BIGGER THAN MARSHALL

Thanks so much to the response to my “bleg” about comparisons between our current heroic attempt to rebuild Iraq and the Marshall Plan. The best source I’ve found so far is a Rand comparison between the first two post-war years in Germany and the first post-war year in Iraq. Since the Marshall Plan only kicked in in 1948, this isn’t a direct comparison. But from 1946 – 1947, the U.S. spent $266 per capita per year in West Germany (in 2001 dollars). If you assume we will spend the full $20 billion in the next year in Iraq and that Iraq’s population is around 24 million, then our current commitment is something over $800 per capita. That strikes me as a real and extraordinary commitment. (A genuine comparison to Marshall won’t be possible for a couple of years, which is also revealing. Back then, people seemed to understand it would take time to resurrect a viable democracy and economy in devastated Germany. Why do people expect it to occur overnight in Iraq? Hitler’s economic skills were a lot better than Saddam’s.) So here’s a question worth asking: Why is it that this is not more fully acknowledged by those critics of this administration? I for one was worried that Rummy’s penny-pinching would mean no real nation-building in Iraq. It’s clear now that that isn’t going to happen. And when you consider we’re also going to be spending around $2400 per capita on security, it’s an astonishing act of generosity (as well as a vital piece of self-interest). Where are the Democrats praising this initiative instead of seeking apologies and political advantage? Bush has done exactly what hawkish Democrats were afraid he would punt on. Good for him.