John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
welsh, most of it is not a "good intention". They want the world to be poor because it is not fun to bikeride thru Ghana when they are not homeless on the streets giving handjobs for cash.
Iraq anyone? or North Korea?
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
welsh
Junkmaster
I am not so sure CC. I have known quite a few students who have gone off and given a year or two of their lives working for the poor, unrepresented and unserviced- both in the US and abroad.
Much of this is idealism at play. I agree with the article that there was a moral contradiction within the peace movement (although I personally am glad that there were protestors). If there weren't peace activitists I would be very worried about the moral compass of the world.
But at the same time there are strange synergies working within the movement as a whole (this is especially true of the anti-globalists). YOu look at some protests these days and there are all kinds of signs (save the whales, free tibet, etc.) So its as if these events give folks a chance to congregate to shout their message. But do they realize that by pulling all these messages together its often more noise.
I don't know. I have had some issues with the anti-globalist movement, especially its habit of getting violent and tearing up the places were such meetings occur. I can sympathize with a lot of the anti-world bank/anti-IMF stuff, but the violence doesn't seem to be that useful.
Much of this is idealism at play. I agree with the article that there was a moral contradiction within the peace movement (although I personally am glad that there were protestors). If there weren't peace activitists I would be very worried about the moral compass of the world.
But at the same time there are strange synergies working within the movement as a whole (this is especially true of the anti-globalists). YOu look at some protests these days and there are all kinds of signs (save the whales, free tibet, etc.) So its as if these events give folks a chance to congregate to shout their message. But do they realize that by pulling all these messages together its often more noise.
I don't know. I have had some issues with the anti-globalist movement, especially its habit of getting violent and tearing up the places were such meetings occur. I can sympathize with a lot of the anti-world bank/anti-IMF stuff, but the violence doesn't seem to be that useful.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Useful? "doesn't seem to be useful"?
A) They just polarize the subject. Look at Vietnam- if we had not had so many hippie protestors and more people who had sensible ideas, we would have been out of their with a clear victory or just gotten out in the blink of an eye. The only thing the majority of these "protests" do is just get people angry. Do you think that Karl Marx had more of an impact screaming at Engles to give up his wealth or with the Communist Manifesto?
B) Am I the only one who finds it HILARIOUS that these people protest a war....by causing more chaos then some wars?
C) Or how about how these people congregate using web forums and chat rooms and cell phones...the greatest tool of globalization?
D) Or that most of these people are the spawn of the rich?
E) Or that while people like Jose Ramos Horta, who lived in East Timor agree with the war, people like Noam Chomsky, who live on the West Coast are the main opponents of the war?
A) They just polarize the subject. Look at Vietnam- if we had not had so many hippie protestors and more people who had sensible ideas, we would have been out of their with a clear victory or just gotten out in the blink of an eye. The only thing the majority of these "protests" do is just get people angry. Do you think that Karl Marx had more of an impact screaming at Engles to give up his wealth or with the Communist Manifesto?
B) Am I the only one who finds it HILARIOUS that these people protest a war....by causing more chaos then some wars?
C) Or how about how these people congregate using web forums and chat rooms and cell phones...the greatest tool of globalization?
D) Or that most of these people are the spawn of the rich?
E) Or that while people like Jose Ramos Horta, who lived in East Timor agree with the war, people like Noam Chomsky, who live on the West Coast are the main opponents of the war?
welsh
Junkmaster
Back in Iraq-
Jobs for the boys—and for foreigners
Oct 9th 2003 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition
Iraqis are worried that outsiders are getting too many jobs
AT THE back of Baghdad airport, now an American military base, Iraqi day-labourers clamour for the construction and service jobs that thousands of imported Indian and Bangladeshi workers are doing inside the perimeter. Iraqis are a security risk, say American soldiers; more and more Iraqis who come looking for work are being rejected—and turned into disgruntled protesters.
The first demonstrations outside the gates of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA, in effect, Iraq's American-run government) were small. But over the past fortnight, the number of protesters has swelled from less than a hundred to several thousand. On October 4th, American troops opened fire, in the biggest clashes with Iraqis since Baghdad's fall in April. Rallies spread to other cities, from Kirkuk in the north to Basra in the south, where British troops fired rubber bullets.
