An Interesting Analogy

A commenter at The Marmot's Hole draws a fascinating analogy between current events in Iraq and what happened in Korea after the US occupation in 1945.

What the US did to Korea in 1945 is actually closer to what the US did in Iraq in 2003.

America repartiated ALL the Japanese in Korea (over 100,000) by springtime 1946. This decision to completely get rid of all Japanese led to problems similar to what is happening in Iraq right now. So about 1 month after the under-qualified, under-funded, under-manned US government took over, it made the decision to recruit the Koreans who collaborated with the Japanese to be the new police and military. Their Japanese training made them brutal human rights violators, but the bigger problem at hand was the lawlessness, looting, rule of gangs in vast parts of the country, minor rebellions, and so forth. Sound familiar?

Very similar to how the USA eliminated the Baathist army and banned all Baathists from gov’t jobs and then had a deficit of skilled, experienced people to run day-to-day things. Very similar results too. Major difference is that the Korean police were extremely brutal and effective so they put a very abrupt end to the lawlessness and rebellions ... Well actually there wasnt an abrupt end to the violence. It was only about April 1950 when law and order was restored, only to be destoryed by the North’s invasion 2 months later.

These comments should serve as a useful corrective to the overheated rhetoric issuing from antiwar quarters; what seems in retrospect to have been a smooth, peaceful process might in reality have been anything but, and it's simply ridiculous to assume that Iraq is doomed to settle into chaos. Only if we fail to take firm and judicious action will it be so.

Having said all the above, there are crucial differences between the Korean and Iraqi situations, not the least important of which is that the Koreans have always seen themselves as one people, while "Iraq" is a mere geographical expression, but there are also ominous similarities; if we consider the Sunni despotisms neighboring Iraq to be playing the role of the Soviet Union - i.e, feeding arms and men to an anti-American insurgency powered by a radical ideology - then we see that the odds of averting all-out civil war are nowhere near as high as one might hope. It looks increasingly clear to me that the best hope for peace in Iraq in the long run will be to do a deal with the Shiites and the Kurds at the expense of the Sunnis, who take it as their birthright to rule, and are utterly unwilling to allow democracy to "cheat" them of the mastery they think is rightfully theirs.

Comments

[Phil Hunt]

It looks increasingly clear to me that the best hope for peace in Iraq in the long run will be to do a deal with the Shiites and the Kurds at the expense of the Sunnis

I think the Shia and Kurds are quite capable of doing that deal on therr own behalf.

[Abiola Lapite]

"I think the Shia and Kurds are quite capable of doing that deal on therr own behalf."

If they were, why has Iraq always been run by the Sunnis?

[Factory]

"Only if we fail to take firm and judicious action will it be so."
Erm, if South Korea is your idea of that, then the Iraqs have already had the firm and judicious actions of Saddam before the war.
If Iraq went like South Korea then it would certainly reinforce any rhetoric that claimed that the US is merely replacing Saddam with a pro-US dictator.