This piece vindicates, at least to a degree, this one, which received a lot of (mostly ignorant) criticism as to its historical authenticity.

The reference that you posted refers to a single NYT article from late 1945. It appears to be in conflict with another article in Slate [ http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/ ], which states that "while there were the occasional anti-occupation leaflets and graffiti, the GIs had reason to feel safe. When an officer in Hesse was asked to investigate rumors that troops were being attacked and castrated, he reported back that there had not been a single attack against an American soldier in four months of occupation. As the distinguished German historian Golo Mann summed it up in The History of Germany Since 1789, "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign. ?"
---
James Dobbins' "America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq" [ http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1753/ ] also supports this view. I find it quite interesting that post-WW II Germany undoubtedly was more devastated, had millions of refugees from other countries etc. etc. yet there appears to have been far less resistance to the U.S. occupying force than in today's Iraq!

MARCU$

My point was not about the resistance (in this case), but about the economy and infrastructure. The attacks aren't the only thing that the tranzis are criticizing the US for. They're also acting as though, a few months after the end of the war (with an ongoing low-level civil war) everyone should be expected to have power, fuel and internet.

They're also acting as though, a few months after the end of the war (with an ongoing low-level civil war) everyone should be expected to have power, fuel and internet.

Rand,
The problem is that was what the adminstration seemed to expect before the war.
I wonder if you can find any examples of senior Roosevelt administration figures implying the occupation would last months, be payed for thru selling clear cutting rights to the Black Forest, and that the primary justification was Heisenberg and Van Braun's work on Nazi superweapons that could hit Manhatten.

In fact the occupation of Germany was planned years in advance - while this adminstration shut down the military institute in charge of planning reconstruction.

Iraq did not turn out to be the conflict the public was sold. It failed to be the quick liberation that certain influential members of the Bush administration expected, and certain loud influential voices near the adminstration ranted about. There was a significant amount of self-delusion that needs to be held to account.

I do note that your matrix from a few months ago is in the right ballpark for costs (Failure of Inspections/Invasion/No WMD).

Of course you failed to factor in the "interest payments on historic domestic deficits" factor.

Not quite on topic, but close enough. Closer than anything else I can find, anyway.

Was reading the opinion pages of the local paper and was struck by one citizens complaint of the "almost daily casualties" of this war.

I was dumbfounded. Do people today not know what war is? I remember Vietnam...watching the news for the daily casualty reports. I was too young to be involved myself (thank God) but I was old enough to understand what the guy on the TV was saying. Going farther back to Korea and WWII...a daily casualy rate of zero, one, or two, would have been a God-send.

I don't know....and neither do the people who complain about the high cost of this war.

Cost of this war:

Money: half way to Korea in the first six months (not counting interest to come on the debt from this borrowed war, and Iraqi reconstruction)-when Vietnam began, the budget was in surplus.

Force structure: The army is a lot smaller, and more specialized. You can't replace these guys with a draft, even if it was reinstated... and being highly skilled, they are in higher demand in the civilian workplace. So moral is more important to keeping up numbers and every soldier lost KIA, WIA or returning to civilian life is significantly harder to replace than in Vietnam.

If this deployment contiues at current levels, the army will collapse in six months - so says the CBO.

This is an expensive war - and in the long run, the costs related to it may be more significant than the short term casualty rates of previous wars.

> In fact the occupation of Germany was planned
> years in advance - while this adminstration
> shut down the military institute in charge of
> planning reconstruction.

> Iraq did not turn out to be the conflict the
> public was sold. It failed to be the quick
> liberation that certain influential members of
> the Bush administration expected, and certain
> loud influential voices near the adminstration
> ranted about. There was a significant amount of
> self-delusion that needs to be held to account.

[excellent post snipped for brevity]

Excellent post Duncan -- so why doesn't Rand respond?

MARCU$