A study commissioned by the Pentagon to evaluate the present situation in Iraq was discussed in the media yesterday. I think it reveals a 'D' performance in Iraq following the war based on poor planning and poor development of postwar policy.

Postwar Window Closing in Iraq, Study Says














This is an issue like social security. The time to act is now so we can manage this situation. The money must be invested into Iraq to jump start its paralyzed economy. Leaving people without electricity and water in the middle of a hot summer is not the best way to inspire confidence.

I voted "C" (suprised?)

I think the situation on the ground is a bit different from what they planned on. I also think the war went alot quicker than expected, pushing up the need for certain supplies and expertise in Iraq.

They could have done a bit better.

I don't agree that the international community has any better chance of getting the job done. The UN's record in Bosnia speaks for itself. The only advantage to "going international" would be to publicize the internal problems in Iraq to those outside of the US and UK. It might take away some of the stigma of the US being an "occupying force" as well.

I agree with you 100% Amlord.

I give it a C also.

I Voted "C" as well.

I voted 'D'.

My reasoning is simple. I do not believe, and the evidence and every-day occurances are proof to my point, that the Bush administration had no plan for a post-war Iraq. Obviously, some of the things that have happened were rather unpredictable, but there was simply no plan to secure and maintain safety in a liberated Iraq.



I have to disagree with this. To my recollection, the Bush administration, near the end of the war, were airing reports on how the war would be harder and take longer than what was originally expected.

The "major combat operations" phase was quicker than expected.

The "occupation/reconstruction" phase seems harder and might take longer.

I am mildly encouraged by some gaining momentum in the process. There seems to be a combination of awareness of shortcomings so far, a reasonable amount of honesty and transparency (sans Wolfowitz) about the problems encourntered in Iraq, and a potentially significant (in terms fo impact on the reconstruction process) downfall of the Hussein boys.

I hope that my limited hopefullness will be rewarded. The situation's seriousness has been highlighted by working with a parent of a soldier in the 101st. These are tense times near Mosul.

Unless you sit on the National Security Council or hung out with Gen. Franks in Doha, Kuwait, doesn't it seem a little unreasonable to state so matter of fact that there was no plan?

There indeed was a thought out plan prior to the start of hostilities, as evidenced by the pre-positioning of Civil Affairs, Civil Engineers, and Legal teams (JAG) in theater. They moved in following the combat forces, and immediately went to work once an area was cleared. However, when you are de facto running an entire country, things are not going to go your way nearly as often as you would like.

I think things are going change for the better, and despite all of the bad press, we are doing a lot of good work in Iraq. The US casualties sadden me beyond comprehension, but considering all of the circumstances, I give our effort a B.

Progress after 5 1/2 months and so far approximately $100 billion deserves an F.
The Admin is working hard to make us believe things are better than they look in order to garner public opinion for their unbelievable request to Congress for another $80b supplemental...after they just got one in April. That is on top of the $1B per week it costs just to be in Iraq.

The claims of progress do not match any other reports coming from Iraq, they don't match the level of hostility towards our troops and the entire occupation, and it doesn't explain why things keep looking worse if they are getting better.

We don't know how many more projects need to be completed or how many have been finished. Someone must have a 'to-do' list of some kind along with a plan that includes what is being given priority. Most of all they need an accounting of what projects had to be contracted out which ones are able to be done using Iraqi business's and workers. Someone needs to do the books and make sure they are right because of the major conflicts of interests between the administration and Corporations we are spending so much on. This is not an unreasonble request and nothing any other US President would be expected to submit.

Sunday Bush will grace us with a rare national address. This is the culmination of the big sell and will go something like this: lot's of progress, more security being trained, no need for more US troops on the ground, better every day, hunting down remnents and terrorists...He will talk about the wonders of freedom for the people and how they are much better off (he should ask some of them). Then he will talk about Saddam and his brutal regime (and blame his neglect for why we can't fix anything) Then he will tell us his views on global terrorism and how he is going to end the threat and will not rest and it's the most important thing ever in the history of the world so we have to support everything he's doing and give him any amount of money he may come to us for until this war is over....and that's about it.

