US and Britain face difficulties in Iraq. It looks like things go out of hand. All this causes TRIZniks to wonder what are the recipes of success in occupying other countries ? (What else TRIZniks should wonder about if not recipes, methods, algorithms, trends, patterns, etc. ?)
A glance over the political science literature reveals no such recipes, methods, or algorithms. Meanwhile, the history of civilization accumulated numerous examples of occupation, both successful and otherwise. Why would not analyze them in the spirit of TRIZ and work out recommendations on how to succeed in occupying other peoples ?
As the first step, the database of examples has to be created. Let us start it by recalling the history books we have ever read (without a guarantee of 100% historical accuracy, though).
Rome used to occupy other peoples by offering them protection from their enemies, order, and stability. If this did not work, they simply crushed the resisting peoples.
Later, Rome also resorted to granting the Roman citizenship to the occupied peoples. Even later, the worshiping of emperors was introduced and enforced. Thereby the domestic gods were reduced to the second-tier gods. The first-tier and the supreme ones became the living Roman emperors. Basically, a new global religion was built on the foundation of the domestic religions.
All these measures cemented the occupied peoples around Rome and made the Roman occupation a success.
Georgia and the Central Asia were occupied by offering protection and stability. In addition, the local aristocracy was granted the highest possible Russian nobility titles. For example, the top Georgian aristocrats became the Russian princes.
Occupation of Europe by Napoleon was a success because the occupier used to abolish religion in the occupied countries and the rights of aristocracy and landlords to land in favor of the middle-class. As soon as he did not do the same in Russia, he lost.
The British usually occupied countries not as a result of lightning-wars but rather as a result of crawling expansion. They could initially negotiate permission to establish trade colonies, which would also benefit the local rulers. After that they could negotiate bringing troops to protect the warehouses of the colonies. After that they could resort to many other moves, each of which gradually benefited both them and the locals (not to the equal degree, of course) and eventually established their firm rule over the peoples.
The whole existing social hierarchy used to be turned up side down, religion used to be abolished, "who was nobody used to become a ruler". Thereby, the mass support was guaranteed.
Nazis used to come as liberators of peoples from Jews. In the short run it worked. But as soon as Jews were purged, the occupied people realized the truth: they were simply duped and robbed rather than "liberated". Such an occupation could not be a success.
Initially a success because relieved the Arab population from starvation, high unemployment, and absence of elementary human rights they suffered under the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation. After the people was fed, no further steps followed. The things soured ...
Any TRIZnik can now see that to succeed in occupying of other people, one has to:
Has anything of this been done by the US and the heirs of Pitt ?