Rebuilding Iraq

Politics International Politics
21

Muzhaman:

Sorry if I bounce between you and other posters on the issue. I did not intend to misquote you or refer to you with some of my remarks. I have to admit to being a bit of a computer idiot and I still do not know how to use the quote function on this thread… :blush:

I have to agree with Tigerman that the news reported in nauseating detail everything that could go wrong with the Iraq initiative and now is only focusing on the ones that actually did not come off optimally. That is like my saying the stock market will stay flat, drop and go up and then latch onto the quote where I was right and say, see I told you.

Let’s look at what went right: No civil war, no major urban fighting, no quagmire, the war is over, the insurgency continues in only a small part of the country, the power facilities were not destroyed, the oil facilities were not destroyed, chemical and bio weapons (and nukes) were not used, third countries were not attacked (israel), no refugee crisis, the museum was not looted to the extent claimed and a lot has been recovered, the cholera outbreak, etc. etc. etc. the Turks and Kurds did not get involved in a war, the Shias did not uprise, the Iranians did not get involved, the Saudi oilfields did not get nuked, oil did not go to US$80 a barrel… and on and on and on and on

Okay. Few nations are supporting the US. Does this surprise you? I will tell you why they do not: no money, no men. Even France and Germany are tapped out. The UN? Hah! Don’t make me laugh. It is still stuck in Cyprus for Christ’s sake and that has been nearly 30 years. How can it send more to other countries since the primary peacekeeping forces come from the US? Rebuilding, possible that Bush underestimated this. Many claim that he did so. It certainly seems that he did but many many sources in Conservative newspapers were reporting Minimum US$100 billion I see US$87 billion for both Afghanistan and Iraq and I am saying okay that seems reasonable and in line.

Again, now, while not to downplay deaths and such. Only 330 or so have been killed in fighting a war to take down a country the size of California with a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein and fight an insurgency for six months and search for weapons of mass destruction (which I believe that he had though we may not find any) and police a lawless country and prevent civil war. Hmmm I think that is fucking fantastic and should go down in the annals of history as a major fucking success. Yet, I see newspapers whining about quagmire?! Again, not to downplay the Iraqi civilian casualties but my reason for focusing on coalition deaths is a. I am more sensitive to American and British deaths and will not pretend not to be. The reason I point this out is that it is precisely these deaths and not those of Iraqis civilians (or insurgents) that is causing the panic in Western capitals and among the media about the QUAGMIRE. This is why I focused on those specifically. Does this make sense?

So Oman just had an election yesterday. The first ever. Qatar and Abu Dhabi are now open for business and you don’t need a visa. Bahrain is more open than ever. Saudi Arabia is now allowing tourism. Kuwait is still somewhat closed but moving toward changing this. Syria no longer requires visas in advance nor does Lebanon. Get them at the airport or border. Ditto for Jordan and Egypt. Libya is moving toward opening the country to tourism. Iran is open for tourism and most of the population is rabidly pro-American as are the Syrians and Lebanese. The Gulf Arabs are less so but certainly eager to do business and remain allied with their No. 1 protector.

To my knowledge, many Iraqis are worried about the occupation but 65 percent don’t want the troops to leave until order is restored and believe that they will have a better future in five years. Sounds to me like the whole thing has been successful.

Where I am most worried is about the total lack of commitment and downright hostility from nations such as France, though Germany and Belgium have backed off surprisingly fast. As for Russia, come on, it was never going to be too eager to see US influence expand even further at its expense but France.

Can anyone answer me what France gained from all of this? Why are so many Westerners supporting its views? This war has not set a precedent for pre-emptive action or similar wars in Yugoslavia and French actions in Africa would have set this decades ago.

This war did not make the UN irrelevant. It already was and that’s why the actions in Bosnia and Kosovo did not have its imprimatur either.

This is not about the US becoming a hegemon. Does anyone serioiusly believe that the US wants to keep 140K troops in Iraq?

Sorry again, if I am answering some of your points while making others which are not directed at you. I really am not sure how to bounce back and forth between quotes and answers so please allow me some latitude and focus only on the points that are directed at you in this long-winded ramble.

22

We have half our combat troops sitting in the middle of a desert getting shot for WMD that didn’t exist just to fulfill Neo-Con wet dreams about controlling the world’s second biggest oil reserves and running up huge contract deals for Halliburton and Bechtel. I thought we were in a life-and-death struggle with radical Islam around the world and couldn’t afford to put our resources into dumb stuff that would just inflame the hatred even more.

