Ciao!

I hope.

I hope.

But I doubt. What sets the three cases mentioned above apart from the Iraqi case is that Italy, Germany and Japan at that point of time have been fairly homogenous societies. Iraq is not. There are domestic tensions and distrust among the ethnic groups. Will that undermine legitimacy of the new government and of the new system?

Perhaps. But I'm not so sure about how homogenous Italy (or even Germany) were. There was some tension between Catholic Bavarians & other Germans, for example. And Italy was (and still is) rife w/ regionalist cleavages between the north & south. But your point is valid, of course.

I'm not suggesting that occupation by the US will automatically lead to democracy. Only that this isn't the first case of such an attempt. And that, historically, occupation by a democratic regime has more frequently led to democratic consolidation.

BTW, despite these two references being in the only things we read for tonight's 640, almost everyone answered JB's question on what the authors said about whether democracy could be successfully imposed (we briefly discussed the Iraqi context) w/ the negative ("no, it can't"). Which left me wondering if anyone had bothered to do any reading at all.

I wouldn't say categorically no to the question can democracy be impased.

I think the cleavages in Iraq are different to the German and Italy cleavages. Just imagine the Sunni's being blamed for atrocities by Saddam. They have technically blood on their hands.

I am looking at Kosovo instead where foreign forces are present - and clashes between Serbs and Albanians still happen. That's why I am sceptical.

I agree, the German/Italy analogies weren't perfect by any means. Perhaps more so the Italian one, since the northern regions were more pro-Fascist, and even held out as a briefly constructed new regime after the Allies occupied the south and the official government surrendered.

And I'm not so sure about the Kosovo case. First, because the UN force never "defeated" any side, it just stepped in as an arbiter. That's a completely different proposition than the one facing Iraq (or post-war Germany, Italy, Japan, Austria). There is still no successful case of democratization shepherded by a UN peacekeeping force.

Also, people tend to forget that the violence in Germany continued well after 1945, w/ sporadic SS resistance (against both occupation forces & "collaborationist" post-war regimes/politicians) well into 1948. And direct allied military control over the country didn't end until then, either. By all accounts, it seems that Iraq is moving much faster in some regards. Which gives room for optimism.

It's OK to be skeptical. It's OK to be optimistic. What bothers me is that I get the feeling that some people (not you, Meli, but you know the types I mean: Kerry, Boxer, Moore, Pilger, etc.) go beyond pessimism to seemingly want Iraq to fail simply because it's more important that Iraq fail & turn into a total disaster, if it can be laid on Bush's doorstep, than for it to succeed, despite it being a Bush project.