|
|
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
|
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.
|
|
