<< Part 1

Part Two - Postwar Rebuilding: Past Examples

The following examples portray postwar efforts in several historical situations. The order in which these prior efforts are discussed is based on size of a given operation and its relevance to the current Iraqi situation. For example, the Marshall Plan reformed a continent, while rebuilding Mostar occurred on a local scale.

Europe: The Marshall Plan

The Marshall Plan was a model for international economic development in Europe. Created after World War II, it helped generate an economic rebirth of Europe. The “European Recovery Program,” which was the official title of the Marshall Plan, had the following objectives: increase production; expand European foreign trade; facilitate European economic cooperation and integration; and control inflation. The program had a limit of four years, in order to assure US taxpayers that it would not be an endless commitment. [42]

The reason George Marshall created the plan was because he foresaw a disintegration of US military power rather than organized demobilization. Marshall had planned since 1943 to demobilize, in order to head off future disaster. He saw the world falling “into a state of disinterested weakness” following World War I, when it failed in responsibilities to give economic aid and to help reconstruct the war-torn countries. Marshall was afraid of Europe slipping into an economic crisis as it did in the early 1930s, which contributed to the rise of Nazi power. [43]

In Marshall’s speech announcing the Marshall Plan, he stated that the United States had to greatly assist Europe for the next few years because Europe could not afford essential products. He also made clear that:

Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist…Political passion and prejudice should have no part.

He also stressed that the countries that wished to receive aid be active participants in providing self-help. The United States would provide the funds, but the people would put the projects to work. [44]

US officials have been emphasizing their goals of helping rebuild Iraq for the sake of its people and it must continue to do so. The Marshall Plan stressed that it was established to permit the emergence of free society and that politics had no part in the plan. The idea that the citizens of the country participate in rebuilding is also significant for Iraq. The United States should provide the funds to Iraqis and let the Iraqis do the rebuilding. This will give them a sense of ownership over the process. Furthermore, the current US administration must avoid harsh rhetoric with political aims and stress the importance of helping the citizens of Iraq.

What is also significant is that the Marshall Plan did not go into effect until 1948. [45] This implies that if Europe was able to use the aid effectively three years after the war had ended in a much worse situation than Iraqis are in now, correcting problems with the reconstruction effort in Iraq is possible. Europe had much greater cultural tensions after millions of its people were killed by neighboring states in World War II than Iraq has seen in its current situation.

Japan

The focus of US foreign policy in the case of post­World War II Japan was more similar to the current Iraqi situation than post­World War II Europe. This is because the United States occupied Japan in the hope of changing it from a feudal and militaristic society to a peaceful democracy. [46] Similarly, in the case of Iraq the United States wants to change the country into a peaceful democracy by removing corrupt leadership and ending economic stagnation. [47]

The US occupation of Japan lasted until 1952. The United States was able to use Japan for vital strategic measures as a base of operations in the Asian theater. In order to keep Japan as an ally, the United States originally created reforms in Japan’s economic system that positioned the country to remain dependent on the United States. These reform policies were not the best policy and were later changed merely to that of restoring the economic system of Japan. The later policies eventually enabled Japan to become a major economic power and actually rival the United States in global economic supremacy. [48]

The postwar rebuilding efforts changed Japan from a country that was struggling after massive damages during World War II to a world leader by the end of the twentieth century. It took decades for such changes in Japan to occur. Many of the people were still hostile to US policies for a long time. Iraqis are currently hostile towards the United States, but in time the country may become an economic power. Change needs time to come about, just as in the Japanese situation.

Afghanistan

On October 7, 2001, President Bush declared that the United States had launched a military operation in Afghanistan, “to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.” [49] Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld added, “The president has turned to direct overt military force to complement the economic, humanitarian, financial and diplomatic activities which are already well underway.” [50]

Furthermore, in a February 2003 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Chairman Richard Lugar said:

“If we are able to help Afghanistan transition into a secure democracy, we will bolster our ability to attract allies in the war against terrorism.” [51] This is very similar to the goal of changing Iraq into a democracy and then watching the rest of the Middle East become democratic.