He may try to explain where the last $80b went....on things like repairing electrical lines, hospitals, medicines, water treatment pumps, starting up a new telephone/communicatons network etc. But if you read what is being said by our troops and by the Iraqi's in various stories all over the web you're left to decide which Iraq is the real one and which is fiction and who has something to gain by lying about it.

A few links disputing the predictable explanations and claims that will be in Bush's speech. Feel free to compare notes after his address.
re: water, communications, rights, electricity, progress
more about progress in daily life
more misc progress
enough US troops?
$80M contract to firm w/ bush ties for drawing up Iraq's new laws
conflicts of interest and big money

I am just saddened by the lack of something less than an F

The total lack of WMD starts out the grade slide. Attempting to set up a puppet goverment that has no support from the population makes it just keep going.

I hope the UN refuses any request by the US until we have a "regime change"

I gave it a 'D.' My reasoning: there probably was no plan, but at least its not TOTAL chaos. We have done SOME things, a complete failure would be us accomplishing nothing at all and wasting lots of money. I think we have wasted a lot of money doing some little things, but nothing awe-inspiring or even basic.

Does it not benefit the field commanders to recieve a poor score based on funding? The field commanders will then get more money and supplies, right? And is it not the field commanders that reports progress and give tours to inspectors from America and the UN? Is it possible that things over there are better than precieved? Besides, it's a war...how well did you think things would go? I think we get an A!

"I am at a loss to reconcile what we see on the ground with what is being reported. ... Security has improved with Iraqi police everywhere, telephones are starting to work, electricity, while off and on, is relatively stable, the stores are full of food, and, little by little, people are getting jobs back. ... People for the first time have hope and a future." Ken Joseph, the American pastor who went to Baghdad as a human shield, but was so disgusted by Saddam Hussein's regime that he left made this statement since his return to Iraq.

Rumsfield was addressing Iraqis this week and made this statement:

Baghdad is bustling with commerce. Universities and hospitals are open for business, "A free press is flourishing, Iraqi banks have started taking applications for small business loans so Iraqi entrepreneurs can create jobs."

The political infrastructure is steadily being transformed, he said. In cities and towns, "municipal councils are making decisions about local matters."

If I am not mistaken, it took 4 years in Germany and more than that in Japan before they had elections and began to control their countries on their own. This process will take time. I think the Coalition has done an outstanding job in the few months they have been there especially when Saddam loyalists and terrorists are trying to sabatoge the electricity, which affects the water.

I give it a B.

Rumsfeld's comments in Iraq were met with anger and astonishment from troops and Iraqi's as well. But maybe he's telling the truth and everyone else is wrong. Now would be a bad time for him to lie because he's increasingly drawing heat.
The costs, stretched troops, lack of planning, lack of security, are all catching up with poor Rumsfeld.

Maybe things are improving somewhere in Iraq and I just keep missing those stories. The new big issue seems to be lack of security for civilians now too.
But Rumsfeld keeps saying they don't need any more troops on the ground so it must be true. Bush really does appear to be negotiating with the UN, which I originally thought was just to help him deal with Congress next week and it wasn't going to go anywhere. But I was wrong...there is a shift going on which is good to see.

Beladonna,
Germany and Japan were beaten armies that peacefully surrendered. War phase ended and peacekeeping phase started. It wasn't a hostile occupation and they weren't protesting for us to leave. We had the time, planning, cooperation, and funds to get the job done and then get out. We have no where near that kind of situation in Iraq. We couldn't afford to spend four years even if we wanted to.
We have not drastically improved their living conditions, and they have had no voice in any decisions. With Bush going to the UN I'm hopeful things can start to turn around. We'll see.

Danya,

Can you provide the source for this information?



Danya,

A small portion of Germans and Japanese DID protest for the US to leave. The MAJORITY of Iraqis are not protesting for the US to leave. Only a small faction. The MAJORITY of Iraqis want us to stay. This has been evidenced by many polls.



We are not near the situation you described above with regards to funding and cooperation BECAUSE of UN actions or inactions with regard to Iraq. I don't want them involved. The Iraqi people do not like them or want them involved either. If the UN gets involved it will only make the situation worse. We need to start with NATO.



As far as improving their living conditions - you seem to speak strictly of material things. These things are improving daily. Material things are in MOST areas, better than they were pre-war. Baghdad is the city that is having the hardest time keeping electricity on 24/7. Other cities are completely powered and are thriving.

