Reality Intrudes on Promises in Rebuilding of Iraq

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 30, 2004, 7:27 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/inter ... 0RECO.html

Reality Intrudes on Promises in Rebuilding of Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ and ERIK ECKHOLM

Published: June 30, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 29 — The four big smokestacks at the Doura power plant in Baghdad have always served as subversive truth-tellers. No matter what Saddam Hussein's propagandists said about electricity supplies, people knew they could get a better idea of the coming day's power by counting how many stacks at Doura were spewing smoke.

Mr. Hussein is vanquished and a new Iraqi government has just gained formal sovereignty, but those smokestacks remain potent markers — not only of sporadic electricity service but of the agonizingly slow pace of Iraq's promised economic renewal.

More than a year into an aid effort that American officials likened to the Marshall Plan, occupation authorities acknowledge that fewer than 140 of 2,300 promised construction projects are under way. Only three months after L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator who departed Monday, pledged that 50,000 Iraqis would find jobs at construction sites before the formal transfer of sovereignty, fewer than 20,000 local workers are employed.

Inside the high-profile Doura plant, American-financed repairs, originally scheduled to be completed by June 1, have dragged into the summer even as the demand for electricity soars and residents suffer through nightly power failures.

At the same time, an economy that is supposed to become a beacon of free enterprise remains warped by central controls and huge subsidies for energy and food, leaving politically explosive policy choices for the fledgling Iraqi government.

While the interim government has formally taken office, the reconstruction effort — involving everything from building electric and sewage plants to training police officers and judges — is only beginning.

Scrambling to speed up the process, the Pentagon has recently begun pumping out long-awaited money and work orders, committing $1.4 billion in just the last week even as a spreading insurgency cripples the ability of Western contractors to oversee their projects and has made targets of Iraqi workers.

American authorities, while admitting to a slow start and more aware than anyone of the security threat, insist that the rebuilding will proceed. "Some of the power plants may get blown up," David J. Nash, the retired rear admiral who directs the American building program, said in an interview last week. "But we're not going to stop."

Of the $9 billion in contracts the Pentagon has issued so far, only $5.2 billion has actually been nailed down for defined tasks. Most of those projects are still in planning stages, though officials insist that the rebuilding effort will soon flower.

From the outset the designing of projects and awarding of billions of dollars in contracts proved slower than some officials had imagined.

Among other things, planning, oversight and competitive procedures were tightened after some of the earliest postwar contracts, awarded without competition to companies including Halliburton, were tainted by evidence of waste and overcharging.

But even more, the glowing economic promises met the realities of Iraq. Decades of neglect, sanctions and war left the country's physical infrastructure in far worse condition than many expected. And as an anti-American uprising gained force, the reconstruction effort became a prime target, with oil pipes and power lines blown up as soon as they were repaired and Iraqi workers put in fear of retribution.

From the start, refurbishing Iraq's dismal infrastructure and creating a thriving market economy were promoted by Bush administration officials as pillars of the American-led invasion — "the perfect complement to Iraq's political transformation," in the words of Mr. Bremer.

But more than a year later, supplies of electricity and water are no better for most Iraqis, and in some cases are worse, than they were before the invasion in the spring of 2003.

Repairs of three giant wastewater treatment plants in Baghdad, for example, are weeks or months behind, while water supply systems in the south of the country are months or even years away from functioning properly. Unrepaired bridges continue to create monstrous bottlenecks in many parts of the country.

For Iraqis, the delays have bred frustration and anger. Recent interviews in the upscale Baghdad neighborhood of Harethiya suggest that the electricity woes have, among other things, created a nation of insomniacs, sweltering in their apartments through oppressive nights.

"We are so tired because of the electricity," said Abdul Razzaq, owner of a sundries shop, who said that to top it off, business was down so much that it was hard to pay for private generators.

Just down the street, Samir Ibraheem said security problems forced him to close his shop, which has good air-conditioning, early each night. "The problem is at my house, when I sleep at night," he said.

In less prosperous areas, sorry infrastructure is even more dispiriting. On Sunday a local paper reported that new sewage flooding in five poorer neighborhoods of eastern and western Baghdad was raising serious fears of disease.