Now, this whole war that was supposed to be about WMDs that might imminently be blowing off in our major cities turns out to have been a complete crock of crap and the governments responsible for foisting it upon us knew about it. We’ve managed to fulfill all the worst stereotypes about Americans, shoring up plenty of otherwise asinine conspiracy theories.

Frankly, I don’t much like having the American president and his crew act like the villains from James Bond movies.

23

Oh for fuck’s sake.

I just spent the last hour typing a reply to Fred and Tigerman and it’s just gone.

Well, I’m not about to summarize now except to say that this time my words would have doubtlessly convinced you both of the rightness of my opinions. :smiley:

Damn.

Anyway, I’ll try again tomorrow.

Fred, thanks for the post. I apologize for my remarks about your humanity. Just remember that we’re not all Americans and not everything America does is best for all the decent people of this world (as any lumberjack from British Columbia suffering from illegal US tariffs on softwood lumber will tell you.) :?

24

Well a comment in general. Just talked to someone who is now traveling regularly to do business in Iraq!!! and he told me that Iraq today is dangerous but comparable to South Africa in terms of crime (in some areas) so if everyone is not shitting bricks about the crime rates in South Africa, what’s the big deal with Iraq? Anyway, that’s his point and I would have to say I agree. Every time there is a terrorist attack or crime wave in other nations, is it covered with the same intensity that Iraq is? If the heat deaths had occurred not in Europe especially France this summer but Iraq, can anyone imagine the shrill squealing and condemnation that would have been directed at the US and Bush? Yet, because it was in France, well that’s okay and the French did the best they could? Where are the criticisms, the calls for UN involvement, the demands that Chirac step down for the high numbers of civilian casualities. This confuses me.

freddy

25

fOR MORE FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE QUAGMIRE, read on…

In one poll, the Saudi daily Okaz asked people if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “Iraq, and the people of Iraq, are today better off than they were in the past.” 66 percent of the respondents “strongly agreed” and another 17 percent “agreed.” Only 17 percent disagreed. One hundred percent of respondents disagreed with the statement: “It is possible that Saddam Hussein will return to govern Iraq because he is preferable to the Western coalition.” In analyzing the results of the poll, the paper concluded that a majority of Iraqis are pessimistic about the conditions in the short term, but optimistic about the long-term situation. [1]

In another poll - this one taken for the American Enterprise Institute by Zogby International - two findings are particularly significant:

Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now.
While they may not like being under occupation, 59 percent of respondents would give the occupation forces and, by extension, the CPA, the additional time of one to two years to initiate political and economic reforms.

Among the many polls taken in Iraq recently, there was one conducted by the Iraqi daily Al-Nahdha, which is associated with Dr. 'Adnan Al-Pachachi’s liberal movement. The poll asked 1,000 men and women over a four day-period in the second half of September whether they thought Baghdad has become a dangerous city. 47.3 percent said no and 46 percent said yes. Those who said yes pointed out that following the looting of government offices, the looters turned their attention to residential areas. Those who responded no mentioned the presence of Iraqi police on the street and the restoration of the emergency telephone line 104 (equivalent to 911 in the U.S.). [12]

“For a thousand years,” wrote the Iraqi daily Al-Watan, published by the Iraqi National Movement, in an editorial titled “Painstaking Efforts and Visible Improvement in Security:” “Baghdad has been under either domestic or external siege. And now Baghdad is free and is open to the world, but there are forces trying to put it back by destroying what is left of its infrastructure and by propagating fear and chaos.” The editorial added: "the Iraqi citizen has begun to feel that the security situation has taken a powerful step forward when the Iraqi police force began to play a more noticeable role than before. The citizen is feeling that police presence close to him will assist him when assistance is needed

26

Well here is a novel suggestion for everyone that supported/supports the U.S.-led invasion in Iraq - If you are young enough JOIN THE MILITARY and volunteer to serve in Iraq…if you are not young enough or qualified then go to Iraq and do some community service…hey maybe you could even teach English. I am sure the citizens would welcome you with open arms.
See if everyone would just follow this simple plan then we would all be in harmony again…just a thought…

27

I didn’t want to post right away to take away Vannyel’s exciting philosophical moment where he cuts to the chase to show how WRONG anyone is for supporting the effort in Iraq, but… in a kind mood…

Vannyel: Yes, this old debate has been raging quite some time. If you are not willing or able to join the Armed Forces, who are you to have an opinion? So I assume that you too are in the armed forces, hence your opinion.

