>Schools, police stations, roads, bridges, community centers, power stations, sewage systems, etc all fall into 'nation building.' They are all 'things'

Well I still say that those are more along the lines of "goodwill gestures" to build trust and confidence in the people and the real objective behind "nation building" is to change the mentality of "the people".

For example, the original "plan" for the Iraq invasion had no "nation building" included and the troops leaving very quickly after victory. It was assumed that the nation was "built" and that the people would be overjoyed with Saddam's demise and take control for themselves. At best there may have been 'plans' to repair destroyed (in the war) structures, but no "nation building".



>
>>>>>>>>>>US has military presence in Japan, Germany and in other ex-"enemies" countries. Do they feel like they're being occupied?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>People forget this. At some point it went from occupation to being a guest.
>>>
>>>>No. I was just wondering why you would say that. Not that I disagree with your statement.
>>>
>>>I have the biography of Hirohito which should explain how the allies (mainly the US) was able to win over the population. I'll try to read it this fall. It is really a long book. :-)
>>>
>>>I'd like to see if I can find a similar book about the occupation of Germany to find out why the nation building worked there too.
>>>
>>>Both the Germans and the Japanese had cenuturies of viewing "the west" (England, France, the US) as enemies, but within 10 or so years, the occupying allies turned them into friends. A friendship which lasts today.
>>
>>
>>Why do you say those were "nation building" efforts?
>>Yes, they were helping to build the destroyed structures, but I believe "nation building" refers to the people/politics of a country, not its "things".