Mais Khalid, 20, a student at Baghdad University who lives with her family in Al Elfain, a neighborhood in the southwestern part of the city, said a river of sewage entered her home whenever the door was opened. She traces the problem to a lack of electricity to run the pumps that keep sewer lines clear.

In perhaps the greatest technical success, oil exports have been restored to their prewar levels, bringing in money that will pay the national budget. But attacks shut down pipelines in the last two weeks, and exports are only partly restored.

One clear improvement is in telephone service, but an annoying patchwork system does not allow mobile phones from one part of the country to communicate easily with those in other parts.

The rebuilding effort is supposed to receive a total of some $24 billion in American grants and eventually some $13 billion in international loans. The United States military has already dispensed several additional billions, from oil revenue and seized Iraqi assets, for emergency repairs and small community projects such as renovating schools.

The bulk of the aid was provided in a special Congressional appropriation last fall of $18.4 billion in grant money. Three months ago, mindful of rising Iraqi frustration over the slow pace of change, Mr. Bremer made lavish promises that have only partly been met.

"Now the contracts are signed, and in the coming weeks the dirt will begin to fly on construction jobs all over Iraq," he announced on March 29. By the end of June, he said, "50,000 Iraqis will be working on jobs funded by the partnership for prosperity. But this is just the beginning."

But by this week, only about half of the $18.4 billion had been allocated to contractors, and little of the work was visible.

Construction has been debilitated by bombings and shootings of Western contractors and Iraqi workers, shortages of materials and poor planning. Many contractors have recently had to devote 20 percent or more of their money to armed security instead of building materials and to curb their oversight of subcontractors in the field, even evacuating workers for long stretches.

Because of safety fears, the last Western engineers fled the Doura plant a week ago, leaving disassembled machines on the enormous plant floor. The engineers were from the Siemens Company of Germany, working on a subcontract with American financing.

"They didn't contact me," said Bashir Khalif Omir, the plant's director. "They took their luggage at midnight and they left."

But the transfer of sovereignty has given Mr. Omir new hopes. Because Iraqis now ultimately call the shots on the work, Mr. Omir said, insurgents will no longer have so much reason to attack building projects and their workers.

Whether the rebels will make this distinction remains to be seen. In the meantime, the transfer opens new uncertainties. Will the new Iraqi government alter spending priorities, and how much power will it exert over American money? Will corruption rise as Iraqi ministries assert more influence on the subcontracting of American billions?

Will American decision-making be crippled by bureaucratic rivalries as the State Department takes over many functions from the Pentagon?

The construction office that Admiral Nash heads, until now a strictly Pentagon operation, has been split into two entities, a strategy office reporting to State and an implementing one reporting to the Defense Department. Admiral Nash has been appointed head of both.

"We're still a little unclear about who we will have to interface with on a daily basis," said James Cartner, vice president for Iraq operations for Fluor, a major contractor.

On the broader question of reshaping Iraq's economy, the occupation made limited progress but left some of the most politically tough decisions to the Iraqis.

The new government will inherit a new currency, a renewed banking system and, in measures that were pushed hard by a conservative Republican administration, low taxes and tariffs and a law permitting unhindered foreign investment in non-oil sectors of the economy.

But American officials, fearful of fanning more unrest, put off what economists say are crucial steps toward a functioning market economy and an end to rampant smuggling. They have not carried out plans to phase out Iraq's huge subsidies for fuel and electricity and to end the dependency of a majority of Iraqis on handouts of imported food.

"It's hard to make the economy start working with such irrational prices," said Keith Crane, an economist at the RAND Corporation who advised the Coalition Provisional Authority last year. "And in the long run it doesn't make sense to build refineries so they can sell gas for three cents a liter."

The insurgency has been an obvious source of construction delays. But critics, including some Americans who spent frustrating months in Baghdad, also say the Pentagon's approach to economic restoration was flawed from the outset — seen too much as a bricks and mortar task and in isolation from the country's political and social wounds.

In the initial months of the American occupation, the hard-earned lessons of earlier nation-building campaigns by the United States and the United Nations in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and East Timor were ignored by Pentagon planners, who tried to rush ahead with showcase infrastructure projects before securing public safety and a sense of participation, critics say.

