Peter F. Schaefer writes "More MacArthur, Less Marshall" in TCS Daily that the approach taken in Japan versus that taken in Germany after WWII was more successful. Part of Schaefer's discussion includes the viability of the nation being rebuilt. He points out that the Sioux Indian nation is more of a nation that Tito's Yugoslavia.

This article is worth reading, and it inspired me to search anew for good books on the Marshall Plan and on MacArthur's plan for Japan.

Excerpt:
"Moreover, MacArthur's occupation plan was developed between 1942 and 1945 and then used during the occupation. It was produced by a large team working on the expectation of a hostile invasion and a process of pacification that would cost a million US casualties and millions of Japanese lives. MacArthur knew that he would not be welcomed as a liberator. His team knew there would be much hard work needed to keep the Japanese islands from descending into chaos and violence."

Update: it occurs to me that the Allies began planning for the post-war world long before 1945. Churchill discusses this in his fantastic six volume history of World War II. It would be interesting to know whether President Clinton or his cabinet directed planners in the government to plan for a post-war Iraq after passing the Iraq Liberation Act in October of 1998. If there were plans, why weren't they used? If there weren't, then why pass the bill other than as political theatre?