The situation in Afghanistan is in some ways similar to that of Iraq. For instance, the security situation is not optimal. Senator Lugar went on to say that:

The United States is taking the lead in training a new Afghan National Army (ANA), but this is a slow process. In the meantime, security in Afghanistan depends upon US military power and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). [52]

The ISAF consists of forces from the United States, United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Finland, Sweden, Portugal, Bulgaria, New Zealand, France, Italy and Turkey. [53] The large coalition has reduced the pressures of a single country providing security in Afghanistan. The security forces in Iraq first consisted only of US and British soldiers, which strained the morale of the troops. Now, however, there has been an inclusion of soldiers from several other countries, including Italy, Norway, Romania, Holland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Lithuania, and New Zealand. [54]

Lugar further explained that the Americans and French were training the new Afghan army. Germany was training the police force. The goal of having an effective security force was to allow aid agencies, NGOs and government or multigovernment agencies feel safe to perform reconstruction efforts. Security has mainly been provided to Kabul. Yet it offer a positive example on how to make reconstruction efforts go more smoothly in Iraq. Ensuring security is essential. Conversely, by not providing security for aid organizations in Iraq, many agencies have cut their staffs and sent them home. Furthermore, lack of security has been deadly—with workers from NGOs and humanitarian organizations having been killed indiscriminately by Iraqi insurgents.

David Johnson, the coordinator of Afghanistan assistance in the Department of State went on to say:

The United States, together with Saudi Arabia and Japan, is rebuilding the key segment of the “ring road” which links Kabul to Kandahar to Herat. Together with improvements in communications, an opening of transportation routes can help tie the country together economically as well as politically. Already, goods and services are available to a degree previously unimaginable to most Afghans, and the seeds of a developing market economy have now been planted. In other positive developments, an independent media has begun to take root, a small disarmament program has begun in the north, and schools have reopened across Afghanistan. More than a million girls have enrolled in schools and women are reentering universities. [55]

The criticism of what is happening in Afghanistan is that most of the focus of rebuilding has been only on Kabul. The ISAF is only in Kabul as well. This makes Kabul essentially a city-state and leaves most of the country under the control of warlords. A sense of lawlessness has encompassed much of the country outside Afghanistan since the removal of the Taliban. In October 2003, NATO peacekeepers were finally allowed to go outside of Kabul to aid in bringing the rule of law to the other provinces. [56]

What should be learned from the rebuilding of Afghanistan is that if other countries assisted in the security situation from the inception of the mission, the burden of security on the United States and Great Britain in the current Iraqi situation would have been greatly reduced. This might have allowed for a more secure Iraq. However, the United States and Great Britain went into Iraq against the express will of other powerful countries like France, Germany and Russia. As a result, those countries have not gone in to help the coalition.

Kuwait

In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The invasion left Kuwaiti industry heavily damaged, destroyed the country’s military, and left Kuwait bereft of many of its historical treasures. It also left many Kuwaitis psychologically damaged. The situation in terms of infrastructure was similar to the current Iraqi situation. Lights were off, water was not flowing and business was stifled. Ten years later, the country had been thoroughly rebuilt. With rebuilding came Western influence, including shopping malls, new fashions, and US defense technologies. [57]

Furthermore, once Kuwaiti oil production increased to pre-invasion levels, the United States became its main buyer. [58] By requesting the assistance of the United States in defense from Iraq, Kuwait paid the United States with oil. This is perhaps what the situation may become in Iraq, if conditions improve.

Reconstruction efforts in Kuwait were led by the Kuwait Emergency Reconstruction Office (KERO). KERO and the US Army Corps of Engineers worked together to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure. The Bechtel Corporation, which is currently working in Iraq, rebuilt the oil infrastructure. [59] The reconstruction efforts also worked to alter the society in Kuwait by changing it from a leisure class to a working class. At the time, Kuwaitis made up only 28 percent of its own workforce. [60]

The reconstruction efforts in Kuwait were successful because Kuwait viewed the United States and its allies as liberators from the Iraqis. Terrorists were not constantly impeding the work of the contractors in rebuilding Kuwait, because the allies saved the Kuwaitis from perceived oppressors. It is plausible to assume that the current administration, which contains members of the administration that rebuilt Kuwait, thought that rebuilding Iraq would be as simple as rebuilding Kuwait. The logic is that the administration assumed the Iraqis would view the Americans as liberators, just as the Kuwaitis did when the United States liberated Kuwait. Iraq was expected to welcome the US rebuilders, and consequently there would not have been the complications that are experienced currently in Iraq. Perhaps this is also why there was little postwar planning done before the war started.