"We mostly did what we know how to do, instead of what needed to be done," said James Dobbins, a retired diplomat who led American recovery efforts in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and elsewhere and said it was a mistake to put the Pentagon in charge of Iraq's economy. "That's what the Army Corps of Engineers does: it hires multinational corporations to build infrastructure."

Critics like Mr. Dobbins, who has not worked in Iraq but was President Bush's envoy to Afghanistan after the American invasion there, say many of the problems should have been foreseen.

"What the Iraqis needed was security, and with that they could get their electricity back on themselves," said Mr. Dobbins, who is now with the Rand Corporation and is chief author of a 2003 study, "America's Role in Nation-Building From Germany to Iraq."

James Glanz reported from Baghdad for this article, and Erik Eckholm from Washington and New York.

If we were rebuilding Iraq why didn't we contract Iraqi's for it? I just don't get it at all, we were rebuilding their society, to give them freedom. I also don't understand what happened to cooks in our military and why we needed to privatize that part of our military.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 30, 2004, 7:37 pm

Its called War Proffiteering. The Bush family has a long history of it dating back to their ties to the Nazi War Machine.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 30, 2004, 7:38 pm

Its a little hard to rebuild a country when you dodging Car Bombs from terrorist who do not represent the Iraq citizens.

they want us to rebuild Iraq then fine stop attacking us, If not Fuck off and rebuild your own shit hole.

And before the so called morale minions respond why dont you come up with a plan to help not hurt.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » June 30, 2004, 7:40 pm

Yes, Mr. Bush will learn it takes more the writting "LET TEH FREEDOM REIGN!!1!" on a note from Condi to make it happen. Fuckin Chump.

As to why we didnt contract Iraqis, well, why did we get in this war? Oil, Haliburton, & indirect israeli influence. How can US companies rack in the bucks if we give all the work to the Iraqis?

All terrorists have to do to impede progress is keep up with exactly what they are doing, which doesn't seem to be a problem.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 30, 2004, 7:42 pm

Cartalas wrote:Its a little hard to rebuild a country when you dodging Car Bombs from terrorist who do not represent the Iraq citizens.

they want us to rebuild Iraq then fine stop attacking us, If not Fuck off and rebuild your own shit hole.

And before the so called morale minions respond why dont you come up with a plan to help not hurt.

My point was - Iraqi's are intelligent people, they have great engineers as well as construction - if we are rebuilding a nation for the good of the people who are in it, why didn't we provide jobs for them by contracting them out to fix it?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 30, 2004, 7:42 pm

Thess wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Its a little hard to rebuild a country when you dodging Car Bombs from terrorist who do not represent the Iraq citizens.

they want us to rebuild Iraq then fine stop attacking us, If not Fuck off and rebuild your own shit hole.

And before the so called morale minions respond why dont you come up with a plan to help not hurt.
My point was - Iraqi's are intelligent people, they have great engineers as well as construction - if we are rebuilding a nation for the good of the people who are in it, why didn't we provide jobs for them by contracting them out to fix it?

Good point Thess
I agree

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 30, 2004, 7:45 pm

Skogen wrote:As to why we didnt contract Iraqis, well, why did we get in this war? Oil, Haliburton, & indirect israeli influence. How can US companies rack in the bucks if we give all the work to the Iraqis?

Yeah I agree, my question was more to the people who are on the other side of the argument, I should have been more clear.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 30, 2004, 7:57 pm

Its like outsourcing in reverse. They are paying us a shitload more than it would cost their own people to do it, heh.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 30, 2004, 7:58 pm

Be patient. Damn there are a lot of impatient negative people out there.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 30, 2004, 8:02 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Be patient. Damn there are a lot of impatient negative people out there.

What do you mean be patient, not only would it have cost us millions less, it would have helped Iraq's economy and things would have gotten done a lot quicker - because the people were effected by not having electricity.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 30, 2004, 8:04 pm

Be patient, Texas is not done fleecing us yet.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 30, 2004, 8:14 pm

There are a few Iraqi firms helping to re-build the infrastructure in Iraq. This has been reported by other news networks. For example Iraqi's are in charge of the oil fields in Iraq and provide most of the security for the oil pipelines.

