Some Members of the 111 th Congress may question whether U.S. assistance to Iraq in the wake of the military action of 2003 has been adequate, others whether it might be excessive. One point of comparison that is often invoked is the assistance that the United States provided to Germany and Japan during military occupations of those countries after World War II. This report provides data through September 30, 2006 (the end of FY2006), at which point U.S. aid to Iraq had surpassed U.S. aid to Germany and Japan during the post-World War II occupations. The following information and attached tables compare assistance to Iraq during the first three and a half years after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, with U.S. assistance during the occupations of those two countries. In brief, although the context of the military occupation of Iraq is markedly different from that of the other two, the total amount of U.S. assistance allocated for Iraq through FY2006 appears to be about a fifth higher than the amount provided to Germany and somewhat more than double that provided to Japan for the seven years after World War II. (This represented the overlapping periods of direct military government and the Marshall plan assistance in Germany and the entire period of the military occupation of Japan.) Breakdowns for specific purposes are difficult, as the costs were covered under different categories and in different ways. One area in which a rough approximation is possible, however, is funding for the reconstruction and improvement of critical economic infrastructure. This figure is particularly important to some Members as they consider the tradeoffs between funding spent on Iraq and funding available for similar purposes in the United States. Comparisons of funding for other purposes, such as government, education, and humanitarian relief are difficult, as the needs were different in each case and/or the assistance was provided in different ways that do not facilitate comparison. This report does not attempt to compare indirect forms of assistance, such as debt relief, and funding provided by other donors. Aid allocations for Iraq appropriated from FY2003 through FY2006, all of which is grant assistance, totaled $35.7 billion. Of this, about $11.8 billion (33%) was for the repair and improvement of critical economic infrastructure. The total figure is almost a fifth higher than total assistance provided to Germany from FY1946-1952 ($29.3 billion in 2005 dollars) and somewhat more than double that provided to Japan ($15.2 billion in 2005 dollars). U.S. funding provided specifically for economic infrastructure in Iraq appears to be greater than the proportion provided for economic reconstruction in both Germany and Japan. Figure 1. U.S. Assistance to Iraq (FY2003-FY2006), Germany, and Japan (1946-1952), Total and for Economic ReconstructionSource: Congressional Research Service. Data from U.S. Department of State, appropriations bills, and other sources. The circumstances in which the U.S. occupations of Germany and Japan began were quite different from those under which the U.S. entered Iraq in 2003. Germany and Japan had both declared war on the United States and during at least the first year after World War II, U.S. policymakers were inclined to provide only a survival level of food and other assistance to its defeated enemies in order to avert starvation and prevent massive outbreaks of disease. U.S. objectives in the post-World War II occupations were characterized as the four "Ds". The United States' primary objective in both Germany and Japan was demilitarization . In Japan, the next two were disarmament and decentralization of the economy through the dismantling of powerful economic groups. In Germany, the next two were denatzification and deindustralization , the later in the expectation that Germany could become an agricultural country. The fourth "D" in both cases was democratization , although many U.S. policymakers and occupation planners were skeptical that the Germans and Japanese had the necessary cultural background and psychological disposition for flourishing democracies. Both countries were expected to be responsible for their own economic recovery. Within a few years, however, the United States had recognized the need to provide assistance for economic recovery and reconstruction in Germany and Japan. Programs with that objective commenced in 1948. In Iraq, in contrast, U.S. policymakers have made economic and political reconstruction and development priorities from the outset. Democracy-building became the primary objective of U.S. assistance to Iraq very early in the occupation, as no caches of biological and chemical weapons were found. Unlike the cases of Germany and Japan, there was no massive humanitarian crisis requiring aid in Iraq. It is impossible to precisely compare the amount of aid that the United States has provided to post-war Iraq with the amounts spent during the occupations of Germany and Japan. For one, there is no record of the amount spent on political and social welfare reconstruction and development in Germany and Japan. Much of the political and social welfare institution-building assistance that is being provided by U.S. contractors in Iraq now was either not provided in the cases of Germany and Japan, was paid for by those countries (which made payments to the United States for occupation costs), or was done by occupation troops or others whose salary costs were not calculated. No precise calculation of assistance for economic reconstruction can be made in the cases of Germany and Japan without surveying the papers from the occupations for that specific purpose, as information available in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) data base, the standard source for figures on U.S. government assistance, is aggregated according to accounts, not purposes. In addition, in the case of funding for Iraq, accounts may contain a mix of assistance types, and even specific grants may have multiple humanitarian, political, and economic purposes. Nevertheless, very rough comparisons of assistance for economic reconstruction are possible. For the purposes of rough comparison, this report compared figures from the web version of the standard source for U.S. foreign aid funding, U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants as the source for figures on U.S. aid to Japan and Germany. CRS converted these figures to constant 2005 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (These aid figures do not reflect the net amount of U.S. assistance to these countries, as they do not offset amounts that the conquered countries paid in reparations. Nor do they account for the amounts paid by those countries for feeding and housing occupation troops.) The four tables at the end of this report show these figures. In addition, further information is supplied in the sections below from a Marshall Plan document in the case of Germany and from occupation documents in the case of Japan. 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). Initial funding, primarily under the Government and Relief in Occupied Areas (GARIOA) program was directed primarily at humanitarian relief. (GARIOA provided funding for the basic relief supplies necessary for "the prevention of disease and unrest prejudicial to the occupying forces," and was "limited to food, fertilizers, seed, and minimum petroleum requirements." ) GARIOA grants and loans—totaling $2.2 billion in current dollars ($15.4 in constant 2005 dollars)—made up just over half of the total and virtually all of the funding for about the first three years, although a small amount of other relief aid and some military surplus property was also provided during that period. The Marshall Plan, through which aid to Germany began in 1948/1949 and continued through 1952, provided about a third of total U.S. aid to that country. Some military aid grants, related to the new security environment, was provided in the last Marshall Plan years. (The West German government eventually repaid one-third of total U.S. assistance to Germany during this period, even though loans formally comprised only 28% of total funds provided to Germany.) The Marshall Plan provided the first funding for Germany with the specific objective of promoting economic recovery. The official figure for total Marshall Plan assistance to Germany is almost $1.4 billion in current year dollars ($9.3 billion in 2005 dollars, of which $7.8 billion was grants and $1.5 billion was loans). [This corresponds to the categories of USAID Predecessor Grants and USAID Predecessor Loans in the tables below.] The entire amount of Marshall Plan aid is usually considered economic reconstruction funding, even though much of the aid provided, in the first year particularly, was foodstuff to feed workers whose productivity was compromised by malnourishment. (The severe winter of 1946-1947 in Europe made hunger a greater problem at that point than it was right at the end of the war and made apparent the need for increased food and other assistance.) The economic effect of Marshall Plan assistance was enhanced by the Plan's requirement that recipients match U.S. funding with "counterpart" contributions in national currencies. These were invested in the areas that national governments determined, in consultation with Marshall Plan officials, would best stimulate national economies. According to an interim report to Congress prepared by the Economic Cooperation Agency (the agency which administered the Marshall Plan), food accounted for nearly half (i.e., 46%) of the commodities delivered in the first three-plus years (i.e., between April 3, 1948, and June 30, 1951). (Deliveries during this period accounted for perhaps 80% of total deliveries under the Marshall Plan.) Inputs to industry (i.e., raw materials and semi-finished products) comprised 40% of the total. Of those inputs, nearly 60% was cotton; most of the rest was metals and chemicals. Petroleum and petroleum products accounted for 4%.