All that I see is hypocrisy.......please help.

Another day, another beheaded American working in Iraq.

Iraqis are suffering a 70% unemployment rate, while foreign workers are garnering 3 times the amount that they would receive performing the same jobs in their native countries.

As Coalition forces attempt to tighten boarder security against foreign fighters, the gates remain wide open for foreign workers willing to take lucrative jobs from the Iraqi people. As protests for jobs occur every day, foreign workers are being brought into Iraq to perform tasks that many able bodied Iraqis could do. I for one understand their frustration.



Are American Contractors, employing people in Iraq, doing enough to employ native Iraqis?

Are American Contractors, employing people in Iraq, doing enough to employ native Iraqis?


Maybe I am missing something here...

Americans are not going to Iraq to dig ditches for three time the ditch digging rate in the US. These jobs are skilled, technical jobs, or security jobs. Iraqis are not capable of doing these jobs.



A quick google says that it is... Al Jazeera ... that claims the 70% unemployment rate. Aljazeera.Net - Iraqi unemployment reaches 70%

Other sources put it at 50%. Most put it 25% Iraqi Leaders Face Struggle with Massive Unemployment



Here's a link that investigates the numbers Unemployment in Iraq

I guess since the reconstruction money hasn't been spent in Iraq, contractors have not needed labor intensive efforts yet. Most of the reconstruction to date has been done by the military, which provides its own security (obviously).

Have contractors done enough to employ Iraqis? I would say I have no real answer, since the majority of the construction work has not been done and even if we employed tens of thousands of Iraqis, it would not put a dent into the unemployment numbers (25% of 25 million is about 6 million unemployed).

EDIT: What does this subject have to do with hatred? I must be confused.

I agree with most of what Amlord has said here, but I also want to add that skilled jobs in Iraq should pay significantly more than skilled jobs in America because of the dangerous working environment.

If employers paid the same wage that they pay in the states, there would be no incentive for people to take a risk working in Iraq.

I would imagine that when major reconstruction efforts begin, unskilled Iraqi labor will be used. It's less expensive than bringing in foreign labor, and it just makes good business sense.

It's true that many of the jobs in Iraq are skilled labor and technical jobs, but that doesn't mean that Iraqi's cannot do them. I served in Afghanistan, and there were hundreds of skilled locals that we hired to build bases and work on infrastructure projects. Iraq had a fine infrastructure before we destroyed it, and foreigners certainly didn't build it.

There are plenty of willing and able people there who we could tap, but the problem is that we're concentrating all money and resources on pumping oil out of the country. If we put all our efforts into reconstruction, we wouldn't have the growing insurgency. If someone invaded your country, then started pumping out your most valuable resource while neglecting the sewage, water, and electric systems, wouldn't you join the insurgency too?

I think that those doing the rebuilding of the sewage, water and electric systems would disagree that 'all of our efforts' on oil, but would rather focus on this:


The "insurgents" (terrorists) are killing those involved in the re-construction. Today's beheading victim was a civil engineer. Other targets have been workers for construction companies. I cannot understand what you are saying here. Progress is slow, but there is progress, and the terrorists are targeting those doing the work, demostrating that they really don't care about reconstruction or sewage or their fellow Iraqis, just making some sick religious / political point by killing innocents.

edited for tone

Iraqi's have been without basic neccesities for over a year, yet the oil continues to flow. Despite the current hostility we seem to keep the oil infrastructure intact. The reason that the killings and the hostage taking involve civilian workers is because they are soft targets. The reason they are soft targets is that we are using most of our security personnel to protect the oil infrastructure and fight the insurgency.

I call it an insurgency because that's what it is. They are using violent guerilla tactics because that is the most effective method for fighting a superior army. Because of language used by the media, Americans tend to put Iraqi's and terrorists in the same boat. That is what the Bush administration has wanted all along. Iraqi's had nothing to do with 9/11; they just want their country back.

Insurgents are sabotaging oil pipelines as well. They are sabotaging infrastructure and attacking members of the Iraqi National Guard. If this were simply "justified hatred" towards the American occupation and forces, those attacks wouldn't be going towards sabotaging their own infrastructure and police forces, robbing themselves of basic security and necessities. And, if the oil doesn't continue to pour, where exactly is Iraq going to obtain its much-needed capital? Rug sales? Tourism?

