Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Saturday
House, Senate Approve Heft Spending Bill For Iraq, Afghanistan
Aired October 18, 2003 - 18:15 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: Back in this country the House and Senate approved hefty spending bills for Iraq. The Bush administration is likening operations in Iraq, in fact, to the Marshall Plan. It helped Europe recover after World War II. Joining us to talk about it is presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.
Mr. Brinkley, good to see you.
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, DIR., EISENHOWER CENTER: Nice to be on.
LIN: When you hear the Bush administration comparing the rebuilding effort in Iraq to the rebuilding of Europe after World War II, is this a fair comparison to you?
BRINKLEY: No, I don't think it's really fair at all. Of course, the Bush administration wants to wrap themselves around the concept of the Marshall Plan. It's often used. You know when the Soviet Union broke up many people were saying that the Soviet Union and Russia needed a new Marshall Plan.
The differences are very large, of course, the $13 billion that the Truman administration appropriated was for the economic recovery for a lot of our friends, as well as enemies in Europe. We were giving money to Great Britain and to countries throughout Europe that were our allies, to help their economies recover.
In this case, it is much more similar to a country like Japan after World War II, where we had to go and pump in money and create a constitution, create an entire political framework. And also deal with differences in cultures, for example, women not having the right to vote and Iraq is the same with no role for women in Japan, where some of the Western European countries that was not the case.
So, I think it is much more complex and different but the Marshall Plan is a convenient label for the Bush administration to stamp on this.
LIN: Because, certainly, you just touched on it the scope of the Marshall Plan was enormous by comparison.
BRINKLEY: Well, you know, keep in mind so many countries in Europe were devastated. I mean, you just had ruble throughout, whether you go to Berlin or you go to Paris, or you went to London. And Winston Churchill called the Marshall Plan the most unsordid act in American history. All of Europe jumped aboard.
The Soviet Union thought that we were doing it to kind of win war -- uh, win over Europe. And they prevented some countries, like Czechoslovakia and Poland from joining the Marshall Plan funding.
But in this case in Iraq, where many people in the world community are upset that the United States is in Iraq, many countries in the U.N. don't like us there. We were seen as an aggressor. This was the Bush doctrine in action. So, you're not going to have this $87 billion, called the most unsordid act in American history.
But I think what is true is that in the case of both the Marshall Plan after World War II, and this new appropriation that we could say that it is the United States trying to import democracy and free market economies and sort of build a civil society based around our constitution and our concepts of what is a good global economy and security structure.
LIN: Well, are there lessons to be learned in the effort to rebuild Japan and restart the political process after World War II, that the Americans apply in Iraq?
BRINKLEY: It takes a long time. It's not done in a month or six months or a year, if you're really committed to building a civil society in Iraq of creating this democratic stronghold there, then it is -- you just can't dump in a bunch of money and then get out in six months.
That's the dilemma the Bush administration, I believe, is in by calling it a Marshall Plan. It means that it only -- the Marshall Plan was the money started flowing through in 1948, by 1951 it had essentially had worked. That means that we might be in Iraq for a year or two. Japan, you are looking at something that took seven years and that's -- many people in the United States may be impatient.
It is one thing to $88 billion, or $87 billion, now. It is another thing to be doing that every season, or every year, more and more and more money.
And also of course in Western Europe, where a lot of the money went there was rebuilding. There weren't terrorists groups operating in London or in Amsterdam or Brussels. In Baghdad we may build a hospital with this money and the next day it gets blown up, so it's very tricky situation.
LIN: Mr. Brinkley, so what do you make of the possibility of a special commission overseeing the rebuilding and the monies going to Iraq?
BRINKLEY: That's essential. After World War II you had the high commissioners of Germany, people like John McCloyne (ph), James Connet (ph), Douglas McArthur, of course, was in Japan. We've been trying to do that now. The money is going to have to go through and be administered properly so there is not corruption and graft when you're dealing with a figure like, you know, in the billions, $80 some billion, and the amount of money...
LIN: Right.
BRINKLEY: ... that people could rip off is very large indeed. The hope of the United States is that our businesses here, companies that are now rebuilding Iraq will be able to make some profit and hence it will stimulate the American economy.
LIN: That, of course, depends on the security situation on the ground. We shall see what happens.
BRINKLEY: Absolutely.
