The continuing trauma of World War II leads reader Richard Heddleson to make some thoughtful observations. He cites Glenn Reynolds:

Back when I was practicing law, one of my clients -- the president of the American subsidiary of a European company, a Pole who had lived through World War Two under circumstances that would make a good thriller/tearjerker movie -- said that he thought Europe was suffering massive psychological trauma from the world wars, and that it would take a century for it to recover, if it ever did.

Then Richard says:

It made me think about the fact that the only European country from which we get support is the UK, the only European combatant not
conquered and occupied in devastating fashion in either war. They had the blitz, which was not a picnic, but also not the same as being overrun. Spain too was not occupied in either war, but they were somewhat and very careful collaborators as were the Swedes.

It also made me think about the American South. It seems to me, as a Yankee, that the South was not fully reintegrated back into the country until after the civil rights struggle eliminated the Jim Crowism that survived into the 60's. Also a century, as the Polish gentleman said. I think that was one reason Lott's comments, however oblique and unintentional, were immediately unsupportable to almost everyone. I heard a deafening silence from his Southern colleagues. No one wants that wound, finally but barely healed, to be re-opened.

The U. S. has gone pretty far down the learning curve on occupation and seems to now do it well, at least in western countries. And that is the one thing that bothers me about the talk of the Iraq occupation. It seems we will have to be there for at least 25 years to do it right. But everyone is talking 2-5 years. Maybe that's just because they think they can't sell anything longer up front. Realistically, our commitment needs to be much greater than that. Our value add should be sufficient that even after 25 years Iraq is not clamoring for our withdrawal, as Germany and Japan do not after 50 years.

What I worry about most is that in the immediate conflict we will not defeat those in and out of Iraq sufficiently to allow us to occupy and rebuild it without effective guerilla resistance, something we never had in Germany or Japan because of our total victory. We will then leave under pressure, prematurely, with the job undone as we did in 1991. Only after another, yet greater, conflagration, grows from the fire we failed to fully bank will we then send a Sherman to the Middle East and be able to pacify an utterly devastated region. I sure hope we have the patience to do it right the second time, because it will be a lot more expensive the third.

Peace may be the hardest part of war.

I have little to add except that in October 2001 I wrote,

Almost everywhere in the world where international terrorism grows we find poverty and human oppression, especially toward women. Tribalism and ethnic hatred also remain strong. We Americans are more free of these oppressions than almost any other people. We and our western allies must lead the way out for those people. It will take a new kind of national commitment. It will cost a fortune. It will require new kinds of armies, armies not of soldiers but of engineers, agriculturalists, financiers, administrators and educators.

It will take decades and there are no guarantees. But the alternative is to fight culture and religious wars generation after generation.