The Secretary of State's Comments on Re-Building
The US Secretary of State claimed "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos" and concluded with "if we decide to do this thing, I know we can do it successfully. And there's no doubt in my mind that the whole world hangs in the balance."
These were not the comments of Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding the Middle East- they were the comments of Secretary of State George Marshall commenting on the re-building Europe after World War II. The statements are as appropriate today regrading the Middle East as they were then regarding Europe. At the time of Secretary Marshall's statement America had already fought a World War that cost over 400,000 american lives and cost over $341 billion. To put that financial cost in perspective, in 1945 the total costs of all goods and services produced (GDP) in the US was $223 billion. Many in America wanted to return to isolationism and leave the countries of Europe to re-build for themselves. After creating our first national deficit, the last expense many in America wanted to make at that point was to spend money re-building many of those who had caused the war.
But we would choose as a nation to re-build the countries of Europe, both our allies and our former enemies. After World War II the US would spend $23 billion re-building Europe would help give hope to over 290 million people in eighteen countries in what would be called "The Marshall Plan." Eighteen countries would receive $23 billion in reconstruction aid: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, West Germany, and the United Kingdom. This $23 billion (between 1945-51) was roughly 10% of one year's GDP (1945 GDP). This was an incredibly large expenditure, particularly given the fact that the US had already spent over one and a half year's total GDP on the war.
This was the first time in history that any country would win a war and be a "net giver" into their conquered and liberated countries. Basically, we "gave" more that we "received". Every other military power in history, the Spartans, Romans, the Empire of France, the Empire of England, the Nazis, and the Soviets all had taken more than they gave to the people they "liberated and/or conquered."
The concept of the Marshall Plan- to re-build conquered and liberated countries- was novel at the time and highly controversial within the US.
The people of Western Europe would remain free, would form their own democracies and choose their own futures. By helping to create prosperous countries, the US contributed to its own security and to the world's peace. Prosperous countries that trade with each other are far less likely to go to war against each other.
The US not only helped free 290 million people and then helped them prosper, but America created its future markets and future trading partners. The global economy benefitted from the Marshall Plan and so did America. This "aid package" can actually be looked at as an investment rather than a "gift". However, the return on investment of the $23 billion investment is difficult if not impossible to calculate. The lower cost of imports to the US from these re-built countries, the increased exports to these countries, avoiding the costs of future wars, and reducing the need for emergency aid in the future are all difficult to calculate. Arguably it there was a positive return on investment for this re-building. Essentially, this wasn't a cost- it was an investment.
I received great positive feedback from the blog on 23 October on which I posted the speech by former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman entitled "Our enemy is not Terrorism". In it he claims that we are not at war with "terrorism" but rather with "Radical Islam". He goes further to claim that this is a World War that has been underway for decades, citing the attacks against the West which began with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit in 1982. I would agree with both of his points: we are at War with Radical Islam and this is a World War.
Arguably, the Cold War was actually the Third World War. Many think it was a "bloodless" war since the US and USSR never fought directly- but in fact the World War against Communism cost tens of millions of lives. Up to 30 million Soviets died under the oppression of Stalin, and another 30 million under the forced famines and oppression of Chairman Mao. The US and USSR never fought directly, but rather on the periphery- in countries such as Korea, Vietnam, throughout Eastern Europe, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Cuba, and all the other peripheral countries where the West fought Communism. Up to eighty millions died in these combined struggles. The US and USSR each spent trillions on the arms build up which inevitably is credited with causing the collapse of the Soviet Union and freed hundreds of millions from beneath the yoke of Communism. The exact number of lives lost and the trillions spent is debatable, but it was obviously many millions of lives and many trillions of dollars.
If the war against worldwide communism was a World War, that would have been World War III. That would make the "War Against Radical Islam" World War IV.
The cost of World War II and World War III were each in the trillions dollars(adjusted for inflation). World War I cost 30 million lives. World War II cost up to 50 million lives. World War III cost the world millions of lives and US at least 90,000 lives (Korea and Vietnam in our "containment policy.") The cost of World War IV has been considerably less, thankfully, in comparison. We have yet to dedicate a fraction of the national resources we dedicated to World War I, II or III.
