{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03148301574150787, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033140016570008283, 'mean_word_length': 5.009950248756219, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The American Occupation Regime in Comparative Perspective

Taking as a starting point the case of Iraq, it is argued that the administration of this country by the Coalition from May 2003 onward, is an American example of a culture-bound type of occupation. Already in the early eighteenth-century international differences in occupation regimes between France, England, and the Dutch Republic are discernable. Therefore, in all likelihood, the United States also developed in the course of their history a characteristic pattern of controlling foreign territories. This American modus occupandi could very well stem from the English style of occupying, but may differ in two important respects: it usually is a “short-winded affair,” and it can either come down to a rather peaceful “laissez-faire” or to a war-like type of occupation. Finally, the question is discussed in how far such a style of occupation can result in a more or less “constructive” form of foreign domination. In the author’s impression, occupational “success” or “failure” probably depends as much, if not more, on the state of the occupied system—to wit, the degree of unison between native elites—as on the strategy of the occupant.