The main spark for the riots was Iraqi bitterness over redundancy pay for soldiers who lost their jobs when Paul Bremer, the American boss of the CPA, disbanded Iraq's 750,000-strong armed forces. Soldiers, some in wheelchairs, queue for dole from dawn to dusk—a humiliation, say former Iraqi officers. “Would Americans tolerate such treatment of their war veterans?” fumes an Iraqi former general.
The mass import of migrants to service the American-led armies further fuels resentment. Saudi caterers contracted by Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, an American oil-services company, have shipped in hundreds of Indian and Bangladeshi cooks to avoid, they say, the risk that Iraqis might poison the food. Filipina maids hired in Jordan do the cleaning. Lorries from the Gulf states bring in thousands of tonnes of provisions every day because Iraqi food does not meet American specifications. No-entry signs at the back of the coalition's Baghdad headquarters are in Urdu and Bengali, not Arabic.
To cap it all, a new investment law lets foreign contractors bring in labour from abroad but export all profits. Those Iraqis who do get contracts are often just back from exile. A recent tender for a mobile-phone franchise for southern Iraq was won by a consortium led by the son of the media director for Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, who had just returned from Canada. And Iraqis fret at the lack of auditors and openness in Iraq's Governing Council and over the UN's Development Fund for Iraq, where Iraq's oil revenues are supposed to go. “Are we no better than Saddam's sons?”, asks an Iraqi recently back from abroad, noting the growing links between politicians and businessmen
Jobs for the boys—and for foreigners
Oct 9th 2003 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition
Iraqis are worried that outsiders are getting too many jobs
AT THE back of Baghdad airport, now an American military base, Iraqi day-labourers clamour for the construction and service jobs that thousands of imported Indian and Bangladeshi workers are doing inside the perimeter. Iraqis are a security risk, say American soldiers; more and more Iraqis who come looking for work are being rejected—and turned into disgruntled protesters.
The first demonstrations outside the gates of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA, in effect, Iraq's American-run government) were small. But over the past fortnight, the number of protesters has swelled from less than a hundred to several thousand. On October 4th, American troops opened fire, in the biggest clashes with Iraqis since Baghdad's fall in April. Rallies spread to other cities, from Kirkuk in the north to Basra in the south, where British troops fired rubber bullets.
The main spark for the riots was Iraqi bitterness over redundancy pay for soldiers who lost their jobs when Paul Bremer, the American boss of the CPA, disbanded Iraq's 750,000-strong armed forces. Soldiers, some in wheelchairs, queue for dole from dawn to dusk—a humiliation, say former Iraqi officers. “Would Americans tolerate such treatment of their war veterans?” fumes an Iraqi former general.
The mass import of migrants to service the American-led armies further fuels resentment. Saudi caterers contracted by Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, an American oil-services company, have shipped in hundreds of Indian and Bangladeshi cooks to avoid, they say, the risk that Iraqis might poison the food. Filipina maids hired in Jordan do the cleaning. Lorries from the Gulf states bring in thousands of tonnes of provisions every day because Iraqi food does not meet American specifications. No-entry signs at the back of the coalition's Baghdad headquarters are in Urdu and Bengali, not Arabic.
To cap it all, a new investment law lets foreign contractors bring in labour from abroad but export all profits. Those Iraqis who do get contracts are often just back from exile. A recent tender for a mobile-phone franchise for southern Iraq was won by a consortium led by the son of the media director for Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, who had just returned from Canada. And Iraqis fret at the lack of auditors and openness in Iraq's Governing Council and over the UN's Development Fund for Iraq, where Iraq's oil revenues are supposed to go. “Are we no better than Saddam's sons?”, asks an Iraqi recently back from abroad, noting the growing links between politicians and businessmen
Hells! I missed that post of yours, CC. Sorry for the long delay, I onl noticed because I was in need of some information sources about Iraq for a school report, and thought it'd be best to just check this thread. Okay:
1) WW1 was lost by the same people who started the killing. Killing sure worked for them.
2) WW2 was lost by the same people who started the killing. Killing sure worked for them as well.