The US economy has grown exponentially since World War II. The total GDP in 1945 was $340 billion. In 2003 it was $10.2 tillion. If the US was to dedicate ten percent of one year's GDP to free and re-build the Middle East, as we did when we re-built Europe, the total expense would exceed $1 trillion. Some would argue these costs do not include the costs of the wars. That is true, these re-building costs do not include the cost of the war, which in World War II cost an estimated $341 billion (in 1945 dollars), or 140% of one year's 1945 GDP. The estimated cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was approximately $200 billion, or 2% of one year's (2003) GDP. The cost of re-building is around $18 billion or .18% of one year's (2003)GDP. The amount spent in Iraq and re-building Iraq is a fraction of 1% of our GDP- it equates to 12 hours of American National GDP! This is not a significant amount of our national resources.
There are over 300 million oppressed people in the Middle East. We have not caused this mess but it is our best interests to address it. Many countries have leaders who have squandered tremendous oil wealth through corruption and poor leadership, oppressing their people for their own gain. If we dedicate all of our diplomatic, economic and military resources to helping them free the people of the Middle East and support them once they are free, the world will be a safer place. As Secretary Marshall stated "If we decide to do this thing, I know we can do it successfully. And there's no doubt in my mind that the whole world hangs in the balance."
We need to begin to treat this war against Radical Islam as a World War as suggested by Secretary Lehman. Globalization; the proliferation of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons; and hundreds of millions of oppressed people being told by their leaders and their clerics' that all their ills are the fault of the West- and in particular the US; all create potentially a World War more destructive than any of the previous World Wars- if that is even conceivable. Thus far we have had far fewer lives lost and spent considerably less than we spent in other World Wars- but this one is possibly just beginning.
Today in 2004, there are now four major democratic countries in the Middle East: Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan and as of January 2005: Iraq. We need to do everything within our power to ensure these democracies survive and become examples for all the Middle East.
The cost of increased defense spending since September 11th has been signficant and is not at all addressed here. I believe that an apples to apples comparison would show, however, that compared to the resources of the US as measured by GDP, that the expenditures thus far on World War IV have been negligle compared with other wars. We can choose to spend it now economically and diplomatically, or we can let the war continue to expand and cost far more lives and dollars in the long run. The Middle East needs to be freed and we need to continue to actively promote democracy and capitalism- and commit the US dollars needed to ensure they succeed. These are failed economies and oppressed people.
The amount of American wealth that we have spent thus far on World War IV is far short of what should be spent given the threat level and the amount of past spending in our World Wars. We need to dedicate more resources to ensuring these democracies succeed and that others are created in the Middle East. As Secretary Marshall said "the whole world hangs in the balance."
These were not the comments of Secretary of State Colin Powell regarding the Middle East- they were the comments of Secretary of State George Marshall commenting on the re-building Europe after World War II. The statements are as appropriate today regrading the Middle East as they were then regarding Europe. At the time of Secretary Marshall's statement America had already fought a World War that cost over 400,000 american lives and cost over $341 billion. To put that financial cost in perspective, in 1945 the total costs of all goods and services produced (GDP) in the US was $223 billion. Many in America wanted to return to isolationism and leave the countries of Europe to re-build for themselves. After creating our first national deficit, the last expense many in America wanted to make at that point was to spend money re-building many of those who had caused the war.
But we would choose as a nation to re-build the countries of Europe, both our allies and our former enemies. After World War II the US would spend $23 billion re-building Europe would help give hope to over 290 million people in eighteen countries in what would be called "The Marshall Plan." Eighteen countries would receive $23 billion in reconstruction aid: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, West Germany, and the United Kingdom. This $23 billion (between 1945-51) was roughly 10% of one year's GDP (1945 GDP). This was an incredibly large expenditure, particularly given the fact that the US had already spent over one and a half year's total GDP on the war.
This was the first time in history that any country would win a war and be a "net giver" into their conquered and liberated countries. Basically, we "gave" more that we "received". Every other military power in history, the Spartans, Romans, the Empire of France, the Empire of England, the Nazis, and the Soviets all had taken more than they gave to the people they "liberated and/or conquered."
The concept of the Marshall Plan- to re-build conquered and liberated countries- was novel at the time and highly controversial within the US.
The people of Western Europe would remain free, would form their own democracies and choose their own futures. By helping to create prosperous countries, the US contributed to its own security and to the world's peace. Prosperous countries that trade with each other are far less likely to go to war against each other.
The US not only helped free 290 million people and then helped them prosper, but America created its future markets and future trading partners. The global economy benefitted from the Marshall Plan and so did America. This "aid package" can actually be looked at as an investment rather than a "gift". However, the return on investment of the $23 billion investment is difficult if not impossible to calculate. The lower cost of imports to the US from these re-built countries, the increased exports to these countries, avoiding the costs of future wars, and reducing the need for emergency aid in the future are all difficult to calculate. Arguably it there was a positive return on investment for this re-building. Essentially, this wasn't a cost- it was an investment.
