|
|
October 29, 2003
"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.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Michael Newton-McLaughlin
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
Simon Moss | Nov 11th, 2003
Bravo Sir. Well argued. You make some interesting points about the oversimplifications made by Franks and others. A question I'm left with though - what can we do to change this perception?
what can we do? Michael Newton-McLaughlin | Nov 11th, 2003
"Speak truth to power" is a quotation that comes to mind. If you hear these types of fallacious comparisons being made, say something about it. Most of us are not in positions to stand up in front of a TV camera and get a message to a large audience, so we must do what we can: set an example by not being silent... indeed... those who stay silent let others make choices (or policy) for them.
asdf | Nov 11th, 2003
You made some good points, some which I hadn't truly considered before. Your quotation from Walid captured the point. One question which arose during the read was why did the US permit Germany's self-determined economic recovery after WWI, rather than monopolize its industries as is the case in Iraq?
With further consideration, why does the US preserve Iraq's national oil industry? Surely private ownership would further rebuilding and benefit the US and its corporations.
Of course, virtually all other sectors of Iraq's ecomony have been privitized, except for its resource industries. And though this privitization is illegal, (Naomi Klein summed it up nicely - http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031124&s=klein ) there still exists hope Iraq's Governing Council may exercise enough sense and eventually act in Iraq's interest and cancel existing privitization contracts.
The above is really fucking upsetting though. Shame on you Washington (under Bush) for extolling the virtues of law and order then contemptuously flouting them.
Iraq used to be an Arab leader in their standard of living and vitality of their society. As early as 1988, as you pointed out, Iraq enjoyed considerable health, literally. Oil has been Iraq's ticket to this livlihood. The infrastructure is now damaged, but the crude resources exist to effectively rebuild the country. Germany had steel, oil is Iraq's steel.
That pronouced, the incentive to rebuild Iraq may enter into question. You argue that since Iraq is becoming a new haven for fundamentalist ideology, US efforts at 'stopping terrorism' are counter-intuitive. Ineffective, most certainly, but I think it's rather intuitive to remain in Iraq and persist in the rebuilding.
It's most likely Iraq's destabled society and peoples' disenfranchisement which fuels anger and violence toward the occupiers. Addressing the roots of this would better help alleviate it. Now more than ever American's lives rely on Arab's positive sentiment toward them. I think this provides sufficient political will for the US to properly rebuild Iraq. As you pointed out with the Heritage Foundation Report, Iraqis will not tolerate anything less than noble attempts at democratic market reform.
The quagmire the US had created for itself begs continued help. Perhaps though, fighting terrorism should encompass more in reality than night-time raids and bombing campaigns.
I agree America's proceedings toward improving Iraq are sketchy, and it's personally unsettling to consider the sheer number of US troops needlessly surrounding Iraq's oil ministries, during the war, while cherished treasure in national museams literally around the corner were pillaged despite much advanced warning. On the whole though, the incentive to rebuild Iraq extends beyonds immediate economics. At least issues publicly embraced are more important at heart.
We can, or should, all agree that the US didn't invade Iraq for it's "WMDs", nor to "liberate" its people. Oil is a good reason, but that's a tough sell considering US insistance in preserving the industry in national hands. According to words of senior administration officials and written objectives of America's political and military establishment, Iraq's transformation to a stable democracy and model for neighbouring Arab states would serve the greatest utility for American interest. The region has been a mess for a while, and is the most concentrated threat to American interests. (I can't say security because there are environmental threats far greater than well-founded anti-americanism). To protect global American supremacy and people's perceptions of America Iraq's transformation is an important pillar. Already Iran has been complying with UN nuclear inspectors. And though Iraqi economics have plagued America thus far, the possibility of a thriving Iraq/Middle East economy to peddle American goods is definitely enticing.
The political will is most certainly there to succeed in rebuilding Iraq, if not longer-term economic will.
I agree with you on a number of points though.
Raymond M. Kristiansen | Nov 11th, 2003
A very good essay, and one which I would like to spread to other people. Luke's comments were well considered too. I think this topic is an important one, and we should try to spread our messages in our diverse local media. I will look at ways I can do that here in Norway.
Thanks Jacob Michael Newton-McLaughlin | Nov 14th, 2003
Thank you for your sincere response... and i'll address one of your comments. I do not think Iraq was all about oil, but for different reasons than you. You say: "Oil is a good reason, but that's a tough sell considering US insistance in preserving the industry in national hands." The problem with this, is that empirical evidence (I.E. the people we have supported in the past who control oil producing countries) does not support that we will actually allow full Iraqi controll over their resources. But moreover, there are usually not HUGE returns for oil trading right out of the gates, and oil commodity futures tend not to be that great in the long run as is. No, i think Iraq was equally about prostration of economic and global supremacy, as well as it is about continuing to build up other markets that do rely on stable oil (timber, mining, roads and infrastructure, energy, etc...) - so really, it does benefit the oil companies a little, but overall, we have to see that all these people (a poor generalization, i hope you know what I mean) are in the pockets of one another. Business is business. No, I think it's just another step in US hegemonic actions concentrated into the hands of some leaders who want world domination.
What i wanted to do, was to get people to think and respond to what I wrote (write). I acheived my goal, in the end, no matter if people agree or not.
asdf | Nov 14th, 2003
Agreed. Though there's an irony that those who read your writing are likely already those thinking open-mindedly.
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
