Sunday, September 14, 2008
Thinking of historical comparisons (that are, of course, completely uncomparable)
It seems to me that people's memories are very short. As a historian, I was thinking about something recently. The Marshall Plan, or the European Recovery Program (ERP) was established to rebuild Europe following WWII. It took over for previous aid that had been being given to European countries since 1945. The Marshall Plan lasted for four years, from 1947-1951. This made a grand total of six years of official assistance to European countries after the end of the war. Now, I was thinking, if it took us six years to rebuild Europe after WWII, where we were always seen as liberators and we didn't have extremists trying to derail our every effort, it seems that we are ahead of the game in Iraq. After all, six years of official aid to friendly countries, followed by, now, almost 60 years of a permanent military presence with bases in Germany and Britain specifically. So, in Iraq, "official" operations ended when? In May of 2003 if the "Mission Accomplished" sign is to be believed, which for the purpose of this exercise in thought will be accepted since that was the end of "conventional" warfare. So, we are five years removed from the end of the conventional "war" and finally things look like maybe they are getting cleared up over there. We can only hope this is true. After all, U.S. forces are supposed to be pulling out from patrolling the country into traditional military bases and then begin pulling out of the country entirely. Iraq and the U.S. both agree that the long-term goal is the removal of all U.S. troops and that the "long-term" goal is to be as soon as possible, not indefinitely. So, six years of reconstruction in Europe followed by 60 years of military presence that has no end in sight versus 5 years so far of reconstruction, with more to come I hope since we do have a responsibility to clean up our mess, and followed by an as yet to be determined date of withdrawal. Hmm... that seems like maybe a better deal than the Europeans gave us since they basically reneged on their own security needs, leaving them up to us. This of course was all to hold off the aggression of the "evil empire" as Reagan put it. At least Iraq is expressing an interest in taking over their own security needs, which I'm all for. We should get out as soon as we can and get out we will (as opposed to Europe where we still provide long-term security needs), but in cooperation with the Iraqi people and government, not simply because being there is unpopular.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Why not bail on Europe? That sounds like their problem. We were attacked, invoked the NATO charter, and not everyone helped. Anyone who didn't help should get an immediate 100% foreign aid and troop reduction, and be expelled from the alliance.
Well, actually NATO is helping and sort of being supportive in Afghanistan. Not that that is much help since things were actually going well there when it was just us but have gone steadily downhill since NATO started to "help". Anyway, Europeans see Afghanistan as the front in this war. They find it justifiable and the source of the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps they are right, but that would be why they are helping in Afghanistan and not in Iraq. The reason they (France) won't help in Iraq is because they were making millions off the corruption in Iraq's oil for food program, so it wasn't in their best interests.
Europe helps in Afghanistan and not Iraq because they can see cause and effect. Afghanistan sheltered and aided the extremists. Iraq was merely a personal grudge by the Bush family. Even the US Intelligence agencies admitted they were wrong on "WMD's" in Iraq. It was the US who originally helped set up Saddam Hussein.
The US isn't currently doing Europe any favours. The main reason for the US to maintain forces in the EU is to influence EU policy and opinion. The main threats to American hegemony are China and the Islamic extremists. The Russians may also be a threat, but they're still too disorganised.
The US especially didn't do Britain any favours. The US essentially destroyed British power after WW2 by holding their economy hostage. Before WW2 the British had the opportunity to ally themselves with the Axis, but refused and took the right path.
In return, the US destroyed their overseas holdings and turned them into a client state. Germany did better out of WW2 than Britain.
Basically, the Europeans don't feel as threatened by the world at large because they are not trying to control it. The US feels threatened because it sees the end of its run at the top coming to an end. The US is where the British Empire was 100 years ago - and look how that ended.
If the US brought all their troops home, the biggest impact would be on the domestic economy. Without enemies how would corporations justify all the defence spending? It was once said, the if the USSR didn't exist, the US would have to create them.
The American psyche is too tied up with an adversarial "us and them" mindset. All the good done by the US in the world, has been offset by violence, imperialism and economic colonisation.
The world has always been a violent place and the US felt special. 911 was the day that changed America, not the world. Most of the world already knew what it was like to live with terrorism. In response, the US has sacrificed freedom of speech, friendships and gained paranoia.
You have an interesting view of history Beowulf. In regards to Iraq, yes, the U.S. put Saddam in power to counter Iran and the Soviets. The right or wrong thing? Not really my call, but it was the politically expedient thing based on Cold War realities. Was the war a Bush family vendetta? Perhaps it was, again, I can't say that for certain, but if you want to use ONLY circumstantial evidence, you could make that argument. However, you seem to have forgotten (notice the statement at the very beginning of this post on short memories) that EVERYONE, not just U.S. intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMD. EVERYONE was wrong, no doubt, but trying to say that WMD in Iraq is simply an error on the part of U.S. intelligence simplifies reality and removes blame from other agencies for their roles, specifically British and German intelligence agencies. That said, I'll move on to something else. I'm actually for removing U.S. troops from Europe. Of course it won't happen because then the Europeans would have to defend themselves and that they can't afford to do that and maintain their bloated social programs. If Washington is in need of bases in Europe, there are several eastern European countries that I'm sure would love to provide them. We (the U.S.) don't need troops in Europe. The Europeans need our troops. Without them, they'd have little defense for themselves.
Post a Comment