U.S. Assistance to Iraq, Post-War Germany, Japan Compared (CRS)
The total amount of U.S. aid to Iraq since 2003 is already comparable to post-World War II U.S. assistance to Germany and nearly double that provided to Japan, according to a new Congressional Research Service analysis (pdf).
“U.S. assistance to Germany totaled some $4.3 billion ($29.6 billion in 2005 dollars) for the years of direct military government (May 1945-May 1949) and the overlapping Marshall Plan years (1948/1949-1952).”
“Total U.S. assistance to Japan for the years of the occupation, from 1946-1952 was roughly $2.2 billion ($15.2 billion in 2005 dollars), of which almost $1.7 billion was grants and $504 million was loans.”
By comparison, “U.S. assistance to Iraq appropriated from FY2003 to FY2006 totaled some $28.9 billion.”
The CRS report is careful to note the various distinctions between the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the occupations of Germany and Japan.
For one thing, “Unlike the cases of Germany and Japan, there was no massive humanitarian crisis requiring aid in Iraq.”
On the other hand, “Iraq also faces an insurgency that deliberately sabotages the economy and reconstruction efforts, whereas there were no resistance movements in either Germany or Japan.”
CRS does not permit direct public access to its products. A copy of the new report was obtained by Secrecy News.
See “U.S. Occupation Assistance: Iraq, Germany and Japan Compared,” March 23, 2006.
If you’re new to the climate intervention space, welcome! The TL;DR: if we can’t stop the most catastrophic impacts of climate change with current tools quickly enough, then we need a bigger toolbox.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.
Investment should instead be directed at sectors where American technology and innovation exist but the infrastructure to commercialize them domestically does not—and where the national security case is clear.