LIN: Douglas Brinkley, thank you very much, the director of the Eisenhower Center and noted presidential historian.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Afghanistan>
Aired October 18, 2003 - 18:15 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: Back in this country the House and Senate approved hefty spending bills for Iraq. The Bush administration is likening operations in Iraq, in fact, to the Marshall Plan. It helped Europe recover after World War II. Joining us to talk about it is presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.
Mr. Brinkley, good to see you.
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, DIR., EISENHOWER CENTER: Nice to be on.
LIN: When you hear the Bush administration comparing the rebuilding effort in Iraq to the rebuilding of Europe after World War II, is this a fair comparison to you?
BRINKLEY: No, I don't think it's really fair at all. Of course, the Bush administration wants to wrap themselves around the concept of the Marshall Plan. It's often used. You know when the Soviet Union broke up many people were saying that the Soviet Union and Russia needed a new Marshall Plan.
The differences are very large, of course, the $13 billion that the Truman administration appropriated was for the economic recovery for a lot of our friends, as well as enemies in Europe. We were giving money to Great Britain and to countries throughout Europe that were our allies, to help their economies recover.
In this case, it is much more similar to a country like Japan after World War II, where we had to go and pump in money and create a constitution, create an entire political framework. And also deal with differences in cultures, for example, women not having the right to vote and Iraq is the same with no role for women in Japan, where some of the Western European countries that was not the case.
So, I think it is much more complex and different but the Marshall Plan is a convenient label for the Bush administration to stamp on this.
LIN: Because, certainly, you just touched on it the scope of the Marshall Plan was enormous by comparison.
BRINKLEY: Well, you know, keep in mind so many countries in Europe were devastated. I mean, you just had ruble throughout, whether you go to Berlin or you go to Paris, or you went to London. And Winston Churchill called the Marshall Plan the most unsordid act in American history. All of Europe jumped aboard.
The Soviet Union thought that we were doing it to kind of win war -- uh, win over Europe. And they prevented some countries, like Czechoslovakia and Poland from joining the Marshall Plan funding.
But in this case in Iraq, where many people in the world community are upset that the United States is in Iraq, many countries in the U.N. don't like us there. We were seen as an aggressor. This was the Bush doctrine in action. So, you're not going to have this $87 billion, called the most unsordid act in American history.
But I think what is true is that in the case of both the Marshall Plan after World War II, and this new appropriation that we could say that it is the United States trying to import democracy and free market economies and sort of build a civil society based around our constitution and our concepts of what is a good global economy and security structure.
LIN: Well, are there lessons to be learned in the effort to rebuild Japan and restart the political process after World War II, that the Americans apply in Iraq?
BRINKLEY: It takes a long time. It's not done in a month or six months or a year, if you're really committed to building a civil society in Iraq of creating this democratic stronghold there, then it is -- you just can't dump in a bunch of money and then get out in six months.
That's the dilemma the Bush administration, I believe, is in by calling it a Marshall Plan. It means that it only -- the Marshall Plan was the money started flowing through in 1948, by 1951 it had essentially had worked. That means that we might be in Iraq for a year or two. Japan, you are looking at something that took seven years and that's -- many people in the United States may be impatient.
It is one thing to $88 billion, or $87 billion, now. It is another thing to be doing that every season, or every year, more and more and more money.
And also of course in Western Europe, where a lot of the money went there was rebuilding. There weren't terrorists groups operating in London or in Amsterdam or Brussels. In Baghdad we may build a hospital with this money and the next day it gets blown up, so it's very tricky situation.
LIN: Mr. Brinkley, so what do you make of the possibility of a special commission overseeing the rebuilding and the monies going to Iraq?
BRINKLEY: That's essential. After World War II you had the high commissioners of Germany, people like John McCloyne (ph), James Connet (ph), Douglas McArthur, of course, was in Japan. We've been trying to do that now. The money is going to have to go through and be administered properly so there is not corruption and graft when you're dealing with a figure like, you know, in the billions, $80 some billion, and the amount of money...
LIN: Right.
BRINKLEY: ... that people could rip off is very large indeed. The hope of the United States is that our businesses here, companies that are now rebuilding Iraq will be able to make some profit and hence it will stimulate the American economy.
LIN: That, of course, depends on the security situation on the ground. We shall see what happens.
BRINKLEY: Absolutely.
LIN: Douglas Brinkley, thank you very much, the director of the Eisenhower Center and noted presidential historian.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Afghanistan>
