I like the editorial tone that this article takes - nation-building is an exercise in imperialism, and imperialism rarely turns out well. That being said, how to reconcile an anti-nation-building POV with a POV that supports the necessity of the Iraq war in the first place. If the coalition was right to invade Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam/WMDs, is there any way to have done that without committing to a nation-building exercise? Would it have been conceivable/practical/possible to tear down the infrastructures of governance and civil society and then just leave a vacuum in their place? After all, that's what happened when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan - and look what happened there (civil war, neighbouring countries trying to shape the state to their own ends, Taliban rule). - So, long question short, is it possible to support the Iraq war without supporting a nation-building effort, and if so, how to build the nation? AliceBG 11:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- I'm unaware of a tone likening nation-building to Imperialism. Aren't democracy and Imperialism opposites? And not all conservatives supported the invasion - even though the Senate gave bipartisan support for it. --Ed Poor Talk 19:04, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- Ed - the nation-building=imperialism is me. I'm always glad to see refutations of imperialist ideologies - and there's no doubt that spreading democracy at the point of a gun is an exercise in imperialism - no matter what guise they take. As for conservative opposition to the war, that may be the case, but a quick look at the tone of this wiki's talk boards and relevant articles suggests a distinct pro-war bias. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it can be a legit mainstream position...but one that needs to be reconciled with this article.AliceBG 19:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)