But what of the living conditions that really mean more in the long run. Freedom of speech, freedom to protest, freedom from torture, freedom from rape chambers, freedom from brainwashing small school children, freedom from ethnic cleansing. I'd say their "living conditions" have improved 100 fold.



Again, can you provide a source that indicates the US will not allow the Iraqis to voice their opinions, that the US has denied the Iraqis the right to form a government, that the US has discouraged the Iraqis from forming a government?

The reality is quite the opposite.

Then i will help you:

Nobody wants saddam back

Letter from baghdad

The liberal media just doesn't want you to hear it.



That's what the police force that we are building up is for



Post WWII War problems in Germany

Can you cite a source for all these polls? Because that's not what I've been reading...


Do you have a source for this "opposite reality"? Again, this is not what I've been reading.

I would highly recommend Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq, which was published about a month ago and itself contains many references to online sources.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

goamerica: Thanks for providing a couple more American opinions on how the people of Iraq are feeling at the moment. And, at best, not wanting Saddam Hussein back in power does not imply, by any stretch of the imagination, wanting an American occupation - or an American puppet government.

And, uh, in terms of providing stories to "help" highlight how "things are improving" in Iraq, your first source says this:
And you second says "it is critical to get basic services up - electricity, water, and transportation".

Okay - I'm convinced.

Putting myself in the place of an instructor, I give the overall post-war effort a D, which is passing but not with satisfactory performance.

So here's the criteria:

Pre-war planning: This focused too much on the military activities required to oust Saddam Hussein and not enough on the chaos that would result from regime change. Although efforts were put out to build a broader international coalition, these efforts mostly failed, yet the military plan went ahead anyway. This in turn led to self-delusionary post-war planning where too many miracles had to happen.

Post-war implementation: Due to Iraqis acting differently than anticipated, the post-war plans based on self-delusionary assumptions fell apart. The need for more personnel with specific, non-combat training became critical, but this (apparently) had not been a planning consideration. Help from other nations became necessary, but those bridges had been burned.

Mission focus: Complicating the Iraq mission, North Korea became a side issue with serious implications for Asia and the West Coast of the US. Iranian, and to a lesser extent, French issues also diluted mission focus.

Mission completion: This has yet to be defined. The student has come dangerously close to getting an Incomplete grade for this course. I'm not recommending graduation.

Due to the seriousness of the project, I cannot recommend that the student be allowed to do make-up work, either.

Recommendation: This project needs to be brought to completion by more experienced graduate students led by a team of professors from another college. The lack of understanding for international issues leads to the recommendation for the College of Hard Knocks to take over. The College of Wishful Thinking has had its chance, and there you go.

See the article below, it almost seems to say the lights are all fixed. Clever how they say nothing about the daytime. Many areas have power but it's rolling and unreliable. One area may have been told they get six hours of energy a day, except it's never consistent. Sometimes it will be three hours or two days between having any instead. Some won't have water either if the power goes out the pressure doesn't work. There are some cities that do have power all the time. But not everyone is that lucky.

Iraqi response:


I'm going to concede to your WW2 comments, I don't know vast amounts of history from that time but I do believe there were no army casualties after eh war and during the peace in Germany, I would expect some protests but all in all it seems to have gone smoothly.

In Iraq we have seen protests with thousands of people calling for us to leave. (try a google news search) I have NEVER seen an Iraqi poll in any news source...it doesn't seem like it would be easy to get one. But I would be interested in them if you have a link.

There are only two material things I continue to speak of and that's because they are absolutely necessary for living in 134 degree summer heat. Those things are electricity and water. They want and need to get back to a life that resembles the one they had before we came along. (without the random torture or killings from Saddam thugs of course) But some never had to get their tongue chopped off or raped by one of his sons or taken to a dungeon somewhere. There were actually people who had lives that didn't revolve around their hatred of Saddam even if it existed. He was not the orb of all things to all people.

Many distracted themselves by taking trips out of town to see relatives, watching movies, going for walks, shopping, attending college, going to museums, working in job that may now be gone...all kinds of things they might miss doing if they can't leave the house because of criminals, looters, car jackers, or rapists.

