Before castigating "nation building" as a device, one would be advised to understand why it was being done in each case.
After WW II, we rebuilt Europe and Japan -- because there was good reason to do so. We needed allies in the Cold War. And we needed trading partners who could afford to buy our goods. Worked out for everybody, wouldn't we all agree (maybe even Ron Paul).
Clinton undertook "nation building" in Haiti (and Somalia) because the Left believes we should lift poor nations into prosperity with foreign aid and guidance from Harvard. There is no record of this approach ever having worked, anywhere. We can all agree on that, too, can't we?
Bush opted for "nation building" in Iraq because effectively fighting radical Islam required a competing idea. The idea was "freedom". Iraq as a successful democratic state would serve as a positive example to all of Islam -- and a reliable ally in the very middle of the Middle East.
The Islamofascists clearly recognized the risk a successful Iraq meant to them and put everything they had into the resistance. We won't know for several years whether the gambit was successful (if the Democrats don't piss it away first) -- but initial indications are positive. Bush gets credit for his vision, even if everybody doesn't agree with the strategy.
You're leaving something out - the Philippines - the first and only US colony. I've lived in western Tokyo and Manila. One would be hard-pressed to guess which was an ally of the US and which was the enemy of the US in WWII. Manila still bears scars to this day. Western Tokyo is a bit different.
Clinton undertook "nation building" in Haiti (and Somalia) because the Left believes we should lift poor nations into prosperity with foreign aid and guidance from Harvard. There is no record of this approach ever having worked, anywhere. We can all agree on that, too, can't we?
Agreed.
Bush opted for "nation building" in Iraq because effectively fighting radical Islam required a competing idea. The idea was "freedom". Iraq as a successful democratic state would serve as a positive example to all of Islam -- and a reliable ally in the very middle of the Middle East.
Iraq was already a successful secular Islamic state and I do not agree with your premise in the slightest. President Bush campaigned on a platform of getting us out of foreign wars, not starting new ones. That's part of why I voted for him in 2000.
The Islamofascists clearly recognized the risk a successful Iraq meant to them and put everything they had into the resistance. We won't know for several years whether the gambit was successful (if the Democrats don't piss it away first) -- but initial indications are positive. Bush gets credit for his vision, even if everybody doesn't agree with the strategy.
This is a non sequitor. You may win with this sort of argument on a Democrat or a moderate, but not with me. I'm proud to be a founding-fathers Paleo-con. Let's stay out of entangling foreign affairs. Just Say No.
You addressed your post to me, with a copy to altair. I hope you realize it was altair who wrote the above...