Those who would invade Iraq must also be prepared to rebuild it

Those who forget history are doomed to watch postwar countries become autocracies and wonder,… Those who forget history are doomed to watch postwar countries become autocracies and wonder, “What went wrong?”

A recent survey cited in a Feb. 11 article in The Washington Post found that “most Americans are unwilling to commit the United States to the kind of postwar rebuilding effort [in Iraq] … essential to bringing economic and political stability to the country.”

This disregards lessons learned in the early 20th century. Moreover, it could lead to another, more oppressive, regime in Iraq, counteracting whatever objectives the United States hopes to achieve.

Why do Americans favor letting a – presumably – Saddam-less Iraq fester after it has been defeated? One dictatorship will beget another.

Crack open a European history book and turn to the section on post-World War I Germany. The Kaiser had been defeated and the world made safe for democracy. Trenches scarred Europe and an entire generation was dead or removed from the workforce permanently. The victors wanted Germany to pay for its actions, and demanded payment in the form of natural resources when funds became insufficient. Treaties saddled Germany with reparations.

These prompted a massive economic depression and hyperinflation in Germany. People used currency to line attics and pad jackets. Though the Weimar Republic – the government instituted after World War I – promised universal suffrage, free speech and other rights, it could do little to ease the country’s economic problems.

Resultantly, money was poured into a surefire industry – the military – despite treaties prohibiting rearmament. Considering these factors – a strong military, a surge of nationalism and another stretch of economic doomsdays – Germany was poised to institute another dictatorship.

Hussein has shown clearly that he cares neither for U.S. posturing nor for his people. Many observers identify this as a reason that this war will be short as well as nasty and brutish. If he can be removed, what guarantees that another, more vicious dictator will not reign?

If such a leader were to come to power – one that purported to care for his people and rally their support – yet encouraged armament, nuclear programs and biological weapons, what would happen? Does the United States want to cut off one head of the hydra to have two appear in its place? Or can we cauterize the wound before this occurs?

Flip to the section on post-World War II Germany. Realizing the mistakes made after World War I, the Marshall Plan helped rectify the situation by preventing remilitarization and ensuring economic stability.

War is hell and practicing it means accounting for its consequences. Those who favor this war should favor rebuilding what we have destroyed. Economic war – war fought by dismantling a country’s means of supporting itself – means repairing what has been cast asunder. Before troops are activated or planes swoop like Harpies, the United States needs a viable plan addressing the political and socioeconomic effects of its actions. If we want to step away from our playground bully image, we should bandage as well as bruise. To do anything less would deny history.

Commentators estimate that a rebuilding plan will cost $15 billion per year. If war is to be waged, the United States should understand the price tag – in dollars and loss of lives – that accompanies it.

The proverb reads: “One who disturbs something should know how to rearrange it.”

When our country goes to war, it must ensure that both sides emerge as victors. Acknowledging history, and the hefty responsibility of not repeating it, must be a prerequisite and not an afterthought.

Columnist Sydney Bergman does not look like her picture. She can be reached at sbergman@pittnews.com.