Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2020


+2
ron-man
Rocky
6 posters

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 281403
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    • Post n°1

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq Empty Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq

    Post by Rocky Mon 19 Feb 2018, 3:50 pm

    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]COMMENTARY BY


    Vice President, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute
    James Jay Carafano is a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges.


    They say generals are always fighting the last war. A lot of civilians are attempting to do the same thing -- or worse -- with their calls for a Marshall Plan for Iraq.

    The Marshall Plan, widely considered the most successful foreign policy initiative in U.S. history, has become the metaphor used to campaign for American economic intervention abroad. But winning a peace is like winning a war -- no cookbook solution, no copying what happened in the past, will ensure victory. Indeed, as things now stand, history does not hold the answer to Iraq's problems.

    The plan, as it were, began June 5, 1947, when then-Secretary of State General George C. Marshall proposed the United States provide economic aid to help Europe recover from the devastation of World War II. Congress appropriated $13.3 billion (more than $100 billion in today's dollars) over the next four years for European recovery.

    Ever since, leaders have returned to this model to attempt to solve a variety of problems. President Kennedy wanted his "Alliance for Progress" for Latin America. It failed.

    In 1981, Socialist European statesmen such as Austria's Bruno Kreisky demanded a Marshall Plan for Third World nations in the Southern hemisphere and launched a development summit in Cancun, Mexico. Again, the plan met with little success. Western assistance actually declined in the 1980s and 1990s. When the Soviet empire collapsed in late 1989, there was much talk of a "Marshall Plan" for Eastern Europe. No plan appeared, but the West did provide piecemeal financial aid.

    The success of the Marshall Plan hasn't been repeated -- and for good reason. The political, economic and security conditions in these other cases differed sufficiently to require different solutions.

    People forget how different the circumstances are between post-World War II Europe and modern-day Iraq. Europe was badly damaged after five years of brutal warfare, but far less seriously in some critical areas than many feared in 1945-46. Significant industrial capacity survived in both defeated and liberated countries. All that was needed were raw materials, food and some machinery and technical know-how to help revive the European economy.

    In addition, by 1948, the security situation in Europe had greatly improved, and the worst of the chaos and privations of the early postwar years had passed. In short, Europe was primed for recovery.

    Most important, the Europeans took charge of their own destiny. In announcing the program, Marshall declared: "The initiative, I think, must come from Europe." And it did. By 1948, virtually all the western European countries had legitimate, functioning governments in place. (West Germany held its first elections in 1949). The key to Washington's success was that these governments took ownership of the program. Present-day Iraq presents an entirely different challenge. None of the conditions found in Europe in 1948 are evident there. Before Iraq begins reconstruction efforts, it needs a legitimate government to determine how to provide for its long-term security, structure its national debt, liberalize its economy (remove controls on prices on trade), privatize state-owned infrastructure and establish a sound money supply.

    As an occupying power, the United States has a moral and legal obligation to establish a legitimate government in the country and adequate domestic security. America must spend the funds required to do the job right.

    Arguing for $20 billion in supplemental spending as a Marshall Plan investment is wrong-headed and obscures the real purpose of these funds, which is to help Iraq establish a stable, capable and legitimate government. Nor is it appropriate to substitute spending with forced loans to a liberated country that doesn't have a sovereign authority to accept the debt.

    Congress and the administration can argue about reconstruction later. Right now, we need supplemental funds to get a genuine Iraqi regime and security force up and running and U.S. troops out as soon as possible. Then Iraqi leaders can map their own path for rehabilitating their country -- with America as a partner, not an overseer.

    Gunter Bischof is the 2003/4 Marshall Plan Anniversary Professor of Austrian Studies and the Director of CenterAustria at the University of New Orleans.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
    Originally appeared on Foxnews.com








    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    • Back to top
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 281403
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    • Post n°2

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq Empty A Marshall plan for the Middle East?

