to when it came to Hiroshima. Is it overwhelming, annihilatory force what enables nation building, or is it the difference between cultures? I don’t know.

And I guess “utterly demolished” could be an exaggeration — but I think what I was describing was that we basically used the threat of erasing entire cities from the face of the earth to suppress any insurrections. Same with post-war Germany — both nations surrendered (and I assume, abandoned any post-war resistance) because they realized that we would probably exterminate them all if they didn’t.

Would Iraq settle down if we had nuked Baghdad? It’s a disgusting question that I feel sick about even asking — but it’s one that our society basically said “yes” to when it came to Hiroshima. Is it overwhelming, annihilatory force what enables nation building, or is it the difference between cultures? I don’t know.

I don’t think it’s true that Japnaese civil society was utterly demolished. I think that’s a dangerous illusion. Lots of Japanese were killed, but the social structures were intact. Even the Emperor was left in place.The fact that Japan decided to become a (peculiar) liberal democracy was a choice that the perfectly-intact Japanese elite made.

As far as Americans go, the difference is that no one in 1941 claimed to be going to war to give the Japanese the gift of liberal democracy. As long as it was defeated, and disarmed, that was enough. Americans had an obvious grievance against Japan, and had an obvious reason to make it pay for that grievance.

In Iraq, the theory was that we were going to make the Arabs free. But the subtext was the threatening and angry one expressed by Cliff. The combination was inherently non-sensical.

I don’t think it’s true that Japnaese civil society was utterly demolished. I think that’s a dangerous illusion. Lots of Japanese were killed, but the social structures were intact. Even the Emperor was left in place.The fact that Japan decided to become a (peculiar) liberal democracy was a choice that the perfectly-intact Japanese elite made.

As far as Americans go, the difference is that no one in 1941 claimed to be going to war to give the Japanese the gift of liberal democracy. As long as it was defeated, and disarmed, that was enough. Americans had an obvious grievance against Japan, and had an obvious reason to make it pay for that grievance.

In Iraq, the theory was that we were going to make the Arabs free. But the subtext was the threatening and angry one expressed by Cliff. The combination was inherently non-sensical.

I don’t think it’s true that Japnaese civil society was utterly demolished. I think that’s a dangerous illusion. Lots of Japanese were killed, but the social structures were intact. Even the Emperor was left in place.The fact that Japan decided to become a (peculiar) liberal democracy was a choice that the perfectly-intact Japanese elite made.

As far as Americans go, the difference is that no one in 1941 claimed to be going to war to give the Japanese the gift of liberal democracy. As long as it was defeated, and disarmed, that was enough. Americans had an obvious grievance against Japan, and had an obvious reason to make it pay for that grievance.

In Iraq, the theory was that we were going to make the Arabs free. But the subtext was the threatening and angry one expressed by Cliff. The combination was inherently non-sensical.

If the culture of Iraq is so pervasively different and anti-democracy, surely it is no more alien than 1945 Japan. And Pithlord — surely WW2 era Americans thought far more poorly of the Japanese than today — just look at the incredibly racist propaganda of the times. Yet, for some reason, it worked. In some kind of neo-con fever dream, we smashed a nation and replaced its government whole hog with a friendly, free, representational system that prospers to this very day.

Now, I agree we shouldn’t run around invading people to set up happy democracies — but it certainly worked with Japan, a society about as far from a democratic ideal as one could imagine. What’s the inherent difference between Iraq 2003 and Japan 1945? You could make the very rational (yet frightening) argument that it was because we utterly demolished (with atomic ferocity) the civil society before instituting our own.

A pro-war advocate could respond by simply saying “well, we were just too easy on Iraq.” Any argument that criticizes the Iraq invasion on the theory that nation-building is inherently impossible because of radical cultural differences has to explain Japan. Which is why I prefer casting my opposition to the invasion in terms of the self-protection vs cost analysis, one I believe to be relatively negative.