Consistent Idealistic Invaders

[DominusNovus]

So, the US, from time to time, decides to engage in military adventures to promote democracy. However, these are few and far between, aren't always prosecuted well, etc. etc.

What does it take for there to be a country that basically is willing to just read the morning headlines to determine if there's anyone out there that deserves to be invaded? Not conquered and annexed, just attacked, occupied, a democratic government set up, and then left.

Is it a more militaristic culture?
A large economic base?
Weaker opposition on the world stage?

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by DominusNovus

So, the US, from time to time, decides to engage in military adventures to promote democracy. However, these are few and far between, aren't always prosecuted well, etc. etc.

What does it take for there to be a country that basically is willing to just read the morning headlines to determine if there's anyone out there that deserves to be invaded? Not conquered and annexed, just attacked, occupied, a democratic government set up, and then left.

Is it a more militaristic culture?
A large economic base?
Weaker opposition on the world stage?

I would argue that you can't set up a democratic government by fiat (and certainly not by military action), so this is already pretty ASBish.

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

I would argue that you can't set up a democratic government by fiat (and certainly not by military action), so this is already pretty ASBish.

What about Germany and Japan after World War II?

[Leo Caesius]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

What about Germany and Japan after World War II?

Well, the short answer is that democratic institutions already existed in Germany, and had for a long time, and in Japan we didn't exactly change the regime (the emperor continued to rule, for example) and Japan wasn't really all that democratic for decades after the war anyway.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

I would argue that you can't set up a democratic government by fiat (and certainly not by military action), so this is already pretty ASBish.

Well, I guess you can *try*...

[DominusCounterfacticity]

Originally Posted by Leo Caesius

Well, the short answer is that democratic institutions already existed in Germany, and had for a long time, and in Japan we didn't exactly change the regime (the emperor continued to rule, for example) and Japan wasn't really all that democratic for decades after the war anyway.

Yep.

Plus, unlike all our other excursions into state-building, Japan really was built by fiat under General McArthur. Can you image Gen. Petraeus writing the Iraqi Constitution? Pshaha.

Anyway, I think the motivation behind American democracy-building, as Robert Kagan points out in Dangerous Nation (the first in a two-volume history of American foreign policy), goes straight back to the Puritan 'City on a Hill' mentality and has been consistently reinforced by collective experiences of American history ever since.

[DominusNovus]

Well, to be more specific, I never specified that these attempts had to be successful. Just that this state would look at anyone thats a dictatorship as someone that should be invaded and neutralized, ASAP.

[Karlos]

Governements act in order to their national interest. Human rights and democracy can be usefull excuses for intervention, but nothing more. That's why the USA goes against Cuba or NK or invade Iraq but considers Pakistan an ally, as it did with Pinochet's Chile or with Franco's Spain. A country that moves following idealistic principles, well, would never get to be a superpower anyway and would never have the military capability to do so.

[DominusNovus]

Originally Posted by Karlos

Governements act in order to their national interest. Human rights and democracy can be usefull excuses for intervention, but nothing more. That's why the USA goes against Cuba or NK or invade Iraq but considers Pakistan an ally, as it did with Pinochet's Chile or with Franco's Spain. A country that moves following idealistic principles, well, would never get to be a superpower anyway and would never have the military capability to do so.

Well, they don't have to be trying to do this the entire time they exist as a country. But once they feel they can.

[Earling]

The issue is that constantly launching idealistic invasions is hugely expensive.
Especially if they keep going to hell and you don't really get anything out of it.

So erm... the USA would be much poorer for a start.

[DominusNovus]

Originally Posted by Earling

The issue is that constantly launching idealistic invasions is hugely expensive.
Especially if they keep going to hell and you don't really get anything out of it.

So erm... the USA would be much poorer for a start.

Never said it had to be the US.

And the question is not how to launch these invaions
Nor is it what would the effects be.
The question is, what circumstances would lead to a state that would do this?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

MacArthur ruled through existing institutions and guided them in a direction the Japanese were largely happy to take. Ditto the German occupation.

In Iraq we threw out the entire existing structure and tried to build one from scratch.

That's my Five-Year-Old Child Rule. If a 5-yr old can detect the flaw in the plan, don't do it.

Originally Posted by DominusCounterfacticity

Yep.

