Friday, October 24, 2003

Oh, this is a good one: Susan Rice, writing today in the NYT (the terrorist world's favorite newspaper) talks about the comparisons of Bush's postwar Iraq plans to the Marshall plan since apparently the president himself as been making them. It's kind of a silly comparison already (unless the unwillingness of Europe to help in both occasions should count as a similarity) but Ms. Rice's piece is even sillier. For example,

"The goal was not only to rebuild Europe but also to encourage former adversaries to form partnerships that could endure after United States assistance ended. The plan succeeded so well that Europe has followed the road of cooperation all the way to the European Union."
Oh yay! :-P It also succeeded so well that for fifty years the Soviet Union blockaded Eastern Europe from the rest of it and they all lived in fear of nuclear war and communist aggression.

"The Bremer plan recalls the cold war era, when the United States pumped billions into corrupt dictators' coffers and asked questions later."
All this from the newspaper that wants Saddam Hussein back in power and defended nations like France and Russia who sold illegal weapons to the Iraqis in exchange for oil. Very interesting.

"The Marshall Plan was also devised to be finite in cost and duration."
I'll bet it was. We've still got troops in Germany though, and their economy is quite dependent on it, to say nothing of their defense system.

"We cannot afford to fail in Iraq. Congress has a responsibility to examine the president's request thoroughly — and it should heed the central lesson of the Marshall Plan and use Mr. Bremer's billions to help unite Iraqis in rebuilding their country."
This is true. We should learn the lesson of the Marshall Plan: It's better to do things yourself than rely on allies, particularly European allies. Postwar Germany, divided between communist Russia and the US, with Britain and France ended up worse off than postwar Japan where the United States ran things. Why do we want to get them involved in governing Iraq? If you support freedom in Iraq, say it with money. Keep your troops where they'll do the most good. At home.

I'm all for uniting the Iraqis but Ms. Rice's article gives no idea how to do this, other than "let the Iraqis decide" how to run their country. The international community once pressured Britain into giving up its African colonies, making them sovereign states overnight and many of them still struggle with anarchy. The Iraqis already govern themselves more than they did under Hussein, although the Shiites would like to take his place. People used to thirty years of oppression aren't ready to govern themselves immediately as is evidenced by the constant riots. Give me a break. And we haven't even been in Iraq a year! Why on earth would you want to follow the mode of plan that has kept us in Germany for over fifty? Perhaps when the President compares the two, he should say, "Let's make of this a Marshall Plan that actually works."

Then again, apparently Ms. Rice was assistant secretary of state for African Affairs under President Clinton. Her idea of a war on terror is probably blowing up an aspirin factory in Sudan.
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/opinion/24RICE.html?th">

Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?