Or maybe it's not worth the trip if they have to worry about getting shot at a check point or come too close to a military tank that get's attacked by an rpg. Do you understand how stressful it is to live in a situation like that? Our soldiers live through the same fear. It's exhausting.

And it must get really irritating to share their fears, frustrations, or sometimes even fury only to hear an American respond with a scolding about how they should still be glad Saddam's gone they have 'freedom' as if we've done them such a huge favor.

Shock and Awe was not a favor. Unexploded cluster bombs left over that kill your kid is not something you walk away from saying, gee at least Saddam is gone. NO. Those kinds of things make some want to take revenge.

They never wanted a war with us and never asked to be liberated through war. But we insisted because we're so afraid of weapons that don't exist and dictators who can't get to us. And rather than feel any kind of shame over putting them through this over bad intelligence or spin we think they don't mind anyway because we changed their lives. And no matter what they are going through we sit here an a country that hasn't suffered a war on our soil for over a century and tell them what they should feel lucky about.

The only thing they can thank us for is getting rid of Saddam. But when your old life is looking better than the new one eventually Saddam is going to seem like the lesser of two evils. Does the US really want to get to the point that they are seen as the greater evil? Keep ignoring their pain and it won't be long now. The rest of the world pretty much hates us now as it is. Who needs friends when we love ourselves so much already.


There are no Iraqi's that can over rule the American's on the ground. We are the law and Bremer is the supreme law. Show me where even the puppets have ever made a decision and changed policy with their vote. You can't. Even an Iraqi judge's order can be overturned or ignored by troops or the CPA. To me that is having no voice or redress in your own country.

This one: No One wants saddam back is by an Iranian Journalist



So, does that help the credibility of the article somewhat?

These are the results of the first survey in the history of "free" Iraq. It was made by the order of so-called Iraqi Center for Surveys. According to Spiegel, 1,100 people living in Baghdad took part in the survey. They "represent all layers of society and religion".

According to the survey, 51% of Iraqis (or maybe only people living in Baghdad?) want occupation troops to stay until the creation of a permanent government; another 25% -- until the creation of a provisional government; and only 17% insist on immediate withdrawal of foreign troops.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/366/1...10281_poll.html

More:

Majority of Baghdadis want US to stay

Most Iraqis want troops to stay, says poll

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I said: Again, can you provide a source that indicates the US will not allow the Iraqis to voice their opinions, that the US has denied the Iraqis the right to form a government, that the US has discouraged the Iraqis from forming a government?

The reality is quite the opposite.

Wertz said:Do you have a source for this "opposite reality"? Again, this is not what I've been reading.


Iraqi council okays UN delegation

Iraqi vows to claim Arab League seat

U.N. welcomes new Iraq government

These articles prove Iraqi's are making decisions and voicing their opinions about their country and their government. I don't know how to prove to you that the US isn't discouraging the formation of government there. It appears from the articles I've read and the news I've watched that the US government is encouraging a formation of Iraqi government.

Maybe you could share easily accessible sources that prove the opposite. I'd be interested to see proof that the US government is silencing Iraqi opinion and discouraging/denying the Iraqis their right to form a government.

Yeah, an Iranian-born journalist, educated in London and Paris and living in Germany, France, and the US for the past twenty-odd years.


Uh, no. But I will suitably amend my response to your previous post: "Thanks for providing a couple more American opinions - and one Westernized expatriate Iranian opinion - on how the people of Iraq are feeling at the moment."

And, uh, not wanting Saddam Hussein back in power still does not imply wanting an American occupation.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Beladonna: Still researching... Believe it or not, easily accessible sources which contradict what the White House propaganda machine, its PR companies, and the obedient "liberal media" want us to know is not all that easy. If necessary, I'll post a few transcripts from print sources - but I'm still trying to see what I can find. I probably won't get to put much time into before tonight, though...

Wertz,

PLEASE don't spend your birthday night looking for something for this board! Go out, eat cake, drink a beer.

Do the research tomorrow!

This is already a couple of weeks old. The article is long and balanced so you get both sides of the arguments, even yours.

Here is a link that compiles articles regarding the occupation that are found all over the web. I like how it breaks down the subjects so things are easy to find. I strongly urge everyone who is interested to look over the articles under the Corporate Invasion and Labor Rights section if nothing else. I am not anti capitalist, I don't hate the WTO and am not fanatical about this subject by any means. But the conflict of interest and war profiteering being done here is undeniable.

