|
... some of the same things without the sort of disruption created in Iraq. Both Germany and Japan were effectively disarmed at the end of the war, and were allowed, by the terms of surrender, to develop and maintain only national police and self-defense forces of limited capability. That enabled the US to put status of forces agreements in place in both places (saying, in essence, since we've taken away your means of defense, we'll keep our forces here to protect you).
Curiously enough, that strategy was the beginning of what is now a neo-imperial spanning of the world by US troops, and it was done deliberately to contain the Soviet Union. It worked, then, because the character of the defeat of Germany and Japan was different than in Iraq, and because the plan was worked out, as you accurately point out, in detail and with some thoroughness.
The other important detail in the differences is that the US loaned money to the governments of both Germany and Japan for them to administer. This immediately put all able-bodied citizens back to work, whether it was in building new factories or clearing rubble or farming to maintain the food supply. The military occupation oversaw that effort but didn't try to micromanage it. It also helped a great deal that returning German POWs told of being treated decently and of being fed and clothed properly by US authorities (contrast that with the tales of arbitrary detention and torture by the US coming out of Iraq).
By contrast, the US created in Iraq a government which was determined to privatize the entire country, virtually at once, and seized factories to be sold off at preferential rates to US corporations and that, combined with the layoffs in the military and the police, caused exactly the opposite to happen--unemployment skyrocketed and that's when the looting began in earnest (remember the stories of armed gangs roaming the streets looking for targets of opportunity). This fit in nicely with the determination, which many thought a sop to the NRA, to let Iraqis keep automatic weapons. M'self, I think it was all intentional, to create chaos, to divert attention.
US plans for post-war Iraq were hasty, yes, but they were also cruelly calculating in their effects. Only one problem with such a strategy--they didn't tell the soldiers what they were doing, and what to expect because of it.
|