I will also fail to point out the obvious that those who joined the armed forces do so knowing that they can be sent to combat. That’s why it is called the Armed Forces. Those Armed Forces are paid for by the citizenry’s tax dollars. I am a citizen. I do not have children in the public schools but I still have opinions about public education. I think that you see where I am going with this…

Then, you should not vote on raising the wages of garbage collectors unless you are willing to collect garbage yourself, criticize the icing on the donuts at the local bakery unless you are willing to get up at 4:00 a.m. and do it yourself or EVERYONE NOW come along you know the words… complain about your politicians unless you think you can do a better job and run the country yourself.

Ah, that brief bubble of clever wittiness so gone in what seemed like a second.

So remember that when people sign up for the military services or national guard there are obligations that go with this. It is not all about collecting retirement and insurance and educational benefits while participating in rough and ready team-building exercises once a month to better bond with your friends over a few beers in the Rocky Mountains while learning an exciting new career in military communications.

freddy

28

OH NO!!! Just as predicted, with the cooler weather the power situation is under control!!! IRAQ IS A QUAGMIRE!!! Sorry could not resist. It just seem so reflexive doesn’t it?

Well must run. Isn’t this good news? I am sure that we will all received this pleased and happy to know that the Iraqis are now on the road to recovery. We are all happy aren’t we?

brightens Iraqis Tensions dim as electricity output rises
By C

29

Any other shit-poor countries without WMD we can invade so that we can spend huge sums to rebuild them? Following on the Bush administration’s logic, it might be a good idea to divert the other half of our available combat troops to some remote butthole of the world so that hundreds of them can get shot and blown up.

The $87 billion being asked for is far more than the entire amount alloted for Homeland Security. We still don’t have the resources to check out the ships and containers coming into the U.S., and the cheesy plastic-badge airport security guys are still routinely screwing up. We still don’t have the scanners necessary to detect plastic explosives in most of the airports.

But somehow, despite massive tax cuts made to the wealthiest 1% and a government that has sunk into a very deep debt, we are supposed to come up with $87 billion to pay right over to Halliburton and Bechtel to do all the construction work to make Iraq a solid democratic ally.

Meanwhile, we’re supposed to fight any actions on the cheap – so the troops still don’t get adequate equipment. Many of the troops are buying night-vision googles and other supposedly “standard” bits of equipment with their own money – and many troops still don’t have desert camos. If they get shot or wounded, it’s interesting to note that Bush’s administration decided to save costs by slashing their death and disability benefits.

30

Well at least we are on to the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent, and poorly equipped this and not enough money for that so we seem to be leaving Iraq behind as perhaps many of us will be doing just as we did with Afghanistan. Neither place is perfect but better than before and good enough for us. The weather is cooling, the Iraqis are being trained and taking over security jobs and details (the more of them the less of us and they do it cheaper and it provides employment). Yippee.

Yup. That US$87 billion for world security has me tossing and turning in my sleep especially since I see so few results for that money as opposed to the US$7 trillion spent fighting poverty in America since 1967 which has … increased poverty and done nothing to stem the slide in educational standards. But hey, don’t let that US$7 trillion (when the US economy was much smaller too by the way) get in your way of noticing the US$87 that the US is spending to single handedly transform the Middle East (and it shows in only six months). Gosh that 0.87 percent of the GDP that we are throwing down the drain. I am sure most of the Iraqis feel it is a big waste too (but don’t forget to subtract the cost of containing Iraq and all the flights to enforce the no fly zones) so really the net…

US$10 billion to Afghanistan so that leaves US$77 billion (US$20 billion to rebuild Iraq) and US$57 billion for military actions for a year. Are you saying we should keep the US$10 billion that will go to Afghanistan?

Then of the US$57 billion (how much was being spent for bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, more naval and air presence in the region, stored weapons, etc. PRIOR to the invasion?) I think that we can put that price tag at a good US$20 billion per year so the net… maybe US$37 billion? or 0.37 percent of the economy and this will not last in perpetuity. Things can start winding down after more Iraqis are trained to take care of their own security? US$20 billion is a one off (how many times do you need to rebuild the same power/sewerage/transportation systems?)

