« Jon Stewart’s take on the Rev. Wright
After the U.S. Invasion of Iraq, Will Amazonia Be Next? »



McCain’s 100 Year “War”. The reality of the Germany and Japan comparison

April 29th, 2008
By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor

Print Print

Much ado has been made of the so-called John McCain “flip flop” regarding his position on the fifty or one hundred year war in Iraq. Josh Marshall made quite a case about this, hinging on the fact that McCain was apparently “against having U.S. troops remaining in Iraq before he was for the idea.” As was pointed out by Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, McCain’s position may have evolved in light of facts on the ground and, he proposes, people should consider the fact that McCain is talking about a difference between war, occupation, and a “presence” where Americans are not suffering casualties and the occupied country is more of a partner with the Americans, such as in Germany and Japan. This, however, is exactly the area where I feel McCain has a tremendous weak spot which will be exposed if the media ever gets over the “honeymoon” period they have with Senator McCain, as Josh Marshall notably points out.

My problem with this theory has long been that the difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is not simply a difference of apples and oranges, but apples and aardvarks. They aren’t even in the same phylum, class or family. This week I decided to go to some of the real experts on the subject and arranged a pair of original interviews. For the topic of Japan, I spoke today with Dr. John Dower in the first of a two part interview. (Look for a full interview transcript next week here on TMV.) Professor Dower is not some political hack or pundit. He is a historian and expert on the history of post-war Japan, the author of numerous books on the subject, the recipient of multiple Pulitzer Prizes, National Book Awards and the Bancroft Prize, all on Japanese history in the modern era. In our brief introductory session this week I asked him if there was any evidence of an insurgency against Americans by the Japanese during the occupation period of 1945 to 1952, similar to the Iraq insurgency. His answer was short and to the point.

Zero. There was zero evidence of any form of insurgency against the Americans in Japan during that period.

He went on to describe some of the key differences between the two scenarios. They fall into three areas, which are also mirrored in the conditions we find in post-war Germany. First, there is the matter of how America treated the invasion and post-war occupation of these countries. The United States had pummeled Japan’s major cities with air bombardments long before the nuclear bombs hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the surrender in 1945, America treated Japan as a defeated nation. No dissent was tolerated and control was absolute.

The second area is the response of the defeated country to the occupiers. Japan was in great danger of being totally destroyed by the Chinese. They had been fighting with China since 1931 and China’s death toll at the hands of the Japanese is estimated to have been in excess of 15 million. China was ready, willing and able to wipe Japan off the face of the Earth and America was the only force standing in the way of that. Combined with the Emperor’s orders to obey the Americans and recognize the surrender, we were very nearly welcomed with the “flowers in the streets” which we never received in Iraq.

The third factor is in the inherent national identity of the Japanese. They were already an incredibly ancient culture, dating back well past the time of Christ. There were certainly periods of internecine warfare in their feudal era, but there had been a national sense of “being Japanese” for ages unimaginable in comparison to the brief history of the United States.

None of these conditions apply to Iraq. Dr. Dower published a piece in the Boston Review back in 2003 (prior to the invasion of Iraq) titled “A Warning From History: Don’t expect Democracy in Iraq.” It turned out to be frighteningly prescient. Here’s a brief piece, but be sure to read the entire piece to see exactly how well Professor Dower saw the future of an American occupation in Iraq.

Starting last fall, we began to hear that U.S. policymakers were looking into Japan and Germany after World War II as examples or even models of successful military occupations. In the case of Japan, the imagined analogy with Iraq is probably irresistible.

The problem is that few if any of the ingredients that made this success possible are present—or would be present—in the case of Iraq. The lessons we can draw from the occupation of Japan all become warnings where Iraq is concerned.

In a second interview we will have, which can not be disclosed yet, we find the same conditions mirrored in Germany. There was a vestigial insurgency in Germany, called Operation Werewolf, which was composed of The Heer and the Hitler Youth. However, it was immediately disavowed by Hitler’s successor, Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz, and was widely considered a fiasco producing no notable results. The Germans, like the Japanese, are an ancient culture dating back to their struggles against the Roman Empire and beyond. And the American occupation of Germany was initially a brutal one, not even allowing the German police force access to guns. The Germans, like the Japanese, were in great fear of the Russians who they had slaughtered to the tune of tens of millions.

Again.. none of these conditions exist in Iraq. Our history of attempts at military occupation of Muslim nations has been dismal by comparison to our experience in Germany and Japan. And our methods today are much more “care bear” policies of rescuing the hapless Iraqis from their dictatorial ruler than imposing the iron fist of martial law.

John McCain’s attempt to compare Iraq to these two historical periods should be pointed out to the public by the media. He is either being incredibly disingenuous, or he is demonstrating a shocking and dismaying lack of understanding of military history and its implications for our continued presence in Iraq.

