Challenge: successful execution of neoconservative doctrine

Thande

Donor
Yes obviously this one is going to get political faster than the Flash on speed, but it's Boxing Day and we might as well hope for a late Christmas miracle and some reasoned discussion.

Anyway, so: the neoconservative doctrine that American military power should be used to topple repressive regimes, especially those that have it in for the US, and replace them with democracies out of the arguable belief that democracy results in stability, economic prosperity, and the rather less plausible amiability towards the USA.

Enacted in OTL vs Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter being a purer case, with a degree of success approximately equivalent to the Titanic's maiden voyage. So, the challenge: how can we get a case which is at least moderately successful?

I'm going to list some examples of what went wrong with the OTL cases, which can obviously be argued, but I think are broadly correct:

1) 9/11. Did give 'licence' for US power to be used, at least against Afghanistan, but fogged the issue with the idea that all such operations should be aimed at stopping terrorism, and Iraq obviously increased it instead.

2) Hypocrisy vis-a-vis US support of oppressive regimes such as the Saudi Arabian kingdom and Musharraf in Pakistan. The latter can probably be avoided if 9/11 does not happen and Afghanistan is not a target. The former is more problematic.

3) Historical grudge. Whether there is any truth to it or not, it was easy to make the accusation that Bush Vol. 2 wanted to attack Saddam Hussein due to his father's involvement in the first Gulf War (or the second, if you're German) and this therefore coloured the whole affair with an unpleasant level of emotional involvement. There is also the argument that Iraq's standard of living had declined partly because of American sanctions in the first place. Could perhaps have been avoided if a regime change operation had been targeted at a state historically less connected to the US, e.g. Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe, or one whose historical relationship with the US was more friendly, such as Liberia with Charles Taylor.

4) Flimsy rationalisations, i.e. the mythical weapons of mass destruction; while it was plausible that these might exist, it was not plausible that Iraq posed a serious threat to the USA, even in the form of supplying such weapons to terrorists. Because the US would be foolish to try and attempt a regime change operation against a state that actually was a threat to the US (as that would provoke WW3), it would be better to simply eliminate this altogether. The rationalisations came about in the first place because the simple idea that regime change itself was the be-all and end-all of the conflict was unpopular, particularly when it came to risking troops' lives. Could at least be ameliorated if the target was a literal failed state rather than a simple dictatorship, so actual fighting against an organised army would be at a minimum compared to peacekeeping.

5) Divided western alliance and other democracies. Ideally this kind of operation would only take place in a case where all democracies, or at least all of NATO, approves. Cases with humanitarian motives such as Sudan (because of Darfur) would be the most likely to achieve this.

So, with a POD after the election of George Bush in 2000, is it possible to reach a situation where an execution of neocon doctrine in regime change has been performed by 2008 and most of the world's democratic governments (if perhaps not their voters) approve?
 

Susano

Banned
Well, the problem is, while your examples could all be tweaked so that there is a whole lot more politcial support for it, the fact onm the ground remain the same. If theres an invasion of Iraq, then it will probably still screw Iraq up. And we can pretty much assume the same of any invasion of Iran and Sudan. And while many neo-cons like to always repeat how casualities are only a fracture of single battles in the world wars, the American public will still gradually withdraw any support for such operations.

A more competent handling of the occupation, like an actual plan what to do before the invasion, would certainly help, of course. I dunno if it would change teh entire situation, though. So, Iraq maybe doesnt dissolve into a free for all, but that could mean the insurgency remains focussed on the occupations troops. And, to be honest, it seems to me that most Americans and msot Europeans too do not really care for the inner-Iraqi violence, but only when occupation soldiers are hit, so dissapproval at home will be the same...
 

Thande

Donor
A more competent handling of the occupation, like an actual plan what to do before the invasion, would certainly help, of course. I dunno if it would change teh entire situation, though.

The problem is whether the rose-tinted notion that the removal of a dictator leads to everyone holding hands and singing, thus not requiring many occupation troops or a plan, was purely a fantasy of Rumsfeld or if it is something integral to neoconservatism of a whole. In the former case it could be avoided, the latter would be more difficult.
 