Plus, unlike all our other excursions into state-building, Japan really was built by fiat under General McArthur. Can you image Gen. Petraeus writing the Iraqi Constitution? Pshaha.

Anyway, I think the motivation behind American democracy-building, as Robert Kagan points out in Dangerous Nation (the first in a two-volume history of American foreign policy), goes straight back to the Puritan 'City on a Hill' mentality and has been consistently reinforced by collective experiences of American history ever since.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by DominusNovus

Well, to be more specific, I never specified that these attempts had to be successful. Just that this state would look at anyone thats a dictatorship as someone that should be invaded and neutralized, ASAP.

It would require the culture to never have developed the concept of irony.

[Shimbo]

In order for this to happen I can see that the country would have to meet a few conditions:

1. So immensly powerful they could pretty much do what they like.
2. Deeply in love with democracy (to a messianic religious level)
3. Actually give a s**t about what happens to people in other countries.

• The British at the height of their power arguably met condition one, due to nuclear weapons no current or future country can.
• 'The West' currently perhaps approaches meeting condition two.
• I don't think any country in history has ever met condition three or is ever likely to.

[Berra]

The European colonial powers al least claimed that they invaded for honorable reasons so it could be a POD.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Berra

The European colonial powers al least claimed that they invaded for honorable reasons so it could be a POD.

Actually I think that's worse because their claims were always just a fig-leaf for an incredibly self-serving reason.

[Grimm Reaper]

I think there may be a technical problem with this thread in that being idealistic is not remotely the same thing as being moral.

Any of the colonial powers eager to 'take up the white man's burden' were absolutely being true to their ideals, and so to was Nazi Germany when it embarked on a series of aggression so it seems that what the thread wants is not a nation living up to its own ideals but rather to a certain set of ethical principles.

Always bearing in mind what the road to hell is paved with.

[DominusNovus]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

I think there may be a technical problem with this thread in that being idealistic is not remotely the same thing as being moral.

Any of the colonial powers eager to 'take up the white man's burden' were absolutely being true to their ideals, and so to was Nazi Germany when it embarked on a series of aggression so it seems that what the thread wants is not a nation living up to its own ideals but rather to a certain set of ethical principles.

Always bearing in mind what the road to hell is paved with.

Actually, I refrained from saying moral because of this. They're following their ideology of spreading their form of government (I avoided it being a dictatorship, because it would be much easier for a dictatorship to convince a country to behave like this). But, they might be very brutal in doing it, willing to use any means necessary to liberate the countries.

Actually, just think of a democratic version of communism, as far as the idea of spreading the revolution by force is concerned (said revolution being more in line with what western countries view as a good government, of course).

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That's a good point. But I would argue that although the general populations of the Colonial Powers might have seen it that way, the people who were actually doing the invading were almost always motivated by greed, or at best, strategic concerns.

If you look at most of the imperial inroads into Africa, for instance, they were all of these categories:

1. Invasions for political or security reasons followed by an inability to withdraw much like today's Iraq - ex. Algeria

2. Invasions to protect obnoxious missionaries who had gotten themselves into trouble, ex. Malawi

3. Invasions to grab territory before anyone else could ex. Tunis, Comoros

4. Invasions as compensation for someone else's invasion, ex. Kenya

5. Invasions manipulated by specific groups of businessmen with large investments at risk, ex. Egypt

6. Invasions spearheaded by adventurers hoping to make a fortune, ex Congo, German East Africa

Many were combinations of several of these - for instance German East Africa was mostly a 6, but it coincided with a drive for 1 made possible by a British 5 in Egypt, which in itself was mostly a 5 but had elements of 1 in it.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

I think there may be a technical problem with this thread in that being idealistic is not remotely the same thing as being moral.

Any of the colonial powers eager to 'take up the white man's burden' were absolutely being true to their ideals, and so to was Nazi Germany when it embarked on a series of aggression so it seems that what the thread wants is not a nation living up to its own ideals but rather to a certain set of ethical principles.

Always bearing in mind what the road to hell is paved with.

[HueyLong]

Originally Posted by DominusNovus

Actually, just think of a democratic version of communism, as far as the idea of spreading the revolution by force is concerned (said revolution being more in line with what western countries view as a good government, of course).

Perhaps early Enlightenment republicanism could fit this?