I believe, Mrs. P, you are correct with regard to oil pipeline sabotage and attacking the Iraqi National Guard. However, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion you're implying. Specifically, I don't think that the insurgancy sees any significant difference between the US troops and the Iraqi troops. I believe they perceive them as the hands of the US occupational authority. It is a viable strategy which the insurgency employs when sabotaging oil pipelines. While the US/Iraqi authority perceive the oil pipeline being a key component to rebuilding Iraq, the general populace really doesn't care from where the funds come -- they care mainly about sanitation, water, food & safety. In other words, the US is perceived as being a formidable military and economic power, thus the US should be able to rebuild Iraq without oil pipelines. Since the US occupies, the blame will natural fall on the US whether or not it is justified. Let me be clear, I am not saying that this is correct or incorrect; I am saying that the perception of Iraqis will naturally tend this way.

The insurgency is not about military victory; it is about political victory. If it can get the majority of Iraqis to be against the US occupation and by extension the newly installed government, then it has won a key political victory. Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of people who hate Americans and relish the opportunity to kill them.

As you have put so succinctly: context is everything.

Actually, thats not at all true. There is a very standard pattern of resistance against an occupying force in which Iraq is following the standard very closely.

Though the tactics are unquestionably more brutal, the targets are exactly what you would expect for any resistance group in a similar position. Once the French Resistance crystalised in last 1941, the most common target was French police and government officials who were working with the German authorities. They were targeted firstly because it was easier then hitting the Germans themselves, but secondly (and far more importantly) because it was necessary to show the people of the nation that collaborators had might as well be occupyers. Infrastructure is hit when that infrstrcture provides more benefit to the occupiers then the occupied. You will note that insurgents have never hit water distribution, purification or treatment facilities...

As a tactic, it works, and it has always worked. The IRA reserved their most venom not for the British, but for Irish working with or even alongside the British. Same with the Soviets in German occupied Russia, the Chinese in Japan occupied China, the Afghans under soviet occupation, the Vietnamese rebels faced with US presence...

In fact the actions of the rebels in Iraq is wholely expected and was predicted by anyone who had any real knowledge of how the system of resistance works. As I said, the scale and brutality is of course immeasurably higher, but the targets and tactics are dead standard.

Of course, since Bush Jr. deliberatly ignored all advice and opinion from experts on the shape of post-war Iraq, he would not know that.

I still think there is a key factor of the insurgency that has been assumed, but that needs to be further discussed before following that assumption. The assumption is that the insurgents are fighting just to rid Iraq of the occupying troops. While that is certainly true for some, to assume that is true for all is making a huge leap. There is certainly another possibility...they are fighting to put themselves in power, and the US and Iraqi security forces are in their way to that goal. This is a completely different animal in my mind--although the effects and current tactics would look much the same, the end goal is vastly different. To me, this is what explains their attacks on the Iraqi security forces...if simply getting rid of US troops was the goal, having Iraq establish its own security would be the quickest way to make that happen. However, if putting yourself in power is the goal, then those security forces are the same to you as US troops--perhaps even more of a roadblock, since you know that they will certainly be there permanently once established. Unless someone can offer convincing evidence that this is not the motivation for a great number of the insurgents, then assuming they are 'freedom fighters' is, IMHO, not a justifiable assumption.

Again, going to history, I would posit that this is not the case. Certainly different groups may have their own 'aspirations on the throne', but the reality is in every conflict of this nature the local power will work, if not together then alongside each other, in order to oust whet they see as an occupying regime and its supporters. WWII is rife with examples of communist, nationalist and democratic forces fighting slongside each other to oppose the Germans, then falling to blow when the Germans reached their weakest point. The same in every other occupied state undergoing resistance on record.

At the very beginning of the Iraqi insurgency, there were a few attacks on religious sites of 'opposing religions' in Iraq, (mostly shiite against Sunni), but since the insurgency spready to both shiite and sunni faiths, such attacks have not reoccured.

The fact is that the US is seen as an occupying force (which it is) and the governing cuncil is seen by many as an appointed government put into place by the US (which it is).

How people react to that fact is variable, some have accepted it as a necessary evil in the wake of deposing saddam. Others see it as an attempt for a historically enemy nation to set up a secular, foreign influenced and biased government.

The truth (which is probably somewhere inbetween) is irrelevant, only the perception matters.

I don't see where being in power and ridding Iraq of US occupation are incompatible goals. In fact, I can see them being being sequentially dependent. While it is tempting to treat the insurgency as a monolithic entity, it is in fact composed of many different factions who have at least some incompatible goals (such as which faction will be the one in power). This is why I believe civil war is inevitable (though that's another debate ). Still, the one thing I believe the Iraqi insurgents do agree upon is that US occupation and by extension the Iraqi authority are the enemy.

As for the "freedom fighter" bit, eh...did I say that? They are insurgents fighting for their beliefs (which is not a moral statement). They desire to have a "voice" in the political process in Iraq and are doing so by violence.