Where as I have no doubt that more Iraqi's can do jobs in Iraq that we are doing I feel that now with the chance over of the gov over there that they will increasingly find more and more work.

Also I don't know if it's me or has it been been relativly quiet or not since the transfer?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 30, 2004, 8:25 pm

they want us to rebuild Iraq then fine stop attacking us, If not Fuck off and rebuild your own shit hole.

Heh you bombed them, you repair it. I vote for Cartalas being sent down there carrying a big American flag to fix it.

And before the so called morale minions respond why dont you come up with a plan to help not hurt.

We did. It's called "Don't attack and bomb them back to the stoneage".

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 30, 2004, 9:47 pm

it's a win-win situation for the stupid rightie midnyte brigade. they can keep saying be patient until bush loses in november, then they can blame the bush admin's entire failure on the kerry administration and think that they are actually making a valid point.

bookmark this thread and read it next year because I can 100% guarantee you that is EXACTLY what is going to happen.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 30, 2004, 9:58 pm

kyoukan wrote:it's a win-win situation for the stupid rightie midnyte brigade. they can keep saying be patient until bush loses in november, then they can blame the bush admin's entire failure on the kerry administration and think that they are actually making a valid point.

bookmark this thread and read it next year because I can 100% guarantee you that is EXACTLY what is going to happen.

LMAO, such a great, great point
now that i think about it i can see the repubs next year blaming Kerry for the shitty economy and total failure in Iraq

One of the things that pisses me off about Bush's character is he acts like a little fucking child. He cant take credit for any of his wrongdoings, not ONE. He blames whoever the fuck he can, to try to get himself out of a bad situation. At least people like Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan had/have the balls to live up to there mistakes, and there character is represented by what they truly believe in.

Sure Kerry changes his mind on several issues, but i see that more as a strength then a weakness. He is able to admit making a mistake. He admitted he made a mistake by voting for the War in Iraq, and admits he was decieved by the Bush admin regarding info on WMDS, turn the situation around and Bush would never have the balls to do the same.

...arguably a man that will go down as one of the worst presidents in american history, cant admit he has ever made a single mistake in his entire life

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 30, 2004, 10:43 pm

...arguably a man that will go down as one of the worst presidents in american history, cant admit he has ever made a single mistake in his entire life

That isn't true - he admitted that trading Sammy Sosa was a mistake!

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » July 1, 2004, 12:53 am

I will never understand how some politicians get away with accusing others of "waffling" on issues and ideas. To me it's the weakest and most idiotic attack you can make. I think Kerry's just the turd that happened to float to the top, but I can't get over that the biggest attack many republicans can manage on him is to accuse him of changing his mind.

What? Are you saying you want someone who doesn't learn, grow and change? I'm not suggesting that Kerry has, but to insinuate that the best president would be one who stubbornly plods on their course even after new information has suggested a better one? People like that need mental help. Surely there's enough shit to fling at Kerry that people can come up with something better than that.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » July 1, 2004, 1:16 am

Xzion wrote:...arguably a man that will go down as one of the worst presidents in american history, cant admit he has ever made a single mistake in his entire life

> > > > >

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 1, 2004, 5:46 am

What's going on with the reconstruction in Iraq is exactly what's wrong with foreign aid in general. The donor country insists on supplying the expertise, the labour and often the materials leaving a disenfranchised and uninterested local populace and ridiculously overinflated project costs with hundreds of opportunities for skimming some money off (only 44% of foreign aid money actually gets spent in the recipient country - the rest is absorbed by the donor country's companies and bureaucracy).

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » July 1, 2004, 11:14 am

hay i herd dell is outsourcing 3k more jobs to iraq!!!1
!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2004, 11:28 am

Cartalas wrote:
Thess wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Its a little hard to rebuild a country when you dodging Car Bombs from terrorist who do not represent the Iraq citizens.

they want us to rebuild Iraq then fine stop attacking us, If not Fuck off and rebuild your own shit hole.

And before the so called morale minions respond why dont you come up with a plan to help not hurt.
My point was - Iraqi's are intelligent people, they have great engineers as well as construction - if we are rebuilding a nation for the good of the people who are in it, why didn't we provide jobs for them by contracting them out to fix it?

