Condolezza, You are no George Marshall
Political Solutions for the problems of the Middle East What can we learn from History?
When I read recently that the European Union and Turkey had made little headway in resolving a stalemate over Turkey’s refusal to open its ports to Cypriot ships —a decision that might stop Turkey’s membership application to the European Union — I felt the need for the steady wisdom of George Marshall. Sixty years ago he took the Oath of Office as our Secretary of State. That soldier from Uniontown, Pennsylvania, gave the nearly 1/2 billion people of 27 member countries of today’s European Union, through the Marshall Plan, the greatest gift anyone can give to any Region of the world —the gift of peace.
Marshall’s biographer, Leonard Moseley, said of him:
As a soldier, as a statesman and as human being, General George Catlett Marshall is not an easy man for modern skeptical Americans to accept. For those who had grown weary of heroes and look for the hidden vices in so-called great men, he had qualities present day cynics may find hard to swallow. He had to scrape and scratch his way to the top of the tree in the U.S. Army. He had to fight for this Nations’ interests-sometimes its very life-both as U.S. Chief of Staff during World War II and as Secretary of State in the raw cold, hungry postwar world that followed.
Churchill called him “The organizer of Victory.” Truman said, “He was the greatest of the great.” General George Patton vowed he “would rather face the whole Nazi panzer army single handed than be called to an interview with General Marshall.”
What does all this have to do with a political solution to today’s Middle East conflict ?
Some similarities: The situation after World War II was very explosive. Europeans were starving and suffering from the deprivations and losses of the war. The USSR was hostile and suspicious of Allied intentions. Truman and Marshall saw the need to help Europe to its feet and political stability.
Marshall included the following paragraphs in his speech on June 5, 1947 when he received an honorary degree from Harvard University. His words echo appropriately to our situation today.
He said:
“Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.
Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piecemeal basis as various crises develop. Any assistance that this Government may render in the future should provide a cure rather than a mere palliative.
Any government that is willing to assist in the task of recovery will find full cooperation, I am sure, on the part of the United States Government. Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties, or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States”
That speech and our diplomatic efforts afterwards triggered leadership in Europe around the task of rebuilding Europe based on the principles Marshall outlined. He was a soldier but because he understood that poverty and political violence are a threat to free institutions. he launched the most significant social-political revolution of our time: The birth of the European Union.
While the situation in the Middle East today is politically and economically different than that of Europe in 1947, the same principles apply. Guns and bullets do not create free governments. Freedom from hunger; decent jobs, education and medical services sound infrastructure, competent government and freedom from tribal strife will bring a setting that can grow free institutions.
The need to address “hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos” applies to much of the Middle East today as it did to Europe in 1947. Fattah and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations but their overwhelming support comes from the success of their social programs.. Our notion of “spreading Democracy” will seem a hollow promise to Middle Easterners who remember our help in the 1953 coup that removed the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, and our supporting and arming the Taliban against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980’s and our support of Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran in the early 1980’s. If we want to work toward a healthy Middle East we need to face our past mistakes and shift from military action to challenging the Middle Eastern countries to join hands in the process of addressing their problems in a creative peaceful way.
Any credible effort by the United States to advance this concept needs to be combined with an admission of guilt to these deeds and an apology for having committed them.
We then can challenge them to reach beyond destructive nationalism or tribalism that lead to conflict and terrorism to create new goals for governance and for social and economic equity for the Middle East. It also means sharing resources such as oil and water in a way that serves the whole Region.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Walt; let us not give Marshall all the credit. The bulk of the credit goes to the Soviets that destroyed the Wehrmacht. Without the Russian effort, Europe would be NAZI today.
The Germans invaded Russia with 185 armored-mechanized divisions, and full air support, and uncontested lines of supply. In a war that joined the largest armies ever assembled in human history, a horrific fight to the DEATH ensued. Meanwhile the western Allies were sleeping.
Of that German Army, the Wehrmacht, comprised of some 2.5 million fighting men, only about 350,000 ever saw home. The military assets never returned. Most German soldiers were killed, the rest enslaved.