Also available at Middle Earth Journal.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 at 6:38 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, John McCain, 2008 Elections, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Interesting stuff, Jazz. In a sense, the historian is suggesting that we didn't act enough like occupiers in Iraq while the occupation role was clear in Japan and Germany post WWII. In Iraq, to quote Zell Miller, we were liberators not occupiers. Perhaps - perhaps - if we had admitted to ourselves that we were going to temporarily occupy the country for what we thought was the greater good, the insurgency would have gotten less out of hand. But only perhaps.
    • ^
    • v
    In a much less eloquent way, I said much the same thing commenting on a post by Pete Abel.

    I would be more cautious about so robustly embracing the role of occupier, though. .
    The societes of Japan and Germany were so vastly diffrent from Iraq (the former two also haivng been beaten to a bloody pulp BEFORE the occupation), that I don't think you can transplant wholesale the experience from society to society. Certainly there was always a need to keep order,but I'm not sure what degree of 'shut up, and do as you're told' would work best in Iraq.

    My other thought is that saying 50-100 years is likely to be a repellelnt idea to the Iraqis. For the alQaeda types, it could make a fine recruitment tool.

    Just not a good thing to say, all around.,
    • ^
    • v
    Interesting analysis. Flawed in some respects. For example:

    "China was ready, willing and able to wipe Japan off the face of the Earth and America was the only force standing in the way of that."

    This is false. At the end of WWII China was weakened by colonialism, and deeply divided between Nationalists and Communists. Japan was still happily in occupation of huge swathes of China. The Japanese were worried about Russia...never about China, whom they regarded with utter contempt. China has not been a threat to Japan since the days of Kublai Khan...quite the reverse. Note, for example, that modern China has NEVER demanded the US withdraw its bases from Japan and Asia. The US is widely regarded in Asia as the only restraining force preventing another potential Japanese breakout. Consider the fact that Japan's constitutionally restricted "Defense" air force is the most advanced in Asia, and can blow the PLA from the sky.

    There are actually striking similarities between Iraq and Japan. For example, there was no Japanese insurgency because the Emperor and the ruling classes were largely protected by the occupation. Because the Emperor decreed it, the Japanese accepted occupation.

    Similarly, in Iraq, al-Sistani has cooperated with the "big guest" as the Shi'a refer to the US. The Shi'a, under al-Sistani's spiritual guidance, have been generally peaceable...with even al-Sadr's rebelliousness being in check. The insurgency has been largely limited to the Arab Sunni; a distinct minority in the country after the Shi'a and Kurds.

    McCain was making a point about long-term American presences overseas...he reference the Balkans and South Korea as well...and ALL of these situations are very different.

    The differences are not relevant to the McCain's point: as long as the US is not taking casualities, the US could have a presence there.

    The Shi'a will not accept a long-term occupation, of course. Al-Sistani's "big guest" remains a "guest". If al-Sistani gave the word, the US occupation would end tomorrow. The occupation is useful to him and the Shi'a, as it was useful to the Emperor, the Japanese keiretsus, and the ruling elite.
    • ^
    • v
    I think Marlowecan's defense of McCain is badly mistaken.

    The disclaimer of 'if the Americans aren't taking casualties' is rather futuristic, since it is not applicable to Iraq now, nor will it be during the foreseeable fututre.
    We might as well talk about the days when terrorism will have ceased to be.

    You can analyze Japan from every angle you want, but the important fact at the heart of the matter is that the country was unified, while Iraq was much more like the former Yugoslavei, which stayed unified under the common yoke of a dictator, but as soon as the yoke was removed, old ethnic resentments bubbled up .to the surface.

    As a result, Yugoslavia broke up into many separate countres,, while Iraq is trying to hold itself together even as the infighting goes on. We are shepherding a type of civil war. That is not a role we've played in any other of the countries mentioned.
    As to Kosovo vs Serbia, the militarey forces are NATO forces, commanded by Europeans.

    I think Jazz is right: This is like comparing apples to aardvarks.

    I will grant that McCain's '50-100 years' was grabbed up before he had a chance to explain his meaning. The explanation he did give later is so fuzzy and inapplicable that the explanation now needs further explatnaion-that is, if he recognizes the need for one;

    Should he return to this subject, I'll listen. Fair is fair.
    In the meantime, all we have is what he has said so far.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm not worried about that stuff when I was already looking at more relevent information years ago, such as:

    http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/areweready2...

    http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/iraqtrip.pdf

    http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/0410_progre...
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Jon Stewart’s take on the Rev. Wright
After the U.S. Invasion of Iraq, Will Amazonia Be Next? »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.