Hurray. Things are going very well. Six more months and we may see some substantial progress in the economy? But April 2005 is when we can give a real report card. Two years into the action.

All of us should be very happy for the Iraqis. No? Things like restoration of power, phones, schools, hospitals, water, roads, museums, etc. should make each and everyone of us happy. Right?

31

Wow. Your post is quite feverish about the massive reversal of fortune you expect in Iraq. And without any predictions about the efficacy of V-weapons??

Everyone should be happy about Iraqis getting a better life. Since this war wasn’t about WMDs (as the American people were told repeatedly), let’s go out and help lots of other countries with poor standards of living or despotic governments by invading them! Thanks for your moral clarity – the U.S. will keep sending its troops around the world, spending billions of dollars to bring light to the masses. And they’ll all welcome us as “liberators,” just as they did in Iraq.

32

m:

I never said it was not about wmds. I am saying everything is going very well right now. VERY WELL.

Sorry that foreign policy does not have a one size fits all approach to make it easier for people like you to understand. Perhaps you might try buying one of those books in Barnes and Nobel what is it called oh yes

Foreign Policy for Dummies

Then get back to us with some more insightful comments. Foreign policy and goals do not have to be applied equally and uniformily to each country, but ideally they should represent the interests and principles behind which the nation itself stands. Get it?

33

Very well, except for the part about the entire basis for the war (WMDs) being a complete and sloppy fabrication. Of course the Bush folks have a great cookbook for foreign policy: The Project for the New American Century.

The thing reads like a plot out of an Austin Powers movie, but sadly its authors include the main chickenhawks in the Bush administration. Since the main user of this guidebook is Dubya, it would certainly qualify as “Foreign Policy for Dummies.”

You feel that the interests and principles behind which the nation itself stands should be reflected in foreign policy and goals? So basically you feel the U.S. is a nation whose interests are in seeing the public routinely lied to so that Big Oil buddies of the president can get a payday. A nation that sends its soldiers to fight and die far away from home so some Neo Con wet dream of oil dominance and “strategic positioning” can be accomplished.

That’s not the part of America I’m from.

34

You keep saying this like you believe it. When Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 (Desert Fox) and said that Iraq had WMD was this a “complete and sloppy fabrication”? The fact that every U.S. institute that studies WMD, from Monterey to the Stimson Center reported throughout the 1990s to the day the U.S. invaded Iraq, that Saddam almost certainly had ongoing WMD programs, was that a “complete and sloppy fabrication” as well? When both Clinton and Gore said on the eve of the war that Saddam had WMD programs were they in on Bush’s “complete and sloppy fabrication”?

35

Tell me, Mafangongren, when Clinton said this “We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure,” in the wake of Desert Fox, was he already laying the ground work for Bush’s “complete and sloppy fabrication”?

36

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/

37

Interesting – if what you suggest is correct (that Clinton inflicted significant damage to Saddam’s WMD programs), then there really was no need for Bush II to invade Iraq. As no WMDs have been found since the invasion and, according to the U.S. chief weapons inspector, do not appear likely to be found, it appears that Clinton handled this pretty well.

I never expected you to make this point, but you have really made my day. :slight_smile:

38

Interesting – if what you suggest is correct (that Clinton inflicted significant damage to Saddam’s WMD programs), then there really was no need for Bush II to invade Iraq. As no WMDs have been found since the invasion and, according to the U.S. chief weapons inspector, do not appear likely to be found, it appears that Clinton handled this pretty well.

I never expected you to make this point, but you have really made my day. :slight_smile:[/quote]

Since Clinton, in his role as ex-president, didn’t believe that, why should you? I repeat, both Gore and Clinton in the run-up to the invasion said that Saddam had WMD programs. Were they lying or just taken in by Bush’s complete and sloppy fabrication?

39

I suppose that the CIA and the UN weapons inspectors don’t count because “every” U.S. institute that studies WMDs from afar had some opinion that turned out to be wrong. At this point, the Bush II administration wishes it had found WMDs, but if you’ve got wishes in one hand and Niger browncake in the other let’s just see which one fills up faster.

40

From that site:

And then

The President described the threat repeatedly as a “growing threat” and argued that it was prudent to deal with this “growing threat” before it became too late to do so or before the cost of doing so increased.