|
|
| 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.
|
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.
|
|