Why wouldn’t the Russians be suspicious of Western intentions? We left them alone to fight the beast, and 27 million of them were killed. During this time Stalin begged for a second front. We twiddled our thumbs, after all it was only commies dying, and nazis. Realpolitik, the price for which, we paid in the Cold War.
By the time we opened a 2nd front the Luftwaffe had been destroyed. At D Day we faced about 40 weakened German divisions, in Italy there were 17, led by Kesselring, who with no air power, handed us our heads on more than one occasion. He was never removed from his fortifications, an
February 17th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Walt; let us not give Marshall all the credit. The bulk of the credit goes to the Soviets that destroyed the Wehrmacht. Without the Russian effort, Europe would be NAZI today.
The Germans invaded Russia with 185 armored-mechanized divisions, and full air support, and uncontested lines of supply. In a war that joined the largest armies ever assembled in human history, a horrific fight to the DEATH ensued. Meanwhile the western Allies were sleeping.
Of that German Army, the Wehrmacht, comprised of some 2.5 million fighting men, only about 350,000 ever saw home. The military assets never returned. Most German soldiers were killed, the rest enslaved.
Why wouldn’t the Russians be suspicious of Western intentions? We left them alone to fight the beast, and 27 million of them were killed. During this time Stalin begged for a second front. We twiddled our thumbs, after all it was only commies dying, and nazis. Realpolitik, the price for which, we paid in the Cold War.
By the time we opened a 2nd front, the Luftwaffe had been destroyed. At D Day we faced about 40 weakened German divisions between the beach and Germany. In Italy there were 17, led by Kesselring, who with no air power, handed us our heads on more than one occasion. He was never removed from his fortifications, and gave them up upon VE day.
Meanwhile in the early part of the war the Russians alone, and supported by American supply, GUTTED a full strength Wehrmacht, 3 and a half times larger than anything the Western Allies faced. What we faced was depleted, and after the bombing and destruction in Russia, many had no more will to fight. All part of the plan figured Stalin.
And people wonder why there was a Cold War. Would you trust us? I wouldn’t.
When I asked my German Opa, who destroyed Germany, without hesitation, he said the SOVIETS! By the time we joined in, the war was over for most Germans, at least in their minds. Marshall did some grandstanding and was a good man, but the greatest of all was the Soviet Soldier, who crushed the Wehrmacht. Without that, we would have faced a full strength Germany, with a full strength army. Nobody realistically thinks we could have beaten it.
As for Allied bombings, at wars end the Germans produced more tanks and aircraft than at the beginning of the war, most of the factories rebuilt underground, safe from Allied bombs. Big problem though, there was no one to man them.
THEY HAD ALL BEEN KILLED IN RUSSIA!
This history was taught to me, by Mark Stoler, at UVM, the only Historian to comment in the USA Today on the 50th anniversary of VE day. His simple statement, to sum up; “Without the Soviet effort, there would have been NO Allied victory”.
My Opas telling of this matches up exactly with Professor Stoler, and it is telling, as it is little known. To the victors go the propaganda, and the write of HISTORY!
February 17th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Sorry about the double, the 2nd is the keeper. I cannot type, what can I say other than that? Delete these Cliff, and keep # 2.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Glen;
I can’t argue with your point that the USSR helped win WWII; without them we would have had a much bigger military task, but you seem to miss my primary pointthat without the Marshall Plan and the support the European leaders gave the plan we might not have had 60 years of peace in Central Europe. A similar effort
in the Middle East is needed to bring peace to that Region.
Cheers……………Walt
February 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
It’s astounding to contemplate, but in 1939 America had the world’s eighth-largest army, behind Greece. General Marshall performed miracles of organization and production in an incredibly short time. Today we can’t even properly train and equip 135,000 soldiers in Iraq and another 20,000 in Afghanistan, even though both those wars have already lasted longer than World War II.
I recommend Geoffrey Perret’s excellent book There’s a War to Be Won: The United States Army in World War II.
Most generals would be content to win the war and go home (cf. Tommy Franks). Marshall also won the peace, which might have been even harder because politicians tried to get in his way.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Walt; Helped win the war? I would phrase it that the Russians won the war, and we “helped”. that’s what the Germans believe. The bombing didn’t stop production and really only killed civilians.
