I said “your definition” in reference the definition of Nation building you posted. so I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. So let me be clear
In case you are wondering about “latest”, your first attempt at defining nation building was “nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator”. I was too busy laughing at the “turned brutal dictator” part to notice it was your original definition of “nation building”.
Why I stated "ally turned brutal dictator" was a reflection of American policy and views toward him. He was not always seen as brutal. In the 1970 the U.S. desperately wanted to work with Gaddafi to get bases in Libya for staging points. When that fell through he we were basically thrown out and then in the mid-1970's he was considered persona non grata. Things cooled and got hot again in 1986 when Reagan bombed him in retaliation for Beirut. 20 years later in 2006 Libya and Gaddafi were taken off the "state sponsored terrorist list" and in 2001 Gaddafi publically came out against the 9/11 WTC attacks. So I'm trying to depict the up and down nature of America's views toward Gaddafi and not making a blanket personal statement or judgement of who or what I think he was.
I’ve never disputed the activities of the CIA. I’m disputing your attempt to say “hey, the CIA overthrows democracies all the time” as proof that its possible the CIA could be the “armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy”
Well that's a strawman since I never said either of those things. What I'm saying is since the CIA was on the ground, the possibility exists that they were there to do just that - work with the opposition and depose Gaddafi. History shows you don't use the CIA to direct traffic and there's a history of the CIA's secret and clandestine activities.
Its laughable because it’s a false analogy. A coup does not take a lot of people nor does it require us to supply “boots on the ground” and it requires no long term commitment.
The CIA doesn't initiate and follow through with a coup, they set the coup up. I'm not saying the CIA did that in Libya but it's certainly possible for reasons I've already stated.
Nation building not only requires “Boots on the ground” it requires a lot of “boots on the ground” and a long term commitment. There simply is no comparison between what we did in Iraq and what we did in Libya.
Iraq certainly worked out that way, but I don't agree that's all it takes. Why is it that the US cannot support an opposition group to be boots on the ground by proxy? The entire purpose of the military action in Libya was to give control of the country back to the people and in so doing, removing Gaddafi from his power base. Perhaps we can agree that whatever was done by whomever in Libya was a failure ...
Its not denial. I clearly pointed out your assertion we are “ nation building in Libya” does not me the latest the definition of “nation building” you posted (the one from wiki, not the laughable one you made up).
I've only ever used the Wiki version as the example - so what would you call the actions in 2011 in Libya then if not nation building?
I can also use the example of nation building in Iraq. Since you are so committed to your “nation building” narrative, how come we had to have 150,000 boots on the ground in Iraq for 9 years?
The answer to that changed many times over the years. If you're asking what I think it was, it was initially to oust Saddam and install a pupped government to benefit the US but then security issues occurred and we did not leave, and it then became a military police state / security mission.
How come we just didn’t send in 20 or so CIA agents?
Iraq wasn't stable enough and there was little to no plan of succession should that have occurred. After the 2 weeks of fighting in Iraq after the initial invasion would have been the time to do it, but everything was in a shambles. I think Bush underestimated and had little to no plan on what to do after the fighting was over.
The correct answer is because we were nation building in Iraq. See how Iraq so effortlessly fits the definition of “nation building” you posted. No games necessary.
So only your view of what nation building is correct using Iraq as an example, and nation building can never deviate or be utilized in a different way because: Iraq. You're keen to point out logical fallacy, take a shot at what fallacy you just barfed up right there.
If you disagree state why and stop making accusations like you know what my motives are or have some insight into my intent. You don't and it's ignorant and rude.