It lends understanding as to why we will not let anyone help us with the reconstruction. They won't allow anyone to meddle in the decision making process and so we can't get the help we need internationally. I doubt NATO or anyone else will get involved if the UN won't.

If any of you truly support the troops please read these articles for them and either stop the war or stop these deals. Even if the contracts are technically on the level legally(if not morally) NO one should make this much money off of war and death. NO one should have this much interest invested in seeing it continue as long as possible. We have to demand accountability for this money. The time has come to make a choice about who to really support; the President or our troops.

Belladonna, you will find an article under this heading about the US not allowing labor protests.

I think it is a D with a possibility to be raised to a C before too long. However, it is too soon to call if any reforms made this summer after a shocking and ridiculous lack of planning have put our occupation back on track to not having us repeat the tragic post WWI occupation of Iraq made by the British. We are now trying to hold a country together that has actual warring interests inside it. (Kurds, Sunni, Shia, anti-Ba'athists, pro-Ba'athists.

My grade is given as if this were a graduate or doctorate class. Nobody has any business showing up in those classes unless they are committed to an A. Slipping to a B is okay, but a C is really a failing grade.

Such is the way with war. Don't start a war unless you have a clear plan, a just objective, and you understand what you are going to get out of it.

We spent all of our political capital and money we don't have to fight this war. And we need to pony up and come up with the money to do this right, prop up the country, and get out of town. A lion's share of reconstruction profits should go to Iraqi companies so there is a growing middle class when we leave. That is the only hope for an enduring democracy.

Yuck.

I graded this an f, but only because there weren't any lower grades.

because:

The heavy handed actions of the troops resulting in the alienation of the public
The utter failure to restore essential services after 5 months
The lack of security for the Iraqis
No WMDs - at all

The above have resulted in the a country with little or no history of terrorism becoming a terrorist nation. In fact I can see Iraq being a beacon and rallying cry for recruiting future terrorists.
America and the UK have managed to do the precise opposite of what they set out to do. I don't see how it could of gone any worse.

She also educated in Tehran and according to Thsi short Bio, she never educated in the U.S. Just because she was on CNN or writes for the occasional american newspaper, doesn't mean she has ever been in the U.S.


Eeyore:

The poor planning is thanks to the morons on the Pentagon who were too busy patting themselves on the back for making this a sweet and short major combat victory

From the article you directed me to Danya:



Nothing in this article proves that American troops don't allow labor protests. I believe the author would like to convey that message when in fact, his article does just the opposite. It proves that numerous labor protests have been allowed. I’ve highlighted segments of the article of interest. This protest was broken up for some reason - perhaps security - since the tents were set up outside the council gates - who knows.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to another discussion you and I were having - the issue of Rumsfeld and his remarks met by angered Iraqis and US troops. I posted:



You replied “Rumsfeld's comments in Iraq were met with anger and astonishment from troops and Iraqi's as well. But maybe he's telling the truth and everyone else is wrong. Now would be a bad time for him to lie because he's increasingly drawing heat. The costs, stretched troops, lack of planning, lack of security, are all catching up with poor Rumsfeld” I thought you were addressing the comments I had quoted.

Then I asked for a source and you provided this:



The remarks I quoted had nothing to do with US troops requirement to stay in country longer than they thought they'd originally thought or that fresh troops were needed. I think being angered because your tour of duty will take longer is normal. DTOM might be able to give better insight into that than I might.

Anyway, what I wanted was a source that indicated the Iraqis and US troops were angered over the statements I’ve listed above. I think we must have gotten our wires crossed.

I voted "F".

First, because I don't like Bush. His ideas, his beliefs, his attitude... He's a dangerous man. I know, it's straight from the guts, but that's the way I feel it is.

Second, because I will never give any higher score to a postwar effort that resulted in so many casualties and deaths!

An update I found on how Iraqi's view their future now with Saddam gone.
A Zogby poll just released.

Link

DTOM,

Unless I am reading the small sample of results from the poll on the link you provided wrong, the results can be interpreted as pro-occupation or anti occupation.




While Iraq is mired in economic devastation and in the midst of a foreign occupation, its citizens were asked if they thought things would be better in five years.