3) Both the Korean and the Vietnam war were mutual conflicts(initated by two sides, mainly), and thus in any respect, one of the groups starting the killing loses.
4) The Gulf War was lost by the same people who started the killing. Killing sure worked for them as well.
My point is that killing has not been proven to be effective. The only times when it did prove effective, was when it was defense or a reaction to an attack. Now, Iraq did definately NOT start this war.
Now, as I've said before, the USA, England and the SU were NOT the aggressors in WW2, they were the defending party, and that makes it completely different.
EHh, wait, so this means that because I don't have 2 million dollars, I don't want them?
Furthermore, you wouldn't need to lie about the reasons for an invasion.
EDIT: Quote mistake.
No, why? Because the USA was NOT the aggressor there. The aggressor was Germany, defense is good, offense is bad. If you claim that this war was purely defense, then you are plyaing dumb.
Then what about the protests about the soldiers being layed off? Iraqi companies getting no chance to rebuild something, because everything is being spent on foreign companies? And what about the soldiers taking away money, booze, weapons and other things, and never returning them to their owners?(Yes, this does happen, I'll see if I can find an article about it).
Who is Avishai Maragalit(forgive my ignorance)? ANd apparently you are trying to convince me that I'm wrong by saying that I'm right. That's just stupid, the only people who would be stopped by a "label"are people who follow the group ad don't think for themselves but let others in the "group" they belong to think for them. In other words, it doesn't matter that you call me right, I won't change my mind because of that.
ANd now you're saying that killing is good. Simply because you think that the twentieth century proved it solved things. Newsflash: It didn't.
1) WW1 was lost by the same people who started the killing. Killing sure worked for them.
2) WW2 was lost by the same people who started the killing. Killing sure worked for them as well.
3) Both the Korean and the Vietnam war were mutual conflicts(initated by two sides, mainly), and thus in any respect, one of the groups starting the killing loses.
4) The Gulf War was lost by the same people who started the killing. Killing sure worked for them as well.
My point is that killing has not been proven to be effective. The only times when it did prove effective, was when it was defense or a reaction to an attack. Now, Iraq did definately NOT start this war.
AGain, you assume that by saying that I'm thinking like someone/a group I will withdraw.
Now, as I've said before, the USA, England and the SU were NOT the aggressors in WW2, they were the defending party, and that makes it completely different.
FYI, those areas were in bad shape right after the war. Yes, they recovered, but mainly due to things like the Marshall plan. Which cost a loft of money, and things like that will cost a lot of money for developed countries(mainly the USA), and I seriously doubt that they will want this, since the economy still is bad.
Whch is why we have discussions like this.
"They didn''t have it, so they didn't want it."
EHh, wait, so this means that because I don't have 2 million dollars, I don't want them?
No, let's not put down all of out weapons, but let's not invade and occupy countries.
Why? You cannot claim that the war was for only one reason, but you certainly cannot ignore a possible reason. Oilk is very important for any county, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it didn't play a roll in the decision.
Just in case you hadn't noticed, Iraq is a lot less powerful than those countries, which means that you can actually force them to do such a thing. NOw, it would require force, it would require a lot of things, but it would NOT be invading and occupying a country.
Furthermore, you wouldn't need to lie about the reasons for an invasion.
EDIT: Quote mistake.
welsh
Junkmaster
Sander- I think you need to calm down a bit bud. YOu are taking these things a bit too seriously. Also your argument has a habit of being all rhetoric and not much empirical fact. It's fine to be normative, but sometimes you have to back it up.
But speaking on Iraq, here's another bit from the Economist.
Baghdad, city of bombs
Oct 30th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda
A spate of deadly attacks has shaken the Iraqi capital, including the assassination of a Baghdad deputy mayor. President George Bush is putting on a brave face, but his worries are eviden
WHEN Paul Wolfowitz, America’s deputy defence secretary, toured Iraq last weekend he was supposed to be talking up the progress made since the war to topple Saddam Hussein. Instead, he got a first-hand view of the violence wracking the country. Mr Wolfowitz was staying in the Rashid Hotel in central Baghdad when a barrage of missiles struck the building on the morning of Sunday October 26th. One floor below his room, an American colonel was killed. After being hustled out of the building, Mr Wolfowitz vowed manfully that such attacks would not deter America. “We are getting the job done despite the desperate acts of a dying regime of criminals,” he said.