    Post by Rocky Mon 19 Feb 2018, 3:53 pm

    [size=31]A Marshall plan for the Middle East?

    [/size]

    George Bush could salvage something for his reputation if he used the rest of his term to encourage co-operation in the Middle East, by using George Marshall as a model.

    Wed 29 Aug 2007 17.00 EDTFirst published on Wed 29 Aug 2007 17.00 EDT



    [size=89]Nearly sixty years ago, on September 22, 1947, the 16 western Europeans nations that became the first recipients of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]sent to the US a two-volume report describing their economic situation. What made the report a breakthrough for the 16 nations, which two months earlier had formed themselves into the Committee of European Economic Cooperation (CEEC), was the unity it reflected.[/size]
    As the preamble of the report observed: "The participating countries recognize that their economic systems are interrelated and that the prosperity of each of them depends upon the restoration of the prosperity of all."
    At a time when the Bush administration has said that it is prepared to make "the greatest financial commitment of its kind since the Marshall plan" in order to rebuild Iraq, we need to take a second look at the events surrounding that 1947 CEEC report. The history lessons the report contains have once again become relevant. They remind us that the Marshall plan was a regional plan and that if America is ever to stabilize Iraq, it will do so only with an approach that takes into account Iraq's neighbors.
    In his famous June 5, 1947, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] announcing America's intention to help Europe recover from the second world war, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] spoke of the need for the Marshall plan to be "a joint one agreed to by a number, if not all European nations." Marshall was convinced that "there must be some agreement among the countries of Europe as to the requirements of the situation" if American aid were to amount to more than "a mere palliative."
    The economic thinking behind Marshall's call for a regional approach to Europe was articulated prior to his Harvard speech by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the undersecretary of state for economic affairs, who in a memo to Marshall observed, "Europe cannot recover from this war and again become independent if her economy continues to be divided into many small watertight compartments as it is today."
    The Marshall planners were convinced that only a western Europe that took advantage of its potential market of 270 million consumers and embarked on a program of large-scale, low-cost production could prosper.
    But it was not just economics that the Marshall planners had in mind when they spoke of a regional approach to Europe. It was also politics. Uppermost in their minds was how Germany's harsh treatment at the end of the first world war led to the rise of the Nazi party and the second world war. If the post-World War II years were not to be a rerun of the post-World War I years, the Marshall planners knew they had to provide a way to reintegrate Germany into the European economy without putting it in a position to threaten its neighbours.
    The challenge was a formidable one that the US was able to meet. Marshall aid proved far more reliable than any reparations that could be gotten from Germany. The aid removed the need for the victorious Allies to make the rebuilding of their economies dependent on extracting what they could from a weakened Germany. But given European fears, caution was still necessary when it came to West Germany.
    Only in 1949 was West Germany allowed to represent itself, rather than be represented by the occupying powers, at the meetings of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, the group that replaced the CEEC, and even then the process of permitting West Germany to start rebuilding its steel industry came with numerous restrictions.
    Not until May 1950, when French foreign minister [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] put forward the proposals that led to the formation of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and placed "the entire French-German production of coal and steel" under the authority of an organization open to all of Europe, was West Germany's economic position in Europe settled on firm ground.
    In his memoirs the French economist Jean Monnet, whose ideas were the basis for European Coal and Steel Community, described Schuman's proposals as an effort to "exorcise history" by making it impossible for the age-old enmity between France and Germany to continue.
    Sixty years later the question for America and the west is: What can be done to exorcise history in the Middle East?
    The gap between Western Europe in 1947 and the Middle East in 2007 is considerable. With their traditions of democratic government, their established civil services, and their developed market economies, the nations of Western Europe were in a position to make use of American aid in a way that the present-day Middle East is not. In 2007 no Middle Eastern leader who wants to stay in power is going to respond to an American offer of aid as Britain's foreign secretary Ernest Bevin did when he observed of the Marshall plan: "It was like a life-line to sinking men. It seemed to bring hope where there was none."
    These differences between past and present should not, however, obscure the history lessons that the Marshall plan offers for our current situation. What remains relevant for US and its European allies today is the larger principle on which the Marshall plan rested - in a troubled region, only an inclusive approach to foreign aid that does not give countries incentive to sabotage the wellbeing of their neighbor can succeed.
    If, in the wake of the second world war, America had sought to aid only England, or England and a handful of continental nations, the chaos that followed would have lasted for years, isolating America's beneficiaries as well as making them vulnerable to the charge by the Soviet Union and Europe's powerful communist parties that the Marshall Plan represented a new stage in American imperialism.
    What initially allowed the Marshall plan to succeed and to strengthen the hand of political moderates was the responsibility it placed on postwar European governments to decide among themselves how American aid was apportioned. Sir Stafford Cripps, England's chancellor of the exchequer, may have been guilty of hyperbole when in 1949 he declared that the Marshall plan had "done more for European unity that was accomplished in the preceding 500 years."
    But Cripps was not mistaken about the transformation the Marshall plan helped bring about by giving the nations of western Europe incentive to look on one another as partners, with more to gain from cooperation than rivalry.
    Today the nations of the Middle East - with their inflated military budgets and refugee problems- have as much, if not more, to gain from cooperation. The question is whether some time in the next 15 months the Bush administration can be persuaded that this is the case, or whether we will have to wait until 2009 and a new president for the kind of economic diplomacy that brought George Marshall the Nobel peace prize.