I hope most of them would think things would get better. I don't see these results as definitively supporting the opinion that the American occupation is going well.

"She" by the way, is a "he". His name is Amir Taheri - and I never claimed that he was educated in the US. You are right, though, I have nothing which indicates he has actually lived in the US, though I strongly suspect he has set foot on our soil - unless his interviews with Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton all occured when they visited him in France. He has, by the way, written rather a lot for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Newsday, The Washington Post, The National Review, and - quite extensively - for The New York Post, among several others. Rather than writing for "the occasional american newspaper", American journalism appears to be one of his mainstays. The point is this: he is Iranian, he is a professional journalist, he has a western bias - and he has not been based in the Middle East for twenty years. Not, to my mind, the best judge of what is in the minds of Iraqis in 2003.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Getting back to the real debate - and addressing the questions beladonna raised, which I'm afraid I've rather neglected (initially on her recommendation then through being distracted by other threads) - I do not mean to imply that the US has been actively "silencing Iraqi opinion and discouraging/denying the Iraqis their right to form a government" as you state. I was primarily referring to the notion that US involvement in Iraq's government is overwhelmingly supported by Iraqis - and that, indeed, most Iraqis are delighted that we are there at all. I do not believe that this is the case - and most of my reading has tended to support this.

The problems I have with what's happening in Iraq at the moment - and the difficulty in assessing how the Iraqis themselves actually feel about it - is that so much of our information is filtered through the Bush administration's PR machine.

Going back to the very start, I'm sure you remember "Liberation Day" - April 9 - the day we got all that footage of Firdos Square and the jubilant Iraqis toppling the statue of Hussein. The American media didn't broadcast images such as this one (pic 2), showing a "liberated throng" of maybe two hundred souls. You might also remember that it was, in fact, US marines who toppled the statue, not Iraqis and that - oops - they first draped the head of Saddam with an American flag before thinking that, uh, maybe it should be an Iraqi flag - a perfectly apt metaphor for the entire "liberation" campaign.

You will not remember from that day that a Los Angeles Times reporter covered a little more than prescribed the media event and actually spoke to some Iraqis (and actually included a few comments which were outside his brief):
And that was among the "jubilant crowd".

Six days later, on April 15, 20,000 people - a hundred times more than gathered in Baghdad - rallied in Nasiriyah to oppose US presence, chanting "Yes to freedom, yes to Islam; no to America, no to Saddam." According to Time magazine, that same day:
The Iraqis, btw, should be protesting the presence of Chalabi - though bashing this hideously corrupt American puppet should probably be left to another thread - if it remains pertinent at all. US leaders might be realizing that an attempt to install Chalabi is just too transparent.

Nine days after "liberation", April 18, thousands took to the streets of Baghdad demanding an end to American occupation, brandishing banners like "Invaders should be out from our country - Let us make our government by ourself". There have been similar protests off and on ever since.

The problem with much of the "research" conducted among Iraqis presents very limited options: Saddam Hussein or US occupation. I've seen nothing which offer the option, for example, of an interim government overseen by the UN. The study beladonna cites (quoted here) claims that half of the residents of Baghdad "want occupation troops to stay in Iraq until the constant government is formed". Well, gee - if your options were a military occupation (with the promise of the services they destroyed eventually being restored) or absolute chaos with no one in charge and marauding bands of armed factions from a variety of fanatical sects roaming the countryside, which would anyone choose? Even given those options, 17% said, "give us the chaos, please". To take the views of the 51% in favor to imply that an American military presence of itself is "welcome" is a bit of a stretch - no, make that: it's a leap of the imagination of cosmic proportions.

A more recent study conducted in face-to-face interviews (we're never told how the Der Spiegel study was conducted - was it among Baghdad residents with working telephones?), asked Baghdad residents to choose between living under Saddam or the Americans. 29% voted for the Americans with 9% for Saddam - but 47% had no preference! In relation to the form of government people wanted, the two main selections were democracy and "Islamic tempered with modern ideals of justice and punishment". 36% wanted democracy; 26% wanted "tempered Islamic". God knows what the other 38% (the majority opinion) want - they weren't given an option.