I received great positive feedback from the blog on 23 October on which I posted the speech by former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman entitled "Our enemy is not Terrorism". In it he claims that we are not at war with "terrorism" but rather with "Radical Islam". He goes further to claim that this is a World War that has been underway for decades, citing the attacks against the West which began with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit in 1982. I would agree with both of his points: we are at War with Radical Islam and this is a World War.
Arguably, the Cold War was actually the Third World War. Many think it was a "bloodless" war since the US and USSR never fought directly- but in fact the World War against Communism cost tens of millions of lives. Up to 30 million Soviets died under the oppression of Stalin, and another 30 million under the forced famines and oppression of Chairman Mao. The US and USSR never fought directly, but rather on the periphery- in countries such as Korea, Vietnam, throughout Eastern Europe, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Cuba, and all the other peripheral countries where the West fought Communism. Up to eighty millions died in these combined struggles. The US and USSR each spent trillions on the arms build up which inevitably is credited with causing the collapse of the Soviet Union and freed hundreds of millions from beneath the yoke of Communism. The exact number of lives lost and the trillions spent is debatable, but it was obviously many millions of lives and many trillions of dollars.
If the war against worldwide communism was a World War, that would have been World War III. That would make the "War Against Radical Islam" World War IV.
The cost of World War II and World War III were each in the trillions dollars(adjusted for inflation). World War I cost 30 million lives. World War II cost up to 50 million lives. World War III cost the world millions of lives and US at least 90,000 lives (Korea and Vietnam in our "containment policy.") The cost of World War IV has been considerably less, thankfully, in comparison. We have yet to dedicate a fraction of the national resources we dedicated to World War I, II or III.
The US economy has grown exponentially since World War II. The total GDP in 1945 was $340 billion. In 2003 it was $10.2 tillion. If the US was to dedicate ten percent of one year's GDP to free and re-build the Middle East, as we did when we re-built Europe, the total expense would exceed $1 trillion. Some would argue these costs do not include the costs of the wars. That is true, these re-building costs do not include the cost of the war, which in World War II cost an estimated $341 billion (in 1945 dollars), or 140% of one year's 1945 GDP. The estimated cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was approximately $200 billion, or 2% of one year's (2003) GDP. The cost of re-building is around $18 billion or .18% of one year's (2003)GDP. The amount spent in Iraq and re-building Iraq is a fraction of 1% of our GDP- it equates to 12 hours of American National GDP! This is not a significant amount of our national resources.
There are over 300 million oppressed people in the Middle East. We have not caused this mess but it is our best interests to address it. Many countries have leaders who have squandered tremendous oil wealth through corruption and poor leadership, oppressing their people for their own gain. If we dedicate all of our diplomatic, economic and military resources to helping them free the people of the Middle East and support them once they are free, the world will be a safer place. As Secretary Marshall stated "If we decide to do this thing, I know we can do it successfully. And there's no doubt in my mind that the whole world hangs in the balance."
We need to begin to treat this war against Radical Islam as a World War as suggested by Secretary Lehman. Globalization; the proliferation of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons; and hundreds of millions of oppressed people being told by their leaders and their clerics' that all their ills are the fault of the West- and in particular the US; all create potentially a World War more destructive than any of the previous World Wars- if that is even conceivable. Thus far we have had far fewer lives lost and spent considerably less than we spent in other World Wars- but this one is possibly just beginning.
Today in 2004, there are now four major democratic countries in the Middle East: Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan and as of January 2005: Iraq. We need to do everything within our power to ensure these democracies survive and become examples for all the Middle East.
The cost of increased defense spending since September 11th has been signficant and is not at all addressed here. I believe that an apples to apples comparison would show, however, that compared to the resources of the US as measured by GDP, that the expenditures thus far on World War IV have been negligle compared with other wars. We can choose to spend it now economically and diplomatically, or we can let the war continue to expand and cost far more lives and dollars in the long run. The Middle East needs to be freed and we need to continue to actively promote democracy and capitalism- and commit the US dollars needed to ensure they succeed. These are failed economies and oppressed people.
The amount of American wealth that we have spent thus far on World War IV is far short of what should be spent given the threat level and the amount of past spending in our World Wars. We need to dedicate more resources to ensuring these democracies succeed and that others are created in the Middle East. As Secretary Marshall said "the whole world hangs in the balance."
posted by Dan at 4:25 AM
<< Home