| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Will there be a Marshall Plan for Iraq? |
| 2003-04-16 |
| I sometimes wonder how we get anything done, given the constant level of sharpshooting going on against us... Lawrence Smallman What does the United States want Iraq to look like in 2010? It will spend billions of Iraqi dollars on the post war reconstruction, but will it look to short or long term interests? If it considers long term interests, then the US will have to spend billions of its own dollars in rebuilding Iraq. The fear is that the US will fall into recent practice and offer dysfunctional minimal assistance for short term gain. It is well known throughout the political world that the US does not have a very good track record after winning wars, according to the Washington Post. He means that's what WaPo reporters tell each other over brie and white wine... The never-ended Korean War and America’s hurried exit from the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan in the 1980s are examples of US failures to end a conflict in a way that meets both short and long-term national interests. Korean War ended in an armistice. North Korea's a Stalinist dictatorship. We were supposed to rebuild it? The South, on the other hand, scrabbled its way out of the war's devastation while we stood guard — and invested. We weren't involved in Afghanistan except as sponsors in the war against the Sovs. Since a somewhat more severe set of problems existed at that time than prevail in Afghanistan today, I'm glad we weren't involved. I guess the WaPo lunch crowd doesn't think that way, huh? The willingness of the US to allow the UN to administer (or try to administer) reconstruction in Afghanistan after their invasion in 2001 was a convenient way of avoiding direct responsibility for Afghanistan’s current lack of investment. Oh, yeah. We did that on purpose. Nobody said, "Let the UN do it". Nobody accused the U.S. of invading Afghanistan for commercial gain. Did they? US unwillingness to allow the UN to administer rebuilding in Iraq, however, doesn’t give a sense of what US administration plans may be. It gives a sense of what we think of the jobs the UN has done in the past, however... Over the last 40 years, the United States has typically focused on short-term interests, and failed to take into account the consequences of not footing the bill. The notable exception has been the reconstruction of post war Japan under the military administration of General Douglas MacArthur and the post war reconstruction of Europe, initiated by Secretary of State George Marshall (The Marshall Plan). In both cases, the United States led the effort, concentrating on setting up a framework for economic recovery, and governance acceptable to the West. These frameworks enabled both countries to be economically, politically and socially integrated into the international community. I think we've already announced that that's what we intend for Iraq. Hasn't this guy been listening? What will cause us not to follow through? Islamic nut cases screaming "Death to the Great Satan" in the streets, taking potshots at our troops, and resolutely refusing to behave like civilized human beings. This is Iraq's big chance to become the pearl of the Middle East. So far, only SAIRI's overtly trying to blow it, but others will hop on board once the fires are out and the bodies are cold. |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #2 The delightfully named Mr. Smallman lives down to his name, hmm? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-04-16 16:17:03 |
| #1 Urrgh. So let me get this straight. In the past, we supposedly cut and run after removing a threat in a particular country (say, Afghanistan) and didn't think about a "long-term" commitment. Right. Well, we weren't interested in "occupying" them and telling them how to run their countries. That's what we're supposed to do right? But no; that lead to a lot of messes. So we need to have a long-term plan, like we did in Japan and Germany after WWII. Well, that amounted to several years of outright occupation and a military government before power was handed over (with an American-drafted constitution in Japan's case) to civilian control. So we have to stay engaged over the long term and ensure stability, security, reconstruction and a clean transition to democracy, but we're not allowed to "occupy" a country or in any way dictate terms to the Iraqis. We can't leave, but we can't stay either. So what the hell is it we're supposed to do? As Homer Simpson once told Bart and Lisa (if memory serves): "Kids, you tried your hardest and didn't succeed. The lesson is, never try." |
| Posted by: JTE 2003-04-16 15:18:02 |