The violence promptly got worse. Four more bombings, seemingly co-ordinated, struck the Iraqi capital during rush hour on Monday (the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan). One, a suicide strike at the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross, killed at least ten people, most of them Iraqis. Police stations were also targeted, and one of Baghdad's deputy mayors was assassinated in a point-blank shooting. All told, around 35 people died and more than 200 were wounded. On Tuesday, another suicide attack, on a police station in Falluja (a city west of Baghdad), killed at least four Iraqis.
The White House publishes Mr Bush's comments at his press conference on Iraq. The US Central Command and the US Defence Department provide up-to-date news on the security situation in Iraq. See also the US State Department's information on Iraq and the UN's Iraq section. The Coalition Provisional Authority oversees the reconstruction efforts.
As the attacks mount (there are now about 25 a day), America is putting on a brave face. At a hastily called news conference on Tuesday, President George Bush acknowledged the obvious, that “Iraq is a dangerous place”, but insisted that America's strategy was unchanged. Some officials have dismissed the bombers’ tools—improvised explosive devices, AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and the like—as flimsy when set against America’s high-tech arsenal. But even these simple weapons have accomplished their goal of sowing discontent among both American occupiers and Iraqis. Many Iraqis have admitted being afraid to work for the Americans, and both the United Nations and the Red Cross will reduce their international staff in Iraq further after Monday's bombings. Moreover, the attacks appear to be getting more sophisticated, presumably as the resistance organises itself. There may be fewer looting incidents now than there were when Mr Bush proclaimed major combat operations over six months ago, but there are more guerrilla attacks, and they are better planned.
Paul Bremer, America’s top administrator in Iraq, never tires of pointing out that most of the country is improving fast. He is right. Almost all of the attacks occur in a small section of central Iraq, known as the Sunni Triangle, whereas Shia and Kurdish areas, in the south and north respectively, tend to be calmer. Still, America has admitted that it was taken aback by the persistence of militants. “We did not expect it would be quite this intense this long,” Colin Powell, America’s secretary of state, told an NBC television programme. Mr Bush's decision to call a news conference highlights his concern about the political fallout back home. America is clearly struggling to penetrate the guerrillas’ shadowy, diffuse network. Some of the attackers are remnants of Saddam’s Baathist regime. Foreign fighters also appear to be involved. America has accused Syria of allowing guerrillas to slip across the border into Iraq; one of Monday's bombers (whose attack was foiled) was carrying a Syrian passport, according to an American general.
When will the atrocities end? The answer seems something of a conundrum. The attacks now target the American occupiers. But America may not leave Iraq until it is satisfied that the security situation is stable. Already, the upsurge of violence has forced America to put more troops there than military planners originally projected. Moreover, even if America pulled out soon (which it will not), the militants would almost certainly continue fighting, this time for political control.
America has other worries on its mind besides security. Chief among these is money. Rebuilding Iraq will cost $55 billion, according to projections by the World Bank, the United Nations and American officials in Iraq. America expects to stump up $20 billion of that; the rest must come from elsewhere. A donors’ conference last week in Madrid netted another $17 billion or so. That amount still does not fill the gap. Moreover, aside from America's contribution it will mostly come in the form of loans, not grants, thus adding to Iraq’s enormous pre-war debt. (James Wolfensohn, the World Bank's president, said on Wednesday that creditors should write off at least two-thirds of Iraq's debt.) Even if America somehow manages to bring the attacks against foreigners and Iraqi “collaborators” under control, it still faces a long and hard exercise in nation-building.
Any thoughts?
But speaking on Iraq, here's another bit from the Economist.
Baghdad, city of bombs
Oct 30th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda
A spate of deadly attacks has shaken the Iraqi capital, including the assassination of a Baghdad deputy mayor. President George Bush is putting on a brave face, but his worries are eviden
WHEN Paul Wolfowitz, America’s deputy defence secretary, toured Iraq last weekend he was supposed to be talking up the progress made since the war to topple Saddam Hussein. Instead, he got a first-hand view of the violence wracking the country. Mr Wolfowitz was staying in the Rashid Hotel in central Baghdad when a barrage of missiles struck the building on the morning of Sunday October 26th. One floor below his room, an American colonel was killed. After being hustled out of the building, Mr Wolfowitz vowed manfully that such attacks would not deter America. “We are getting the job done despite the desperate acts of a dying regime of criminals,” he said.