    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    • Back to top
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 281403
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    • Post n°3

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq Empty Re: Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq

    Post by Rocky Mon 19 Feb 2018, 3:55 pm

    more info


    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    • Back to top
    ron-man
    ron-man
    ron-man
    All In Investor
    All In Investor


    Posts : 1295
    Join date : 2013-01-19
    • Post n°4

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq Empty Re: Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq

    Post by ron-man Mon 19 Feb 2018, 4:14 pm

    Thanks Rocky. This is a lot to absorb at one time.
    • Back to top
    Diamond
    Diamond
    Diamond
    Interacting Investor
    Interacting Investor


    Posts : 2206
    Join date : 2012-12-23
    • Post n°5

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq Empty Re: Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq

    Post by Diamond Mon 19 Feb 2018, 4:20 pm

    Dated aug 2007 an things have changed a lot jmo
    • Back to top
    weslin3
    weslin3
    weslin3
    Interacting Investor
    Interacting Investor


    Posts : 7463
    Join date : 2012-12-19
    • Post n°6

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq Empty Re: Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq

    Post by weslin3 Mon 19 Feb 2018, 5:47 pm

    The first article was dated 2003.
    • Back to top
    Screwball
    Screwball
    Screwball
    Interacting Investor
    Interacting Investor


    Posts : 3484
    Join date : 2012-12-19
    • Post n°7

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq Empty Re: Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq

    Post by Screwball Mon 19 Feb 2018, 6:02 pm

    Yeah old news....bush got over  87 billion for Marshall Plan for Iraq back in 2003 ...only thing changed is government and Isis...it is still in play....just known as Iraq stabilisation Plan
    • Back to top
    sassy
    sassy
    sassy
    Interacting Investor
    Interacting Investor


    Posts : 2030
    Join date : 2012-12-20
    • Post n°8

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq Empty Re: Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq

    Post by sassy Mon 19 Feb 2018, 7:51 pm

    Screwball wrote:Yeah old news....bush got over  87 billion for Marshall Plan for Iraq back in 2003 ...only thing changed is government and Isis...it is still in play....just known as Iraq stabilisation Plan
    thumbs   Thanks sb
    • Back to top
    Sponsored content

    Sponsored content


    • Post n°9

    Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq Empty Re: Marshall Plan Won't Work in Iraq

    Post by Sponsored content

    • Back to top
      Current date/time is Wed 27 Nov 2024, 8:50 am