When asked if they thought things were better or worse now, 32% said better and 47% said worse. On the up-side, when asked if they thought things would be better or worse five years from now, 52% said better and 11% said worse - presuming, on the basis of their other responses, that the Americans would be long gone by then. We can only hope.

At least, according to this study, the Iraqis appear to be a bit more politically aware than most Americans. When asked what they believed were among the main reasons for the war in the first place, 47% said it was to secure oil supplies, 41% said it was to help Israel, 23% said it was to rescue the people of Iraq from dictatorship. Oh - and 6% thought it had something to do with WMDs.

According to the Zogby poll cited by DTOM, people throughout Iraq seem to be slightly more optimistic than those in Baghdad. Nearly 70% there (as opposed to 52% in Baghdad) felt that, in five years, things would be somewhat to much better. Again, though, the option of anything other than a US/UK occupation until a government is formed has been excluded. We can wait and hope that one of these days, a fair poll might actually be conducted...

In terms of the extent to which the US is open to Iraqi input in terms of the new government, beladonna's links (in support of this view) provide some interesting insights. In the first we read:
Despite those "very broad authorities" which the US is claiming, they're actually going to listen to the people they appointed? Whoa - that's generous.

While neither of her other links have anything to do with Iraqi acceptance of the American appointed Governing Council or with US consideration for the needs or desires of the Iraqi people, her second does reiterate that the Arab League had "refused to recognize the US-picked Iraqi Governing Council" and that the American appointee would be going "to claim Baghdad's seat in the organization, not beg for it". The US demanding that not only the Iraqis immediately recognize their appointed "central government", but also that the entire Arab world do so was very helpful to our image in that neck of the woods, I'm sure. While the League has since decided to allow the Council's foreign minister to take a seat at their meetings, this could have been handled much more diplomatically (if our current administratoin had the most remote interest in diplomacy).

Her third source simply mentions that the UN (or, at least, the Security Council) is backing the Iraqi Governing Council. What this is supposed to tell us about the people of Iraq is beyond me.

One thing to bear in mind at this stage is that the strongest opposition to US forces in Iraq seems to be coming from the Shi'ites - and they make up 62% of the population. From an article by Col. Dan Smith, called Descending into the Quagmire:
Smith foresees Iraq becoming another Vietnam and observes that the US is "increasingly is caught in the quagmire of depending on force to control the Iraqi people in the name of national and regional 'peace'." He quotes Bernard Fall, who wrote extensively on Vietnam at the time of that conflict: "One can do almost anything with brute force except salvage an unpopular government."

Let us hope that, in time, a genuinely representative government replaces the current Council.

My Grade that i would give to the postwar effort is a B, mainly because i see as of now that the us is doing a fine job, Now with the 80 billion, asked by President Bush, and also the use of Iraq's fast oil sources to rebuild Iraq, we and the many other nations are doing a fair and average job.

It was $80b five months ago. The most recent request is $87b. Think about that. Hurricane Andrew destroyed 100,000 homes and the price tag for damages was $25b. The White House admit's this second supplemental isn't the last. Someone is making quite a profit from this war.

Fortunately there is now a thread to discuss this very subject. A direct forum which does not lend itself to vague innuendo

Iraq-Halliburton and Company

75% of the allocation is for military operations.

The other 25% is reconstruction efforts. Since Iraq's infrastructure is circa 1950s, pumping $20 billion of it might just be a drop in the bucket. We Americans always hold ourselves to the higher standard, however, and I would be surprised if when the reconstruction is done and every single Iraqi doesn't have central air and a jacuzzi bath if we aren't severely criticized (as always...) for leaving the poor Iraqis less well off than ourselves...

Well, as much of a supporter as I am of the war, I haven't wholely impressed by the postwar effort. Still, I believe that the situation can become a good one with the right pull here and teh right twist there, etc etc.

Sorry if that was too vague for you...Cheney and Bush and the rest are making sure their favorite corporations are making obscene profits. It may be enough for it's own thread but it's also a part of the overall war and the peace effort so is not at all off topic.

True, they're making a profit. But I don't think that's what the main problem is. So what if they get the better deal? The point is that we need to have work done back in the US as well. At this point, I really wouldn't care all that much if Halliburton got the go-ahead to start fixing up the broken homes, so long as it gets done.