The violence promptly got worse. Four more bombings, seemingly co-ordinated, struck the Iraqi capital during rush hour on Monday (the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan). One, a suicide strike at the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross, killed at least ten people, most of them Iraqis. Police stations were also targeted, and one of Baghdad's deputy mayors was assassinated in a point-blank shooting. All told, around 35 people died and more than 200 were wounded. On Tuesday, another suicide attack, on a police station in Falluja (a city west of Baghdad), killed at least four Iraqis.
The White House publishes Mr Bush's comments at his press conference on Iraq. The US Central Command and the US Defence Department provide up-to-date news on the security situation in Iraq. See also the US State Department's information on Iraq and the UN's Iraq section. The Coalition Provisional Authority oversees the reconstruction efforts.
As the attacks mount (there are now about 25 a day), America is putting on a brave face. At a hastily called news conference on Tuesday, President George Bush acknowledged the obvious, that “Iraq is a dangerous place”, but insisted that America's strategy was unchanged. Some officials have dismissed the bombers’ tools—improvised explosive devices, AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and the like—as flimsy when set against America’s high-tech arsenal. But even these simple weapons have accomplished their goal of sowing discontent among both American occupiers and Iraqis. Many Iraqis have admitted being afraid to work for the Americans, and both the United Nations and the Red Cross will reduce their international staff in Iraq further after Monday's bombings. Moreover, the attacks appear to be getting more sophisticated, presumably as the resistance organises itself. There may be fewer looting incidents now than there were when Mr Bush proclaimed major combat operations over six months ago, but there are more guerrilla attacks, and they are better planned.
Paul Bremer, America’s top administrator in Iraq, never tires of pointing out that most of the country is improving fast. He is right. Almost all of the attacks occur in a small section of central Iraq, known as the Sunni Triangle, whereas Shia and Kurdish areas, in the south and north respectively, tend to be calmer. Still, America has admitted that it was taken aback by the persistence of militants. “We did not expect it would be quite this intense this long,” Colin Powell, America’s secretary of state, told an NBC television programme. Mr Bush's decision to call a news conference highlights his concern about the political fallout back home. America is clearly struggling to penetrate the guerrillas’ shadowy, diffuse network. Some of the attackers are remnants of Saddam’s Baathist regime. Foreign fighters also appear to be involved. America has accused Syria of allowing guerrillas to slip across the border into Iraq; one of Monday's bombers (whose attack was foiled) was carrying a Syrian passport, according to an American general.
When will the atrocities end? The answer seems something of a conundrum. The attacks now target the American occupiers. But America may not leave Iraq until it is satisfied that the security situation is stable. Already, the upsurge of violence has forced America to put more troops there than military planners originally projected. Moreover, even if America pulled out soon (which it will not), the militants would almost certainly continue fighting, this time for political control.
America has other worries on its mind besides security. Chief among these is money. Rebuilding Iraq will cost $55 billion, according to projections by the World Bank, the United Nations and American officials in Iraq. America expects to stump up $20 billion of that; the rest must come from elsewhere. A donors’ conference last week in Madrid netted another $17 billion or so. That amount still does not fill the gap. Moreover, aside from America's contribution it will mostly come in the form of loans, not grants, thus adding to Iraq’s enormous pre-war debt. (James Wolfensohn, the World Bank's president, said on Wednesday that creditors should write off at least two-thirds of Iraq's debt.) Even if America somehow manages to bring the attacks against foreigners and Iraqi “collaborators” under control, it still faces a long and hard exercise in nation-building.
Any thoughts?
welsh
Junkmaster
oh- here is another article. Maybe this will help us think about Iraq some more.
