Iraq reconstruction raises many questions

Re “ ‘Marshall Plan’ for Iraq Fades,” Jan. 15

There is an important difference between the Marshall Plan for Europe and the debacle that is Iraq: The Marshall Plan actually helped Europe. After nearly three years and $18 billion spent in a country with rock-bottom construction costs, Iraq is still in shambles. So where did the money go?

Judging by the number of scandals, reconstruction was not the goal but rather was a thinly disguised welfare plan for U.S. companies. And, of course, forcing Iraq, a country we’ve destroyed, to pay for its own reconstruction is right out of the International Monetary Fund playbook: loan forgiveness in return for allowing corporations to “privatize” Iraq’s oil and infrastructure at fire-sale prices. Such a deal.

Comparing the mess in Iraq with the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe is a triple insult: to the Marshall Plan, to the American taxpayers and, most of all, to the Iraqi people.

RICHARD MALLERY

North Hollywood

*

What timing. Friday night, I saw the play “What I Heard About Iraq,” exposing the Bush administration lies that led us to war. Saturday night, I saw the short documentary “Caught in the Crossfire,” in which journalists reveal what’s left of Fallouja, a city now reduced to rubble. Sunday morning, I read The Times’ article.

Am I heartbroken, ashamed or enraged? All three. Not only have we killed many thousands because of the administration’s trumped-up claims, but after destroying Iraq’s infrastructure, businesses and homes, and allowing the looting of cultural treasures, we are apparently ready to walk away, telling the country we’ve destroyed to toughen up, tighten belts, embrace the free market and privatize. The question now is not only who will pay to reconstruct Iraq but who will pay for these crimes.

DIANE LEFER

Los Angeles