Good point Thess
I agree

and to build on that, why are we paying private contracters $100K/yr (or more) to drive trucks, and paying our own military members $20K/yr to drive trucks in more perilous missions (and often equivalent missions)?

why are we paying private contractors to do security way more than we are paying our troops to do security?

it is shameful that we are paying our troops like they are third class citizens while paying persons who work for major corporations handsome sums of money for very similar tasks (if not identical).

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 1, 2004, 12:07 pm

Voronwë wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Thess wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Its a little hard to rebuild a country when you dodging Car Bombs from terrorist who do not represent the Iraq citizens.

they want us to rebuild Iraq then fine stop attacking us, If not Fuck off and rebuild your own shit hole.

And before the so called morale minions respond why dont you come up with a plan to help not hurt.
My point was - Iraqi's are intelligent people, they have great engineers as well as construction - if we are rebuilding a nation for the good of the people who are in it, why didn't we provide jobs for them by contracting them out to fix it?

Good point Thess
I agree

and to build on that, why are we paying private contracters $100K/yr (or more) to drive trucks, and paying our own military members $20K/yr to drive trucks in more perilous missions (and often equivalent missions)?

why are we paying private contractors to do security way more than we are paying our troops to do security?

it is shameful that we are paying our troops like they are third class citizens while paying persons who work for major corporations handsome sums of money for very similar tasks (if not identical).

Come on Voro, you are beginning to let me down here.

Our own military members do not get compensated differently because there job is being a soldier.

The contractors job is contracting. They are being compensated for working in a hostile area.

Same explaination goes for your security question.

Voro, you need to stop this insanity. Your socialistic tendencies are showing more and more.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 1, 2004, 12:21 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Voronwë wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Thess wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Its a little hard to rebuild a country when you dodging Car Bombs from terrorist who do not represent the Iraq citizens.

they want us to rebuild Iraq then fine stop attacking us, If not Fuck off and rebuild your own shit hole.

And before the so called morale minions respond why dont you come up with a plan to help not hurt.
My point was - Iraqi's are intelligent people, they have great engineers as well as construction - if we are rebuilding a nation for the good of the people who are in it, why didn't we provide jobs for them by contracting them out to fix it?

Good point Thess
I agree

and to build on that, why are we paying private contracters $100K/yr (or more) to drive trucks, and paying our own military members $20K/yr to drive trucks in more perilous missions (and often equivalent missions)?

why are we paying private contractors to do security way more than we are paying our troops to do security?

it is shameful that we are paying our troops like they are third class citizens while paying persons who work for major corporations handsome sums of money for very similar tasks (if not identical).
Come on Voro, you are beginning to let me down here.

Our own military members do not get compensated differently because there job is being a soldier.

The contractors job is contracting. They are being compensated for working in a hostile area.

Same explaination goes for your security question.

Voro, you need to stop this insanity. Your socialistic tendencies are showing more and more.

I'm pretty sure Voro's point isn't that we need to pay soldier's more, but that we need to give our soldier's the work that we are selling off to contractor's left and right. (Which i'd wager have some indirect connections to our politicians)

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 1, 2004, 12:23 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Voronwë wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Thess wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Its a little hard to rebuild a country when you dodging Car Bombs from terrorist who do not represent the Iraq citizens.

they want us to rebuild Iraq then fine stop attacking us, If not Fuck off and rebuild your own shit hole.

And before the so called morale minions respond why dont you come up with a plan to help not hurt.
My point was - Iraqi's are intelligent people, they have great engineers as well as construction - if we are rebuilding a nation for the good of the people who are in it, why didn't we provide jobs for them by contracting them out to fix it?

Good point Thess
I agree

and to build on that, why are we paying private contracters $100K/yr (or more) to drive trucks, and paying our own military members $20K/yr to drive trucks in more perilous missions (and often equivalent missions)?

why are we paying private contractors to do security way more than we are paying our troops to do security?

it is shameful that we are paying our troops like they are third class citizens while paying persons who work for major corporations handsome sums of money for very similar tasks (if not identical).
Come on Voro, you are beginning to let me down here.

Our own military members do not get compensated differently because there job is being a soldier.

