W.I.: US tries to breed a new Americanized “hybrid” culture in Iraq?

The press bias, however much, was not the issue. One of the issues about what we in the west think of as democracy is that if you get 51% of the vote the other 49% still have some say and certain inviolable rights and privileges. This idea of democracy evolved over time, and, no matter the myth, was not complete as we know it on July 5, 1776. What has been the case in societies that are "tribal", whether in formal tribes, ethnic groups, or religious groups, is that democracy is one man one vote, one time. Once one tribe or coalition has secured a majority, the "will of the people" allows the majority to ride roughshod of the minority/minorities. Getting away from this ingrained cultural thinking takes time, and can happen either in an evolutionary fashion or formally imposed.

To change Iraq (or Afghanistan, or any number of other countries) to accepting these norms of the rights and privileges of the minority takes time, lots of it. It takes a specific plan to do this, not just we'll have elections with minimal outright ballot box stuffing. The USA was never committed to "running" Iraq for 20-40 years, enforcing (and I do mean enforcing) cultural change not just 'setting an example". To maintain the military and civil service needed to do this would have required a draft/mandatory government service, it would have been highly expensive and probably not covered by oil revenues - after all a good chunk of oil money would need to be spent on infrastructure, education etc for the Iraqis and not the costs of the "occupation". Historically very few colonies made money, and often that was because the resources were raped and very little spent on improvements which is not the plan here.

IMHO the ASB would be to make the USA willing to have a consistent policy to truly change Iraq and then to carry it forward 20-40 years. If Skippy does that, you could get a true cultural change - it's not that it can't be done, just you need the patience and will to do it.
 
Item: when Saddam's psychopathic sons Uday and Qusay were cornered and killed, there was much public rejoicing in Baghdad. One prominent American jounalist, reporting this, insisted that it was not clear what Iraqis really felt, and that the celebratory gunfire could be an expression of uncertainty and worry about the future.

All this sounds like spectacularly selective cherry picking. The overwhelming bulk of the American media was a major cheerleader for the Iraq war and occupation. I vividly recall the pictures of Uday and Qusay's corpses being shown on American news to 'reassure children.'

Questions did not start to be asked until the occupation was clearly a mess, and even then, there was very little challenge to the glowing narrative.
 
It is one thing to be critical; it is another to be reflexively hostile.
If we are comparing everything with Germany and Japan post WWII, can we really talk about media without discussing communist commentators that where just as hostile to anything American and potentially quite popular at the time in certain parts?
 
Top