I think a plan before invasion certainly would have helped. If they had a lot more troops and a solid plan, they could have a better chance to keep the separate groups in check before they waged war against each other, causing us to stay longer just to keep stability.
 

Thande

Donor
I think a plan before invasion certainly would have helped. If they had a lot more troops and a solid plan, they could have a better chance to keep the separate groups in check before they waged war against each other, causing us to stay longer just to keep stability.

You're referring specifically to Iraq there; while Iraq could certainly have been more successful, I don't think it could fulfil the requirements of this post, because the operation was always unpopular with at least half of the world's democratic governments.

What I am more aiming at here is an unrelated exercise of the doctrine, probably in a TL where 9/11 was prevented.
 
you'd have to kill ether Rumsfeld or Cheney if Rumsfeld is dead, then maybe Powell for Secretary of Defense, if Cheney is died then there is no one to put Rumsfeld at Defense and no Dick at Bush's ear
 
The problem is whether the rose-tinted notion that the removal of a dictator leads to everyone holding hands and singing, thus not requiring many occupation troops or a plan, was purely a fantasy of Rumsfeld or if it is something integral to neoconservatism of a whole. In the former case it could be avoided, the latter would be more difficult.

Oh, it's even worse than you think.
In Australia conservatives supported Howard's decision to join the Coalitionofthewilling because conservatives in this country think our involvement in Vietnam was the good old days.

'We'll be greeted as liberators' was the rationale only for the ivory tower neocons.

Rumsfeld wasn't engaging in fantasy, he was engagaing in will to power.
(So no, a successful neocon liberation in a genuinely dangerous part of the world just wouldn't work--not that that's necessarily what was attempted in Iraq. Perhaps shock-and-awe against French Polynesia would be successful?)
 
Last edited:

King Thomas

Banned
1-Proper preperation prevents piss-poor preformance. Have a post-war plan.
2-Get the OK of any other Great Powers first.
3-Don't bomb the water, non-military power stations, ect.
4-Avoid war crimes, and if they are unavoidable, severly punish those responsible whilst at the same time covering it up until your troops are out of the country.
5-Let the people know when you will stop occupying their country-what people can't put up with is an indefinate occupation.
6-Don't pick a country that is too big/mountainous/well armed for a quick victory in the first place.
 
It could work if the country in question was ethnically stable (ie, no real internal ethnic conflicts to tear the country apart), and if the dictator in question was particularly cruel and vile, so bad that foreign invasion to topple him seems like a good idea to the people themselves.... hard to think if any country on earth really fits that description...
 
It could have happened if during the invasion of Iraq more troops were sent and the Iraqi army was not disbanded. Also it could have happened if the US intervened in the Sudan to liberate Darfur. The enemy would be less as strong for one thing.
 
1-Proper preperation prevents piss-poor preformance. Have a post-war plan.
2-Get the OK of any other Great Powers first.
3-Don't bomb the water, non-military power stations, ect.
4-Avoid war crimes, and if they are unavoidable, severly punish those responsible whilst at the same time covering it up until your troops are out of the country.
5-Let the people know when you will stop occupying their country-what people can't put up with is an indefinate occupation.
6-Don't pick a country that is too big/mountainous/well armed for a quick victory in the first place.

7. Put the whole occupied country on welfare for a couple of years. Use occupation as an economic stimulus for your own country. As the cost of a military campaign nowadays are so large, it's perhaps cheaper to put the people of the country to be occupied on a generous welfare plan.

How about an Iraq occupation plan which promises and delivers, among other things, a free generator, air conditioner, TV and SUV and food distribution scheme for each and every family? In fact, "bomb" the country with free stuff before and during combat to prevent the Saddam government from distributing this aid and to discredit any propaganda about poisoning etc. The goods can be produced domestically for pork-distribution.

This should be coupled with other extensive measures, such as offering of free Western level occupational training in-country and offering of free exchange student year for every college / university level student in the US.

As a final gift before occupation ends, offer one week holiday free passes for each and every citizen to the US which could be used off-season. This would provide a federal pork-distribution scheme as well as proof of good intentions.