The contractors job is contracting. They are being compensated for working in a hostile area.

Same explaination goes for your security question.

Voro, you need to stop this insanity. Your socialistic tendencies are showing more and more.

Well then in true capitalistic fashion why are you paying a contractor 100k when you could be paying 20k for a soldier?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2004, 12:38 pm

Mid paying a person with the same level of expertise the same amount of money for doing the same job is not socialism. that is capitalism.

what is also capitalism is operating a company and forming amazingly good relationships with a government over the years to position yourself to get lots of lucrative defense contracts. And in this particular instance positioning yourself to get a no-bid contract and paying your workers large sums of money for doing dangerous jobs.

My main problem is honestly that I think the government (and the taxpayers by extension) is getting ripped off paying private sector employees quadruple (or more) to do jobs the military is trained and equipped to do for less.

but i also think it is a slap in the face to the soldiers.

and i also think that it creates a problem for retaining soldiers. I mean who is going to re-enlist when they can do the same job and get paid 4 times as much? and they can quit if the shit hits the fan and they want to go home.

i dont pretend to understand all of the manpower issues that the Army faces in Iraq and elsewhere, but it is clear that the "leaner, meaner" military that is Rumsfeld's concept has certain shortcomings.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » July 1, 2004, 12:52 pm

Voronwë wrote:Mid paying a person with the same level of expertise the same amount of money for doing the same job is not socialism. that is capitalism.

what is also capitalism is operating a company and forming amazingly good relationships with a government over the years to position yourself to get lots of lucrative defense contracts. And in this particular instance positioning yourself to get a no-bid contract and paying your workers large sums of money for doing dangerous jobs.

My main problem is honestly that I think the government (and the taxpayers by extension) is getting ripped off paying private sector employees quadruple (or more) to do jobs the military is trained and equipped to do for less.

but i also think it is a slap in the face to the soldiers.

and i also think that it creates a problem for retaining soldiers. I mean who is going to re-enlist when they can do the same job and get paid 4 times as much? and they can quit if the shit hits the fan and they want to go home.

i dont pretend to understand all of the manpower issues that the Army faces in Iraq and elsewhere, but it is clear that the "leaner, meaner" military that is Rumsfeld's concept has certain shortcomings.

Haven't read everything, but the section in bold is a sensible criticism of our current plans and procedures.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 1, 2004, 1:05 pm

http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4026

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 1, 2004, 1:16 pm

I think I remember reading that we just began training an Iraq security force a couple months ago. That, IMO, was one of the first things were should have begun once the dust settled. Not only would it provide much needed jobs, get men inclined to take up arms off the street and into the new system, but I imagine that terrorists would be less likely to drive a carbomb into a project guarded by their countrymen than one guarded by infidel GIs.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 1, 2004, 1:22 pm

masteen wrote:I think I remember reading that we just began training an Iraq security force a couple months ago. That, IMO, was one of the first things were should have begun once the dust settled. Not only would it provide much needed jobs, get men inclined to take up arms off the street and into the new system, but I imagine that terrorists would be less likely to drive a carbomb into a project guarded by their countrymen than one guarded by infidel GIs.

I disagree here. From everything I've read the insurgents view anyone working with the US as collaborators and traitors.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 1, 2004, 1:34 pm

Yes, but it's a bigger stretch to label guys who look, worship, and dress the same as you as infidel traitors.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2004, 1:59 pm

Its exactly why the Army War College and the Department of State in both their plans for post-war Iraq did not disband the Iraqi army.

This plan of course was prohibited from being read by Rumsfeld if you were in the leadership team on the ground in Iraq.

The Iraqi army was to have its leadership structure shifted around, but ultimately remain somewhat intact to work as a sort of security force.

Paraphrasing Ehud Barak (fmr. Israeli P.M. on PBS' "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered" last week):

when you sent 3 brigades of Marines into Fallujah you got no results over the course of weeks. When you sent in an Iraqi general to Fallujah, things calm down in days. "Where are the insurgents and weapons?" the US asks? "I dont see any insurgents or weapons", the Iraqi general replies.

no i dont think Fallujah is a test case for anything

but the point is WE are the targets of the insurgents in most cases. some of the insurgents are content to kill Iraqis (obviously). Some of the Saddam loyalists are not that intent on killing Iraqi civilians. Those would be easier to pacify if the army wasn't disband.

also a source of insurgency as well as weapons for them is the disbanded army. If those persons remained employed and the command structure remained intact, less support funnels to the insurgency from the army.

