LET THE real war begin. The image of Iraqi citizens (with the help of U. S. troops) tearing down the statue of the most evil and oppressive dictator of Iraq was surely inspiring. Protesters, like myself suddenly saw a glimpse of hope that, possibly, we were wrong -- perhaps this war was a good thing. But the real war now is reconstructing Iraq. Americans must prepare for a long, arduous and expensive venture in Iraq to not only make Iraq safe for democracy, but also economically viable. We must demonstrate to the world our generosity, as well as our military might.
The new Iraq cannot be built in a day. Nobody can deny the immense factionalism present in Iraq, nobody can deny the great poverty that will face the nation and nobody can deny how the Iraqis fill respond to newly discovered freedoms and liberties. Ideally, the United States and the "Coalition" (i.e. Britain, Spain and Australia) will have the United Nations' support in rebuilding Iraq. Americans can certainly debate the United Nations' validity before war, but it does have a long history of providing aid to developing nations. Certainly, American's could use the United Nations' financial support and manpower.
Unfortunately, this is not likely because of the diplomatic route Bush pursued. The French and Russians' desire to check American power certainly will not help, but Bush's failure to rally diplomatic support means that most likely America (with marginal help from Britain, Spain and Australia) will bear the burden of reconstruction.
Estimates of the cost of Reconstruction range from $50 to $150 billion, according to Samuel Berger, senior foreign policy advisor under President Clinton. This cost does not even include the non-financial cost of having many American soldiers stationed in Iraq during the military occupation period of reconstruction. A complete, and necessary, reconstruction will hardly be cheap and easy.
The Bush administration has already fought and won a war in Afghanistan. Similar symbols of glory dominated the news as women became equals, the military dissolved the Taliban and the Afghani people finally looked to have a gleam of hope. But that gleam is now dimming.
Afghanistan is walking on a fragile line of stability. Certainly, an overwhelming majority of Afghanis embrace America for granting them new freedoms, especially the essential freedom of life. However, during recent weeks, anti-American propaganda began to circulate more rapidly. The Taliban is beginning to reform. Most likely, our special forces can certainly hold back any quiet rebellion in Afghanistan.
However, economic instability can still cause turmoil in Afghanistan. A little rebellion can become a bigger problem very quickly. The people of Afghanistan have lived a life of utter poverty. They thought Americans could lift them up from destitution. As Mohammad Sadeq, who works for the transportation authority in Afghanistan puts it: "Now we are thinking [The United States] has cheated the people of Afghanistan. They have promised they will rebuild our roads, they will pay our salaries. And in these two years we have seen nothing from Americans" ( "Afghans Hear Threat From a Distant War," Washington Post, April 1).
Afghanis see Americans' great wealth and feel they deserve a small piece of the pie to rebuild (or build for the first time) their society.America cannot simply hand western civilization, capitalism and wealth to the Afghani people, but it could surely do more. Bush could addressed the issues of rebuilding Afghanistan instead of focusing solely on domestic issues and Iraq.
America must return to its age of generosity, epitomized by the Marshall Plan following World War II. Reviving public opinion about America by thoroughly rebuilding Iraq will do more than just ease foreign tensions -- it will reduce American's greatest threat: terrorism. America has been the economic and military powerhouse of the world for most of the 20th century. However, heavy anti-American sentiment is a modern trend. In his provocative article, "The Arrogant Empire," Fareed Zakaria argues that throughout most of 20 century, Americans were well-liked (Newsweek, March 24). Before Sept. 11, Bush wished to isolate America; after September 11, he asked for the rest of the world's support. But when NATO gave him their support, he rejected it. Bush has certainly left his isolationist shell, and he has attempted to rally support for his international policy. He has outreached to many nations; he went to the United Nations before attacking Iraq contrary to the desires of many members of his staff.
Unfortunately, Bush's generosity seems half-hearted and insincere to many nations. His appeal to the United Nations seemed reluctant, and moreover the deployment of troops before the U.N. decision sent the message that he had no sincere concern about the U.N. opinion about going to war.
Reconstructing Iraq finally gives Bush an opportunity to redeem himself. His idol might be Teddy Roosevelt (Roosevelt about the League of Nations: "Let us dictate peace by hammering guns and not chat about peace to the accompaniment of the clicking typewriters"), but to defend against terrorism, he must regain the reputation of his cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his successor Harry Truman. By reconstructing Iraq, Bush can demonstrate America is more than a brutal military force, but rather a generous nation trying to make the world a safer place. With a higher international opinion of Americans, terrorists threats decrease, international tensions decrease, and every nation of the world benefits.
The historical parallels of not putting the time, money and energy into reconstruction obviously point out the cost of neglecting Iraq. The most obvious example is after World War I, Germany became an impoverished nation, leading to the rise of the Nazi party. Economic stability is often a prerequisite for political stability.
Following the sensationalized war coverage, Reconstruction seems rather dull, but arguably, it is infinitely times more important than the pure military action. As Americans, we must realize the cost of Reconstruction is high. We must tolerate and encourage heavy American involvement in post-war Iraq. We cannot expect big tax cuts, and we might have to tolerate budget cuts because we must invest in the future of Iraq -- if for no other reason than so we won't have to liberate them again.
(Patrick Harvey is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at pharvey@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | 32 minutes agoAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | 38 minutes agoIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
PARTING SHOT: Prides and joys
By Shaleah Tolliver | YesterdayI have seen what student journalism can do — it can highlight the marginalized, influence the majority and spark conversations.