If the current administration had identified the complexities within Iraq and compared them with Kuwait, they would have noticed these marked differences. Failure to do so has resulted in the chaos that now engulfs Iraq.

Lebanon

From 1975­1991, Lebanon experienced a civil war. The combination of Christian and Muslim clashes, Israeli incursions into Lebanon, and Syrian involvement led to a devastating situation. [61] The war devastated Lebanese infrastructure and cut economic output by half of its prewar levels. In 1989, the Ta’if Accord was signed, which in time ended the conflict. This agreement gave Muslims a greater say in government and has allowed for several successful elections. Most of the militias in Lebanon have also disbanded. In 2000, Israel removed its soldiers from the southern security zone. The Ta’if Accord did, however, leave a large Syrian influence over the country. Essentially, Lebanon gave its autonomy to Syria. [62]

Lebanon has since rebuilt its society by creating a ten-year, $18.1 billion plan to rebuild the infrastructure. This plan is funded by loans from the World Bank, the European Union, and other Arab states. Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri created the Council for Development and Reconstruction to lead the plan. This has led to the repair of most of the country’s infrastructure. However, there is still much more work to be completed. [63]    

Solidere, a private joint stock company, was created to rebuild the infrastructure of Beirut. In order to fund the rebuilding, they were given control of the real estate in Beirut. They then sell the land to private developers in order to finance the projects. Beirut has seen revitalization from the projects led by Solidere. [64]

There are several lessons to be learned from Lebanon. First, even a country that fought through many years of civil war can lead its own reconstruction efforts. Iraqis, who have been able to keep civil war from occurring, would stand a better chance to rebuild than a country divided by civil war for over a decade. Assumptions that Iraqis cannot collaborate with one another on their type of government is questionable based on the Lebanese case. Second, it is vital that countries that are being rebuilt have a sense of ownership in the rebuilding process, or it may breed greater animosities. Lastly, rebuilding can be conducted less expensively than is currently the case in Iraq. If private firms can finance the reconstruction of Beirut through private investment, it reduces the responsibility of the government investment.

Algeria

Another situation with similarities to Iraq regarding keeping security was the Algerian War of Independence (1954­1962), which consisted of pro-independence Algerians using guerrilla attacks, terrorism, and riots, while the French army used counterterrorism, air strikes, and attacks with large armies. [65] This is similar to what is occurring in Iraq presently, with the resistance using the same methods as the pro-independence Algerians and the Americans using counterterrorism, air strikes, and large ground forces. Wikipedia states:

During 1956 and 1957, the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) successfully applied hit-and-run tactics according to the classic canons of guerrilla warfare. Specializing in ambushes and night raids and avoiding direct contact with superior French firepower, the internal forces targeted army patrols, military encampments, police posts, and colonial farms, mines, and factories, as well as transportation and communications facilities. Once an engagement was broken off, the guerrillas merged with the population in the countryside. [66]

A July 16, 2003 USA Today article portrays a similar image of the US occupation in Iraq. “The new commander of US forces in Iraq said Wednesday that coalition troops are facing a ‘classical guerrilla-type campaign’ from insurgents whose tactics are growing more sophisticated.” [67] It goes on to say:

[Army General John] Abizaid said the military needs to maintain the current level of about 160,000 US and allied troops in Iraq. That has forced the already-stretched military to come up with new plans for maintaining such a large force. [68]

Similarly, the French had a large force in Algeria. Over half of their armed forces—over 400,000 troops— were based in Algeria. Eventually this took a toll on the French, and their NATO allies. The French then granted the Algerians their independence in 1962. Total estimates of the dead from the conflict range from 300,000 to 1.5 million. The number is probably near one million according to Wikipedia. [69] The French suffered 23,196 dead and over 65,000 wounded. [70]

