Current conventional wisdom has it that our postwar reconstruction efforts in Iraq will only be successful if we have full support of the Iraqi people, which can only be gained by minimizing civilian casualties, if we leave much of the decision making to the Iraqis themselves, and if we are quick to minimize our military presence. I mean, that's what we did in Germany and Japan after World War II, right? Actually, couldn't be more wrong.
Both Germans and Japanese hated America at the end of World War II. Japanese women were willing to kill their own children rather than let them live under American occupation. American soldiers were likewise greeted with hate from the German population as they pushed towards Berlin.
In each case, the strong feelings of these populations came in part from the propaganda put out by their respective governments, but also by the impressive bombing campaigns carried out by the Allies on civilian populations. Everyone knows about the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But they weren't the most deadly of the war. The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed 85,000 Japanese and burned 16 square miles of urban space to the ground. The German city of Dresden was literally leveled by constant air bombardment. Eighty-five percent of the city's buildings were destroyed. All in all, World War II marked the most deadly and destructive bombing of civilian populations that the world has ever seen.
Nor did the American occupations of Germany and Japan leave a whole lot of the decision-making to the Germans or the Japanese. The Germans were afforded more autonomy than the Japanese, where General MacArthur ruled almost as he pleased. The US redistributed land based on its own ideas, dismantling Japan's quasi-feudal society. The new Japanese constitution, complete with Article 9 stating that Japan not be allowed any military capabilities, was written by the United States. Japan still uses this constitution today.
Finally, not only have we not been quick to diminish our military presence in Germany and Japan, it remains quite strong to this day and shows no signs of going away. And even against strong public outrage, the United States maintains bases in South Korea, another successful American prot?©g?© (though a country that we defended from invasion, rather than conquered).
Yet the differences between the American occupations of Germany and Japan after World War II and the coming occupation of Iraq are significant. It has been noted that Germany and Japan were already industrial nations with educated populations and a history of democracy. I would not discount that observation, but there's not a whole lot that can be done about that now. We can't change Iraq's past, only its future.
The more significant difference is the amount of international support and credibility we had in occupying Japan and Germany. Not only did their neighbors support our presence, they actively encouraged it. And we, in turn, at least kept them informed of our plans, even if they were not always a part of the decision-making process.
Furthermore, we created multilateral institutions that provided a forum for debate and legitimized the US occupations. This willingness to cooperate with others did not arise from weakness on the part of America. On the contrary, America then was at least as powerful as America today. It came from the knowledge that we need partners and support in order to build new societies.
President Bush has been meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to discuss post-war plans for Iraq. But his agenda should not stop there. The President also needs to talk with France, Germany, and our other NATO allies. He also has to talk with Jordan and Egypt, and even some nations we really do not like such as Syria. It is ridiculous that we have no official line of communication with Iran, Iraq's biggest neighbor, traditional rival, and who fought a long, bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s.
Talking does not mean capitulating or even changing policy at all. President Bush's vision of a UN role in Iraq -- providing humanitarian aid and acting in an advisory capacity to the government -- is a prudent one. Too much UN control means complicated chains of command and decision-making. Talking means communicating, making clear what it is you're doing and explaining your policy. And even if the audience does not like the policy, it's a lot better than not talking at all.
We probably won't have the full support of the Iraqi people for a while, if ever. But we can come to an understanding with the Iraqi people, and its neighbors, and the rest of the nations of the world. That understanding can build a nation out of rubble. Without it, no matter how many civilians, oil wells, and buildings, we manage to avoid destroying, we will be left with a dead-end job -- an occupation with no future success.
More from The Tufts Daily