From Opa Hoefers’ accounts, and the history taught to me by Mark Stoler (UVM), if it was not for the Soviets, we would have never beaten the Germans.
I am contact with a Canadian woman 68. Her father was a photographer, he has photos of U-boats in the St. Lawrence River, within sight of Quebec City. Fascinating.
We are DAMN lucky the Soviets killed 70% of the Wehrmacht, before the western Allies ever set foot on European soil.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Richard, Have you ever read Ikes’ memoirs of the War years and the preceding years? WE were horribly unprepared. I think Ike even said the word “pathetic”. He said the survival of the US forces in the Pacific was pure luck, in the early going. Pearl Harbor, Wake, etc.
It is titled “Crusade in Europe From the man himself.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Walt, excellent post. Thank you for the perspective and insight. Nice to hear from someone who has lived through what we youngsters only get to read about.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
What spoiled the alliance between the U.S. and the Soviets, leaving us with that hideous ‘Cold War’?
February 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Caveat; it was Stalins absolute understanding that the Allies refused to open a 2nd front, which would have taken pressure off the Russians who were being tarred in a manner the world had never seen, and God help us, we hope to never see again!
For the western allies, it was only dirty commies and nazis dying. We left them to their fate, and did not open a European front until Anzio in Jan. of 1944, which Kesselring regularly kicked the crap out of.
Meanwhile the Soviets on their own destroyed the Eastern Wehrmacht, an army 3 and 1/2 times the size of anything the rest of the allies faced in Europe.
In a word Stalin didn’t trust us, and had very good reason not to. 27 million Russians died while we did nothing but bomb Germany, which killed civilians, but did not do much to stop German production.
the siege of Stalingrad happened in 42-43. We did not stand on European soil with troops until 2 YEARS LATER.
Why? WE WERE FUCKING PUSSIES!! That is the absolute WHY, of the Cold War. Read my synopsis of what the Russians went through again please.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Will do, thanks. Sorry about my nievity (’sp’), but I knew one of you would help me see. This isn’t an area I’ve done much research on. My edu on this has been pretty much - Stalin Bad…America good. Rope, re WWII, were we dawdling or simply tooling up? and might the cold war been partially a result of our not wanting to ‘De’tool after such an investiment. Hense a need for new ‘enemies’? Just trying to get a better handle on our developement into the power we’ve become, and very much appreciate your insights.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Well all the weapons and such came from us and were sold to the Soviets and came to country of Russia through Murmansk, until Stalin mov ed and tooled up production behind the Urals, out of the range of the Luftwaffe. The Germans sank a pile of it, but we kept shipping it, some companies made staggering amounts of money supplying this.
We could just as easily supplied our own soldiers with those goods and attacked the Germans from the rear, the flank, anywhere would have helped the Russians. Instead we let ‘em DIE in droves. Russians went to battle, 2 man to a gun, after one got shot, the other took the gun. The battles out on the Steppes were HORRIFIC! I have seen film of it in Germany, HOLY SHIT!!! We have no credible idea.
February 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I’m troubled by the fact that most of the replies to my note had little to do with my
main point which was supposed to generate some discussion about how our experience with the Marshall Plan and the resulting European Union might bring peace to the Middle East. I might do that if we do it right.
Cheers…………………Walt Lyon
February 28th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
C’mon Walt, we’aint got the money anymore, or the moral imperative.
Done been squandered.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Kinda like conversation in real life huh Dad? Blogs are very much reflect real life. I know how you feel. The same happens to me. Nobody much likes to talk about my tribal obedience stuff.
Remember, for every comment made, 100 people have read the post.
Thank you for stimulating conversation. Its all good.
We look forward to your next post.
Love
Cliff
February 28th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Tribal is GOOD Cliff, the only thing to effectively combat FASCISM!
The Marshall Plan was a self interested effort, the method of creating the bulwark against communism. Realpolitik, pure self interest.
As Douglas Kinnard said. Poli Sci 51, International relations: No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent self interest.
If there was anything to gain long term in the ME Walt, we might consider it.