$1:
We are good at a conventional war and thrashing an enemy in the field but the days of the British Raj or USMC committing what is now seen as war crimes are over.
Isn’t that the way you guys want it?
I'm super busy, wanted to reserve this spot. I'll write up a detailed reply later on.
However it's far more than the excuse of "we can't murder your peasants so we lose wars”. I think it's far more than that. Capabilities are certainly being questioned.
When the Africans started fighting for their independence, torture and summary executions was still quite a common tool to placate insurgencies. Yet for all their efforts, the military victories, the large scale killings, the Colonial powers kept loosening their grip.
Some, such as Algeria, Mozambique, and Angola broke out into full scale civil wars that required colonial powers to deploy large divisions to said colonies.
Only 100 years before, these people were throwing spears and fighting with swords. How did this happen? I believe it was the transfer of technology. The power balance was no longer as slanted. The creation of the AK-47 was a big factor. International weapons dealers too.
Ultimately if a nation today didn't want to be occupied, grass roots uprisings are more likely to be successful, and if not, at least destructive enough to create and ungovernable territory that would force a rethink by the colonials.
Now, keep in mind western nations are representative of their tribal/and national linguistic origins, while former colonies, and even non colonies through migration and other circumstances are more heterogeneous and the leadership is not inclusive of all groups (Ethiopia is a great example). That's where the power vacuum is created.
But if the west was indeed powerful enough, it should have successfully not only crushed the Mau Mau rebellion, but also re-imposed order in Kenya. Yet it failed to do so. It killed thousands, tortured, detained, and who knows what else. But it failed to re-impose order. The tribal chiefs leading the rebellion went straight back in the bush (as they do today against some of their own despotic leaders) and kept fighting a guerilla war, stifling the economies and creating never ending wars of attrition. Britain either didn't seem to have the power to cope, or simply decided to say fuck it. France didn't have the power to cope with Algeria. And Portugal actually lost the war in Angola altogether as opposed to ceding to demands instead and saving some face.
Historians today claim that the west simply didn't care to keep their colonial possessions due to WW2 costs. But was that really the case? If they didn't care why did so many fight wars well after WW2 to keep them? And they still failed to do so?!
Perhaps they are not as powerful and almighty as they thought they were. Perhaps the speedy withdrawal in the 60s and 70s from other colonies peacefully was to prevent inevitable and likely unwinnable wars.
Remember, attacking and toppling a government is not the same as occupying and holding a nation. When Napoleon invaded Russia, he took Moscow, and yet the scope of the impending disaster didn't dawn on the French until withdrawal began. Historians are still debating whether he was surprised that the Russian Tsar didn't accept defeat because his capital fell. He did not play by the traditional European "rules".
This is very similar to the end of colonialism, and the many wars western powers have fought since. They were generally not impressive. Human rights or not.
Sorry, a bit long winded. I'll add more when I'm not in a boring meeting full of douchebebags (myself included
). And typing on a blackberry is like trying to stick each finger in multiple assholes all next to each other.
CKA Uber 
CKA Elite 