8. Lots of troops to keep public order and distribute aid.
 
It could work if the country in question was ethnically stable (ie, no real internal ethnic conflicts to tear the country apart), and if the dictator in question was particularly cruel and vile, so bad that foreign invasion to topple him seems like a good idea to the people themselves.... hard to think if any country on earth really fits that description...
N Korea? Possible. But then, they actually do have WMD, so it won't happen. Sadly.
 

Thande

Donor
N Korea? Possible. But then, they actually do have WMD, so it won't happen. Sadly.

The problem with North Korea is not so much the WMD in the strictest sense (they have only a handful of atomics and it does not appear that either the bombs themselves or the delivery systems have workable reliability) but the fact that much of South Korea, including Seoul, is in range of their conventional artillery. Silencing all that simultaneously would be well-nigh impossible even with insanely advanced Command&Conquer-style technology.

There's also the point that China might well see it as interfering in its sphere of influence, particularly considering the fact that they might well end up being swamped with refugees fleeing north across the border.

Now of course China is not a democracy, but South Korea is, and thus I tend to think opposition on their part would disqualify an intervention in North Korea. Unless of course North Korea started it, but then that doesn't really count as an execution of neoconservative doctrine, as this is based on a preemptive military action.
 
The problem with North Korea is not so much the WMD in the strictest sense (they have only a handful of atomics and it does not appear that either the bombs themselves or the delivery systems have workable reliability) but the fact that much of South Korea, including Seoul, is in range of their conventional artillery.

The number of pieces actually capable to fire on Seoul is quite low. Only the heaviest artillery rockets (240mm) and heaviest guns (170mm Koksan) of NKPA could inflict damage on Seoul. The artillery rockets could only reach suburbs and even them from a fairly limited area.

However, a military conflict would still inflict much suffering and unintended consequences as well as the ultimate economical burden on SK.
 
As the question is posted, you want a sucessful regime change, preferably with military means. It might be possible in the Mid East but I belive it would be hard to pull of (a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as a undivided Palestinian capital?). Or you could count the colored revolutions claimed to be orcrestated by CIA.

I belive Cuba might be the best possiblity with Castro dying. It is not far from the US making it easy to project power and handle the logistic, a occupation is easier because I assume every US military unit might have at least one hispanic with some understanding of the language and culture and the US intellicence community should have a good picture of what is going on on over there.

So have Raul going berserk when Castro dies or something....
 
Is this thread about the successful execution of neoconservative doctrine in terms of successfully carrying it out or in terms of successfully executing neoconservative doctrine, perhaps by firing squad?:p
 
The best way to do it is to have post-invasion paln (obviously) but also clear exit strategy with measurable benchmarks and approximate time of departure. Saying "we'll have to stay until situation improves" can mean anything or nothing and US troops could withdraw in few months or stay there for decades.

Set benchmarks such as democratic elections and get international observers to monitor them. Set benchmark such as democratic constitution that has human and civil rights set in it and have it ratified by referendum. Now security question is tricky, it's hard to determine whether situation is bad and going out of hand or bad but local security forces are dealing with it. Here you'll have to set some benchmarks that can't be really measured but saying locals can conduct battalion-and-higher level operations by themselves (if that is indeed the case) goes a long way. then once those benchmarks are met announce complete withdrawal (no permanent bases, no security zone) in next few months.

That is if basis of neocon doctrine is spreading of democracy, not entrenching US influence and positions in Mideast
 
Invade Syria instead of Iraq, hoping that their status as former French colony will make them more positive to the neocon brand of French-bashing.
 
The core problem with Neo-Conservative ideology, as applied to the Middle East in the last 5-10 years, is that, in it's insistence that "all people want freedom" it makes two broad and usually fatal assumptions: the first is that all people understand freedom in the western sense of the term, and the second is that people who have freedom will immediately become happy, prosperous, and friendly to the West.
 
The essential and probably only problem with neoconservativism was the view that they could run things on the cheap. From there stems the lack of planning and the botched operations in Iraq (and to some extent in Afganistan).

Is that a problem with the doctrine? Well, yes and no, I don't think it is integral to the doctrine, but I do think it is integral for getting government support. I reckon had certain Neocons openly gone to the senate and asked for a multi-trillion dollar budget and hundreds of thousands of soldiers to settle affairs in Iraq they would have been laughed out of the room.
 
Top