I don't know much about the Army War College. But to me, it sounds like this is where they think up smart ideas on how to win wars. So in that regard, if i am going to fight a war. And if i want to win that war, with an army. I might, i don't konw, use the plan that the guys at the ARMY WAR COLLEGE came up with.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 1, 2004, 2:00 pm

Forthe wrote:
masteen wrote:I think I remember reading that we just began training an Iraq security force a couple months ago. That, IMO, was one of the first things were should have begun once the dust settled. Not only would it provide much needed jobs, get men inclined to take up arms off the street and into the new system, but I imagine that terrorists would be less likely to drive a carbomb into a project guarded by their countrymen than one guarded by infidel GIs.
I disagree here. From everything I've read the insurgents view anyone working with the US as collaborators and traitors.

If that is the case why did the let the Turkish men leave with their heads?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 1, 2004, 2:37 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Forthe wrote:
masteen wrote:I think I remember reading that we just began training an Iraq security force a couple months ago. That, IMO, was one of the first things were should have begun once the dust settled. Not only would it provide much needed jobs, get men inclined to take up arms off the street and into the new system, but I imagine that terrorists would be less likely to drive a carbomb into a project guarded by their countrymen than one guarded by infidel GIs.
I disagree here. From everything I've read the insurgents view anyone working with the US as collaborators and traitors.
If that is the case why did the let the Turkish men leave with their heads?

Iraqi was implied when I mentioned "collaborators and traitors".

On the tangent of the turkish...I have no idea.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 1, 2004, 3:31 pm

You can't even admit the possibility that they were released (necks intact) because they were Muslims?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 1, 2004, 3:40 pm

masteen wrote:You can't even admit the possibility that they were released (necks intact) because they were Muslims?

Sure, thats definitely a possibility.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 1, 2004, 3:45 pm

masteen wrote:You can't even admit the possibility that they were released (necks intact) because they were Muslims?

Which in its self is a very hipocritical move. These guys a reported as fighting a holy war and these Turks were siding with the devil.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2004, 5:11 pm

yeah but if you adhere to a fundamentalist version of Islam, killing a Muslim is forbidden in the Koran.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 1, 2004, 7:10 pm

the pentagon is paying security contractors up to $5000 per day, per man from companies like blackwater usa and dynacorp for doing a soldier's job who gets paid what is basically a little over minimum wage. guess who the heads of those two companies are really good friends with? I will give you a hint, his name sounds the same as rumsfeld.. oops I ruined it.

it does make certain sense to use these guys on a small scale. it costs taxpayers something like $120,000 to train a recruit and even more to deploy them out on the field. and that is not including any bennies after service like a college education or veteran's payments.

the problem is rumsfeld has had thousands of independent contractors in the field for 15 months now at a cost of 3000-5000 a man. the idea behind contracting out these guys is because they were supposed to only higher highly experienced mercenaries that the government has already spent maybe millions of dollars on in training and get them in the field again. so some are ex special forces and highly trained, but because of demand in Iraq, most are barely more experienced than the average squaddie... some don't even have military experience at all any longer.

the more money these mercenary corporations make from the taxpayers, the more money they are going to have to spread influence around, and the more they are going to get used.

Xorian · Post by **Xorian** » July 1, 2004, 8:07 pm

Could american army handle all the jobs that need to be done in iraq?

Wouldnt it imply to bring a lot more soldiers when the army has actually problems to allow soldiers to go back to USA for a while to see family?

Beside...what is the statut of the mercenaries ? Maybe, when using mercenaries (pretty much all the countries are using some here and there, even switzerland to protect ambassade) the country are less accountable (sp?) for the actions they could do, when mercenaries break international law for example.
I think that today there is a "grey zone" regarding actions of mercenaries, and that someone should correct that.

Afterall, the autorizhed violence and the legalized one should stay on the exclusieve field of the State.