Just curious why we must always remove ourselves from the actual states involved own history to find what we feel are acceptable comparisons.

Why are examples of insurgencies in Germany under US occupation not useful? Ohh probably because they were not successful. Perhaps?

Not to mention the British mandate also gives us plenty of material to use for examples and postulations..and it even conveniently has the same actual groups of people involved! Iraqis are not French, they are not Vietnamese, they are not Irish...they are Iraqis and they have a bountiful history of occupation and foreign control..no need to seek this elsewhere.

Also Americans no matter how badly some may wish it are not Nazi Germans or Communist USSR..and America has it's own rich history of occupation..again isn't it a little more useful in debates to perhaps compare American ideals and characteristics of occupation/nation building with past American occupations?

I think Mrs P is correct I don't think the Iraqis feel as a whole that the American collaborators and the American military themselves are one in the same...perhaps that is what the Vietnamese felt or the French..but I don't feel it is what the average Iraqi feels. I think the more innocent lives and every day Iraqi civilians that get slaughtered under the guise of "collaboration" will only further weaken and expose what these groups aims really are ..for Iraq to fail..and do the Iraqi people wish for Iraq to fail? No I don't believe they do.

Beracuse History is not Linear?

Nobody said you could not look to the History of Iraq to make some of these points as well, please do. But that no way invalidates other modern comparasons to nations undergoing or which have undergone similar situations, or situations where specific aspects are very similar.

Actually, German insurgencies under post-war occupation are very useful, the wehrwulf units which opposed Soviet, and to a lesser extend western occupation in the months following VE day selected targets and tactics very similar to Iraqi insurgents; again as I said, a near universal in struggles of this nature.

On the other hand to limit oneself to just one region because it shares geographical placement with the nation in question is also unecessarily limiting, and needless. There is ALWAYS 'need to ask elsewhere', in history there can be no artificial limitations of comparason or you cripple your analysis.



Not if that is not the isue for debate, no. Firstlythe comparative value and morality as an occupier is essentially irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the perception of the occupied. They do not speak in absolute terms, only in subjective ones, that is a bsic reality of the world. I am sure you could tell the members of the IRA that really, they are much better of in real terms then if Ireland was ocupied by Soviet Russia, and they would probably trifleur you in response.



As a whole? No, I suspect you are correct, a majority of Iraqis likely do not feel that way, but then again so what? Poll the US before the civil war, and a majority of Americans would have been in favour of remaining a union. Bare majority does not mean totality, and the assessment that Iraqi insurgents are acting against an enemy occupier and their collaborators is not some random opinion, it is borne out by the facts, such as the statements given to local media and Al jazeera confirming this very motive after several of the attacks,; statements referring to members of the new Iraqi military as traitors and collaborators. It is based on the fact that the pattern of rebellion follows the same patern of dozens of others before it.

Your opinion that the killing of these 'collaborators' will weaken these groups is not borne out by a single example in history, when use of this very tactic has proven very sucessful. Consider also, that these insurgents are not idiots, and that their actions likely have reasoning behind them, however twisted. After all, since you 'feel' they are NOT using this near-universal tactic, perhaps you can explain why they are taking the very specific actions they currently are, attacking centres of power of the American installed egime and elements of the infrastructure that the new regine and the Americans depend on more than the insurgents?

You seem to be missing the point of the discussion. It isn't what the average Iraqi feels at this point; it is what the insurgents believe that matters. Think of it as a violent, bloody, horrific political campaign. The average Iraqi will be swayed by empirically important (to them) results. Specifically, is the water potable? Can I feed myself and family? Do I no longer need to constantly fear for my life or for the lives of my family? If the Iraqi and US occupational authority can't answer yes to those questions, then it becomes immaterial that the insurgents are the cause. If those in authority are unable to suppress the opposition, then they are the authority in name only. Those in authority will be perceived as weak or even worse indifferent (whether it's justified or not). The insurgents are banking on the dissatisfaction of the Iraqi public to achieve their aims.

As for failure or success, this is such an ambiguous demarcation that it really cannot be debated. What is "success" for people tired of being bombed, shot at, kidnapped and unable to earn a living?

All true. However, I would point to the difference in the insurgence groups as making the comparisons tenuous at best. In none of the examples above were the insurgents radical Islamists, bent on installing shariah law. As proof to myself, I ask the simple question...do you think these insurgence groups would simply lay down their arms if we just left? I find that thought ludicrous...they would continue fighting against whatever force took our place, even if that force is solely Iraqi. That to me rules out fighting against occupying forces as the motivation, I don't think anyone can point to any evidence that this conclusion would not in fact be the case.