It would be different if anything was getting done...but it doesn't appear much has been done. The conflict of interest is a problem and it should be a problem. Our troops aren't dying for WMD's...they are dying for Halliburton and the others.

Right. They make profits? so what. As long as we are actually TRYING to rebuild their infastructure. Last week's newsweek showed US Engineers repairing transformers in Iraq and doing some work outside a power plant outside Baghdad.

But i think no matter what gets done, it will alsways be "Halliburton profit this, etc"


Danya:



I'm sorry you think that

Halliburton is one of the pre-eminent firms in its industry--can someone please offer up the slightest bit of evidence that anything untoward happened that landed them this contract? I, for one, haven't heard anything pointing in that direction. Except, of course, for the constant vague innuendo, which is really getting quite boring....

As for the post-war effort, this is really a question that can't be legitimately answered for quite some time. It's only been a few months. If you want a timeline for comparison, how far along are we on rebuilding the WTC site? And that's just one spot, and its been 2 years, and no one is shooting at us there. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

Well, for one thing hobbes, Ground Zero isn't costing us $1 billion bucks a week to maintain and we aren't occupying New York City.

And this president would never think of asking for $87 billion to do any type of rebuilding of this nation's crumbling infrastructure.

I would have to agree with that, although I would add that to do so would be to go against most conservative principles. Which does raise an interesting question--why is it OK (speaking as a conservative) to spend the money on someone else's infrastructure but not on our own? The answer would have to be for national security reasons, the success of which won't be known for many years.

As for the costs themselves, it would be interesting the see the breakdown. Often, the costs of military operations ignore the normal costs of maintaining the troops even if the operation hadn't taken place. This, of course, shouldn't require any additional funding. I could see hazardous duty pay, gasoline, and other support costs increasing, but I don't think that this could explain $87b. How much of this is for actual infrastructure work? And wasn't Iraqi oil supposed to cover the costs of much of this?

You are bored with discussing how first $79b and now $87b is being spent and whether or not it has anything to do with the whole justification for war since WMD'S and Al Queada links have so far been unfounded?

Don't expect the rest of us to find it so irrelevent.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have any numbers on what the money we have used so far has been spent on?

The current 87 Billion we're talking about now, is there a written plan for exactly how that is going to be used? Or, at least anything with more detail than "it's for the war."

*Thanks for the links, "trouble"

It is Bremer's statement that the coalition will hold a very broad footing with the economic direction in Iraq that worries me. Remember that back in 2000 Saddam converted all OPEC oil contracts from US dollars to Euros in a show of defiance.

http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=490
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1554.htm

I have a feeling that Bremer will convert the oil back to US dollars. I can guess one of the long term goals is to maintain a strong middle east presence to discourage any further attempts to break away from opec prices in US dollars. Therefore, before any oil can be purchased in any curency it must be first converted to their dollar first. The Federal reserve sees much of this revenue and wishes for this to continue.

Saddam made a lot of money off this move. He received the attention of Iran who have had their own diplomatic problems with America for some time. They too considered a move to Euros. Not surprisingly they have earned a place on the 'Axis of Evil' list. I'm curious to see what Argentina does as they have seen a serious currency breakdown and have considered moving to the euro as well.

More to the point if there is a large enough switch to euro - the resulting liquidation of american assets is speculated to mirror the 1973 gas crunch all over again. Obviously the Bush family who is tied personally to oil would try to prevent this.
For further details click here: http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm
or http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp

For comparing us dollars to euros and why the euro invested in gold click here:
http://www.www.natreformassn.org/statesman/98/gold.html

If you have the time, this is 31 pages everyone should acquaint themselves with.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

This goes into further detail of the whys and wherefores of maintaining dominance of oil producing countries. More importantly, explanations of security and buffeting of the US dollar. You'll find the discussed motivations to be a little different than what fox news try to tell you...

Trouble

Well, Iraq is kinda different at the moment because their infastructure is more antiquated than ours (with an exception to the power grid). They have old bridges that look as if they are gonna fall apart and their power stations have technology not seen since the 1950's.

And why is it up to us to give them brand spanking new bridges? Our only responsibility is to fix the infrastructure we very purposely blew up with Shock and Awe and the other bombing campaigns.

Maybe because we probably destroyed a bridge. either that or all those improvised bombs the gurrielas keep laying are weakening them