The Franco-Prussian War to Dick Cheney
Politics and Wars make for some very strange connections. In this case there is an important connection between the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and Dick Cheney's predictions about the war in Iraq.
The Franco-Prussian war of 1870 spelled the end of France's connection to Napoleon as Napoleon III was duped into starting the war, then quickly outmaneuvered, encircled, and defeated. The defeat brought about a humiliation for France and a heavy war indemnity. In addition to territorial loss, France was forced to pay for the cost of the war. Defeated nations paying for the cost of the war was a common and accepted practice of international relations. Napoleon exacted heavy sums from the territories he conquered. Following France's defeat at Waterloo it paid heavy reparations to the conquering nations of Britain, Prussian, Austria, etc. In the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt France was required to pay more than $5 billion francs to Germany to cover the cost of the war. Ironically, most of the war and most of the damage occurred in France so the indemnity was exceptionally burdensome.
A half century later the issue of war reparations would play a major role in the Treaty of Versailles. This constituted the most contentious part of the treaty negotiation with Germany being required to pay approximately $33 Billion (in U.S. value). This was considered by many to be an outrageous sum far beyond what Germany could afford. In reality it was quite comparable to the sum France was required to pay (approximately $29 Billion although the conversion is not exact).
In 1919 Paris the loudest voice arguing against reparations was the economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes argued that reparations would cripple the German economy and that Germany would not be able to pay the sum (it didn't). Part of the problem with Keynes was they he was smarter than everyone else and had a way of making sure everyone was aware of this fact. Keynes economics were sound but his arguments grated on the victorious allied leaders who essentially ignored him.
By the mid 1920s it became obvious that Keynes was correct and his argument that the war indemnity would sew the seeds for a future war proved painfully accurate. Following the Second World War the victorious allies (primarily the United States) would take the lessons of Keynes to heart and implement a different strategy. For the first time in history, the victors paid to rebuild the vanquished. This represented a dramatic historical change and the success of the Marshall Plan validated Keynes' view. It proved so successful that the United States adopted it as a general strategy for concluding wars, although it would not have many victories to celebrate.
This was the concept that Dick Cheney had in mind when showing little concern about how the Iraqi people would react to an invasion. Cheney knew that the United States would follow a "Marshall" style plan and pour billions of dollars into Iraq and he fully expected this money to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. The strategy had turned both Germany and Japan into long lasting friends and he fully believed Iraq too would be won over by dollars. When Cheney made his comments about American's being greeted as liberators he was confident that once the billions started to flow in this is exactly how Iraqis would view the Americans.
What Cheney, and others in the Bush Administration didn't reckon on was the bungling and corruption that would ensue. The United States delivered $13 billion IN CASH, expecting this money to help rebuild both the economy and infrastructure. Most of the money disappeared in a sea of corruption and mismanagement. Within a year of the conclusion of the shooting war, the Iraq economy was in far worse shape than it had been under Saddam. Money was flowing throughout Iraq but little seemed to end up in the right places. As America would quickly find out, the war itself would continue to cost billions. All the money American taxpayers were allocating for Iraq was going toward security. This ate up the funds needed to build the infrastructure and win over the hearts and minds of the population.
America had learned the lessons from Frankfurt and Versailles. It simply didn't prepare for its own incompetence and greed which has cost any chance of lasting success from the invasion. The best America can now hope for is enough stability to allow it to pull out. Iraq will most likely revert to sectarian violence and the hopes the Bush Administration had for building democracy in the country will be washed away. But at least U.S. contractors got rich.
|
|
