Critics question Marshall Plan comparison - Iraq

[dArKeR]

The Bush administration says its plan to rebuild Iraq is modeled on the farsighted spirit of the Marshall Plan. But lawmakers and historians are increasingly finding flaws in the postwar analogy, many of which are at the heart of the debate over the administration's US$87 billion spending request, which includes a modest amount for Afghanistan.

The Marshall Plan, they say, required a much larger contribution from its European beneficiaries after World War II than the administration is asking of Iraq. European countries were required by the Truman administration to match every dollar of US aid, and 10 percent of the Marshall Plan's US$13 billion (worth about US$105 billion today)was made up of loans.

By contrast, the US$20.3 billion reconstruction grant for Iraq is not contingent on any contribution from that country's future revenues. Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, told senators this week that Iraq might eventually be able to share a large portion of the costs with its oil revenues, but he said the country is too burdened with debt to take on another large loan now.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/09/28/2003069585

[UpInArms]

1. there is no comparison

of the Marshall Plan to the current "plan" by the WH - if the WH denies the comparison of Vietnam's quagmire to Iraq - and if they say that the $87 is an "exit strategy" - one has to consider that there are still troops stationed in Japan and Germany 50 years later.

So what is the comparison thing about? Another maneuver to propagandize the situation in a "positive" light - that we should be behind such a grand plan of rebuilding a country that "we" destroyed with no cause (other than the PNAC plan).

Or is it just an obsfucation on depleting the pockets of the US taxpayer and putting the contents thereof into "righter, tighter hands" (quote from GHWB)?

I just believe that the journalists are not asking the right questions one more time - using buzzwords and catch phrases that don't really matter - never seeing the underlying policies for what they actually are and do.

[underpants]

7. Do you think using "Axis" in "Axis of Evil" was an accident?

NO they were going to sell this to the greatest generation as comparable to their accomplishments from the beginning.

[teryang]

2. Iraqi oil and tax revenues are destined

...for American corporate coffers not repaying the American taxpayer. So called reconstruction costs are the tail wagging the dog. All costs are primarily payoffs to corporate cronies of repuke pols. They are lining the pockets of defense contractors with expenses greater than at the peak of the Vietnam war.

As far as the total "investment" in destroying Iraq politically, it would take over thirty years to recoup the monies already committed. And this is if Iraq gets nothing, other creditors get nothing and we get everything. In short the war is a total bust except for the priveleged corporate friends of the usurper.

[bpilgrim]

4. precisely and they will never surrender one red cent - n/t

peace

[teknomanzer]

3. I'm a bit puzzled by Iraqs debt...

If the government that borrowed the money no longer exists then why does Iraq still have debts? If I die Sallie Mae won't collect the rest of my student loans. What can they do - try and collect from people who knew me? Isn't that what this amounts to in Iraq. The borrower no longer exists so world banks will just collect from people who knew the old regime? Maybe I'm just not up on world finance but it does seem underhanded.

[bpilgrim]

5. it is a story as old as time

or at least as old as empire ;->

:hi:

peace

[young_at_heart]

6. I'm outraged at this comparison

WWII in no way was like this Iraq fiasco and for them to imply a similarity by "borrowing" the Marshall Plan is just TOO much!