"In World War II it was clearly understood that a successful conclusion to the war did not just mean the military defeat of the aggressor nations on the battlefield. It also meant the occupation of those nations, and the willingness to spend years re-creating them as tolerant, democratic societies. Indeed, US forces occupied Japan and Germany for longer than it took to fight the actual war. The result of that occupation, however, was the transformation of aggressive, totalitarian states into peaceful, liberal democracies. If we wish to see a similar result in Afghanistan or Iraq, then we must be also willing to bear an equal burden." - Dale Franks, a NY Times contributing Columnist (July 16, 2003)
This quasi-alturistic few of Germany and Japan’s transformation into 'good societies' by columnist Dale Franks is trying to be held up next to the possibilities of Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the author undermines and tries to compare the two different scenarios as the same variable factor, and then speculates that the same outcome, as if it were a mere function, should arise. The problem with this is, the author has left out four key aspects. (1) Availability of economic infrastructure in either situations, (2) Different teleological and political motivations for rebuilding the respective countries, (3) How the two wars were initiated and what that means for occupation and re-construction, and (4) How the corporations that were involved with re-building Europe are operating differently in the Iraq/Afghanistan context. The idea then, is that we must see that a 'good occupation' in reference to Germany, cannot simply be re-applied to Iraq, and in doing so, have horrific ramification for the Iraqi people.
Both Germany and Japan were highly industrialized, they had the capabilities and infrastructure that any other imperialist power had, and could therefore modernize and re-build quite a bit easier than either Afghanistan and Iraq. Germany was one of the most militarily and heavy-steel industrialized countries by the mid 1930s, as William Shirer speaks of in 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich': "Although violent in its inception, under Bismarck's rule the empire prospered and its economy and population grew rapidly. As the expanding and industrializing economy changed the way this rapidly expanding population earned its livelihood, Germany quickly became the industrial giant of Europe. " In contrast, Iraq - and certainly Afghanistan- do not have the same kind of already existing industry. The CIA World Factbook lists Iraq as having the 11th largest foreign debt in the world, and their industrial capabilities in the bottom 50. This debt is ten times larger than what Germany owed to the conquering powers, according to the Marshal Plan Foundation. In 1988, when Iraq was one of twenty countries that had the lowest infant mortality rates among the world, they had a good possibility of industrializing. Funny thing the Gulf War and US/UN sanctions happened. Their new infant mortality rate, as reported by the World Health Organization is now one of the worst in the world. Even after the defeat of Germany, holding wartime deaths out of the picture, the health and sanitation of Germany and the surrounding nations was still far superior. How can a country build an industrial force when it's basic health factors are among the worst in the world? Germany and Iraq are not starting from the foot in terms of industrialization.Political motives were different. In Germany, the Marshall Plan was not only an instrument of economic growth and re-building, it was a political tool use for ideological gains against the USSR. In the context of the cold war, the Soviets indeed put the US into a position to build up West Germany to serve as a buffer on this side of the Berlin Wall. When Germany was divided into 4 zones, the US set out quickly to make sure that it consolidated power and put their money together against Stalin's EASTERN zone. The context of the Cold War was indeed one of the primary factors for building Germany, as even the Navy's center for contemporary conflict reports. Coupled with not wanting to repeat the mistakes of not rebuilding Germany after WWI fearing another autocracy arise, the U.S. really had little choice in making sure that Germany was rebuilt. With Iraq however, there is no IRON CURTAIN, no huge force that could have a larger sway to pull a political and economic producer that Iraq is. Russia is not going to vie for power over Iraq's oil. The political motivations are supposedly a 'war on terror' - but Al Queda isn't going to be able to run Iraq. If any thing we see a larger problem arise: Iraq, a more secular Arab country, is certainly now a new haven for those who do want to push fundamentalist ideology in Iraq, as Tariq Ali insists on the left-wing "Democracy Now" last week. So our political motivations of 'stopping terrorism' - like we wanted to stop communism- seems rather un-intuitive. This is yet another ramification from misapplying Germany and Iraq in the same context: you will not see a 'de-Nazification' of sorts that happened in Germany, but instead increased hatred for the US.