Another comparison between the two situations is that according to memoirs of French officers, there was a feeling that they were fighting the war without allies. Most countries did not support the French, since they were trying to maintain control over a colony, just as many nations did not support the United States in their efforts to overthrow a dictator. In fact, a US National Security Council document from 1959 stated:

The French government and a large segment of French opinion bitterly feel that the United States fails to give allout support to its NATO ally in a place where critical French interests are at stake and when Frenchmen are being killed daily. There is French resentment concerning the activities of the FLN [the Algerian independence group fighting the French, sic.] representatives in the United States and there is some suspicion that the United States actually intends eventually to supplant French influence in North Africa. [71]

In the current situation, there is suspicion that the French interests in Iraq may be trying to hurt the US efforts. In a May 24, 2003 Washington Times article, Bill Gertz claimed:

A US military intelligence team in Iraq has uncovered a dozen French passports, and defense officials believe other French passports from the same batch were used by Iraqis to flee the country.

Defense officials are still investigating whether the passports were provided covertly by the French government, or were stolen or forged by Saddam Hussein’s regime, said defense officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. France’s government has denied that it provided any passports to fleeing Iraqi officials and called news reports of French collaboration with Saddam’s regime US “disinformation.” [72]

Another similarity between the Algerian and Iraqi situation is that in Algeria, it was thought that:

The majority Muslim population was peaceable, intrinsically loyal and needed only effective protection by France. This image altered sharply from 1959 onwards when the struggle became more desperate and slipped into appalling brutalities as Algerie Française diehards adopted the discourse of apocalyptic threats… [73]

The general thoughts of the US administration before the war were that the United States would be seen as liberators and there would be a relatively easy transition. That is not the case, however, as “Coalition forces face almost daily attacks in the Sunni triangle.” [74] The United States needs to find a way to enhance the security situation in order for the rebuilding process to be successful. If it cannot, the result will be a repeat of the situation in Algeria.

Mostar, Bosnia­Herzegovina

After the war in Bosnia, the European Union was charged with rebuilding the city of Mostar. The group that led the reconstruction had to reconcile the warring Christians and Muslims, create a sense of security, hold elections, establish a city council, and repair homes, public buildings, schools, hospitals, clinics, water pipes, and bridges. [75] This was an enormous undertaking that started in 1994 and is still taking place today.

The mission has been largely successful in its tasks. One thing that was crucial to the rebuilding process was building relationships with the local technical elites. John Yarwood, author of Rebuilding Mostar: Rebuilding in a War Zone, said:

We were reliant on their cooperation to get things done. The scope for resentment, misunderstanding and obstruction was much greater than I had found in other foreign projects. No amount of technical skill would compensate for bad human relations. I feel this was the real achievement, next to which the technicalities take second place.” [76]

This group built local relationships with Christians and Muslims who fought each other for years in civil war and continued to fire upon their enemies even during the reconstruction phase of the project.

Yarwood went on to say that a fundamental part of the rebuilding was to understand the cultural and psychological perspectives of the parties at hand and base the goals of the project on their perspective. There was a need to remove the ideals or preconceptions of the donor country. Similarly in Iraq, the United States needs to understand the perspectives of the Iraqis.

At the lecture by Charles Tripp referred to earlier in this paper, an audience member native to Iraq mentioned why people from Fallujah are so anti-US. The reason is not because they are loyalists to Saddam Hussein, but because US troops have angered the people of Fallujah. [77] In April 2003, US troops opened fire on a group of protesters in Fallujah. The United States said that the protesters fired their guns at the troops, but that report is disputed. Several of the protesters were killed. [78] The people of Fallujah have a tradition that if one of their children is killed, they will not be buried until the enemy is dead. Revenge is fundamental to their culture. [79] The United States did not understand this aspect of the local culture, and therefore caused a disastrous situation there. In March and April 2004, the situation grew worse when Mahdi Army militiamen loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr brutally killed and displayed the bodies of four US contractors. This has led to a bloody standoff between the United States and the militiamen. [80] Yarwood would argue that the United States performed a cardinal sin of attempting to rebuild while not creating relationships with the locals.