Today we had an item on the news about the disillusioned american troops after the falling of Fallujah in Iraq. The correspondent showed us how american troops are trying to cope with the worsening situation in Iraq since the coalition forces left Iraq a few years ago. I can imagine they are disappointed and wondering what their contribution was to stabalizing the country, while it now is destabilizing rapidly and Al Qaida is taking over.
I can, in one way, understand the international community leaving Iraq after almost a decade of being there, trying to stabilize the country. But was it rational? Didn't they, the politicians, already know it would turn out like this? Or did they hope and think: this is right for now and problems are my successor's problems. I am not sure.
Changing a whole society can not be done in just a few years. Although politicians love to believe and tell the general public it can be done. Or they just have a short term goal to show, in this case, they could remove Saddam Hussein, but did not have a real or stable alternative.
Changing a country, a whole society takes at least one generation, in other words at least fourty years. And politicians nowadays do not have that time.
Over ten years later, the politicians/leaders of then are out of office and men and women in power now have to deal with the consequences. It is an unsolvable problem in politics I think. One hopes for certain results, but can not oversee all possible parameters influencing those results leaving the next one with the problems.
One sollution could be going back to some form of colonialism. I think, and may even believe, some sort of colonisation would help reaching our goals, both for security and helping developing countries grow. I think in certain Asian countries (like India) it helped. Although it probably was not intended, because it was the old form of colonialism.
I think with the decline of power of the old colonial powers, mostly being the European countries, the new superpowers are in some way affraid of the general public opinion (except maybe for Russia). Because in the current time colonialism is perceived as bad, because, among other things, it brought slavery. It is not accepted. And I fully understand that.
But what if we would invent a form of colonialism that is good for both parties and could be perceived as okay?
A stable country, with a thriving economy and some form of wealth, is our best garantuee of safety from terrorism. At the same time you help the locale people to evolve to another level of civilisation. Something that is being tried trough the UN in the last 50 years.
In my opinion it means starting a government with our people, or at least locals educated in the west, at the top and over the decades, slowly, tiny step by tiny step, handover power to the local people. It involves educating people (all ages), investing in the economy, learning the locale culture and customs, willing to accept and appreciate the culture and not fully ridicule it.
And yes, in some cases it involves some form of military intervention. Not something to take lightly, but also not to be ruled out.
In the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or any other country being a
shelter for terrorists it could help. When we believe that our form of society,
together with democracy and some form of wealth is in the end the best way to bring more peace and quiet to the world, should we not invent
that form of colonialism I was talking about?
It takes time, patience, courage and determination to do this. In other words, it takes leadership. But when it is for the right cause, it could be an awnser to the problems we have been and are still facing mostly in the Middle-East and Africa.