What the author of the beginning quotation postulates is an outcome that can be parallel to Germany and Japan, yet the beginnings of the two wars were highly different. In this case, Germany was an aggressor - there was not a pre-emptive notion on behalf of the US/Allied forces. What this means is that Germany was also suffering from being an aggressor, its people had a different mentality- that of a conquered nation that was, by a European mentality, rightfully repelled and conquered - it was that of a cultural change as well, recognizing that most of them had been brain washed and forced to follow a dangerous Hitler into a World War. The fact is, the situations are completely different in context to how the two wars followed, and so the occupations will be very different as well. What the proprietors of 'Democratizing Iraq and rebuilding it the same as Germany' are ignoring, is the fact that Germany already had a semblance of Democracy before Hitler's fascism. Furthermore, the U.S. pre-emptive war on rather skeptical terms are not going to foster an environment that is going to be tolerant of US forces rebuilding and changing things. Even the right-wing Heritage foundation in a report issued 2 weeks ago agrees that in order for Iraq to actually foster support for US business environment in a less-than-hostile manor, the US must show that it is actively trying to establish a democracy and turn over the institution building to Iraqis. What is happening, however, is far short of the US actually trying to turn over democracy to Iraq. Post WWII Germany saw it’s democracy re-built from the ground up and with support of the united nation, not a unilateral us appointment of a governing council - which as Robert frisk of the London independent claims most Iraqis, as much as 80%, do not approve of. Yet it is in the interests of the US, and us business not to really develop Iraq’s infrastructure.
US-Anglo businesses- such as Ford Motor Company, McDonald Douglass and IBM helped develop the Third Reich, and of course helped to rebuild it as well. Funny how that happens: they profit from creating Hitler’s military industry, then the Allied military industry, and lastly reap rewards for re-building Europe. Yet the situation is not the same with Iraq, in that after Iraq nationalized it's oil industry in the 1960s, European and US forced began maneuvering to re-capture it. We did not get to have our hands in the control of Iraqi markets as much as we did in Europe. The motives from the very beginning were to reclaim what they really wanted. Whereas US companies did indeed benefit from the third Reich, they had more interests in actually re-building the economy to preserve trade and wealth - it was of greater benefit to build social structures on an already available industrialized power. In the case of Iraq, there is little benefit that corporations could see in building social structures - since they can keep the people in check and get what they want: the oil. Because the industries are not already there, and because there are not other resources to truly exploit, the only thing that could logically occur from a re-constituted local elite, a literate and healthy population in Iraq, would be for them to re-nationalize their industry - which the US does not want.What interests do US companies have to really present Iraq with a vital infrastructure to thrive, when that would just give them the tools to be self sufficient, and would allow an Arab power, a non imperialist power- bear in mind that both Germany and Japan were- to be a true competitor in the region? Why would the US companies and government was to create a country that could post a threat to the US's offshore military Base (as Noam Chomsky refers to Israel). There are little incentives. Most Iraqi youth are in agreement. In a World Link TV presentation of 'Chat the Planet' several US/Iraqi youth touched on the subject. The Americans during the program believed that the reasons why the "only infrastructure that was left standing by the end of May was that of the Iraqis oil ministry" was that it was what was needed to rebuild Iraq. One of Iraqi youth, WALID, who was overjoyed with his new freedom of being able to yell 'Saddam Sucks!" was furious with the apparent American’s overlooking a key detail: "It is not oil that children eat, we do not read oil to gain literacy, an oil bath will not cure a health problem. There was no need for the US to destroy an already weak ministry while leave the only one they really wanted intact.” His point was, that while an economy might be rebuilt, OIL is not what a social infrastructure could actually live on, could truly rebuild itself with ALONE. His insinuation was that it was the very intent of the US to destroy the other ministries, because it was not of their interests to have an active Iraqi population, especially because they knew, despite their remarks, that there would be resistance.
Concluding then, we have to look at the outcomes of the German/Japanese occupation by chiefly Anglo-American forces. Specifically with Germany, US paid a brunt of the 32 billion dollars that went into the plan - including 12 billion straight from US tax payers, the rest were low interest loans from US companies and organizations like the IMF. Looking at inflation costs over a 30-year period, that 12 billion is easily 108 billion dollars by today’s standards - and that was for Germany alone. Who got the majority of this money? Well, in the case of the Marshall plan, a lot of it did go to existing European markets to rebuild their respective fields. In Iraq and Afghanistan however, there are few existing large-scale markets. So in fact, the US tax payers- as we all probably know- are simply giving money to their own companies, which a simple class in macroeconomic theory shows us does not stimulate a foreign market and make it independent by building up It's own industries, but simply allows corporate hegemony to continue, and dependency to deepen. How is this good for Iraqi people? How can this promote a democracy to help build up a kensyian model of support and welfare thru ought the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan if they are not receiving the money? When it comes down to it, we have to observe that you cannot hold 2 different situations and try to place them in the same context. There is no cold war; there are no political favors or buffers that Iraq and Afghanistan can serve- the 'war on terror' is borderless, which gives the US a perfect alibi. What the Iraqis might gain from US/European occupation is some semblance of a democracy, at least more so than under Saddam Hussein, but it becomes obvious that the social infrastructures that could be built, are not in the interest for US companies to do so. Why create more competition and pay out of pocket to have a country nationalize their markets once again, if it will serve no purpose to you? The proponents that Iraq could be another ‘good occupation’ are allowing for this mentality to take hold, which further endangers, not helps Iraqi people and American servicemen both suffering from US occupation.
« return.