Rebuilding Iraq
Amid the bombs and the rubble, the country is still slowly on the mend
Oct 30th 2003 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition
It is proving much harder than the Americans expected, but the rebuilding of a shattered country is still going steadily ahead
EVERY day, small propeller-driven aircraft corkscrew steeply down into Baghdad airport, lessening the risk of being hit by shoulder-fired missiles. The war-blasted facility is back in full working order, and half a dozen big airlines have been licensed to use it. But the terror threat remains too pressing to admit anything but these costly charter flights, underwritten by the American government, from Amman, neighbouring Jordan's capital.
To the motley bunch of aid workers, reporters and spies on board, the flights would give travel to Iraq a semblance of the ordinary, were it not for the sharp approach angle and the greeting party of grim, gun-toting ex-Ghurkas at Baghdad's near-deserted terminal. Similarly, life in the country, for most of its citizens, would be approaching normal patterns, were it not for uncertainty about the future, anxiety over crime and violence, and the heavy footfall of foreign soldiers.
For many Iraqis, living standards have already risen a lot. Boosted by government make-work programmes, day labourers are getting double their pre-war wages. A university dean's pay has gone up fourfold, a policeman's by a factor of ten.
Before the war, Kifah Karim, a teacher at a Baghdad primary school, took home monthly pay equivalent to just $6. Her husband earned $13 as a factory overseer. Today, with a combined income of close to $450, they no longer rely on gifts of meat from Mrs Karim's brother, a butcher, to buttress a diet dominated by government food rations. They buy 2-3 kilos of meat a week, and have recently purchased a new fridge, a television, a TV satellite dish, a VCR and a CD player.
Stacks of such goods now crowd the pavements of Baghdad's main shopping streets, shaded by ranks of bright new billboards. Prime commercial property, says a real estate broker in the Karada district, easily fetches $1,000 a square metre, four times the level this time last year. For sure, he says, there is some risk in securing proper legal title, but even under strict Baathist rule there lurked the danger that some official would take a shine to your property and seize it.
Such price rises have yet to spur much inflation. Subsidised food and petrol remain in adequate supply. Some prices have even dropped. Used cars cost one-third less than last year, the market glutted by a flash-flood of imports. Conversely, porous borders have pushed meat prices up 30%, as smugglers sneak their flocks to more lucrative markets in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Baghdadis complain, but Bedouin herdsmen are doing just fine.
Yet the downward trickle has not reached everyone. Estimates of unemployment range from 60-75%. Along with around 1m salaried civil servants, some 80,000 policemen and security guards now earn decent wages, 50,000 Iraqis are on long-term reconstruction projects, and double that number profit as day labourers. But Iraq's workforce numbers some 7m. The disbanding of the army alone put 400,000 on to the street, where they get a meagre and temporary dole. Some 40,000 may be rehired, but the rest are fodder for unrest or worse (see article).
The short-term economic priority, everyone concurs, is fixing the appalling infrastructure. Slowness on this score, reckon many Iraqis, has gained America more ill-will even than its soldiers' itchy trigger fingers. Yet here, at last, real progress is being made—and that is without counting the looming bonanza of $33 billion in aid that Iraq has just been promised at last week's conference in Madrid.
Brighter future?
The southern capital, Basra, for example, got only two-to-four hours of electricity a day before the war—and now has a power surplus. Baghdad still works to a regime of three-hours-on/three-hours-off, but the country as a whole is producing as much power as before the war. By spring it will be up by 25%. Within three years, if America sticks to its plan of sinking $5 billion-plus into the sector, power output should have more than doubled.
The repair trajectory for telecoms is even steeper. By February, promises Clifford Mumm, who heads Bechtel's operations in Iraq, all ten bombed Baghdad exchanges will be working, as well as the national trunk system and an international satellite link. By then, three private cellphone networks should be operating.
Oilfield repairs have also proceeded apace. Production capacity, reduced to one-third of pre-war levels by May, is now up to 75% and on target to match them by March. Exports, now at 1.2m barrels a day, have been held up by sabotage, but Iraqi oilmen see this as a temporary obstacle. It will take years, and billions in investment, before Iraq reaches its full potential. But even if it hits the modest target of 2m barrels a day in exports by mid-2004, its crude could be earning $20 billion a year.
Mr Mumm admits that his giant American engineering firm, like others contracted by USAID to kick-start Iraq's infrastructure, made a slow start. Bechtel, whose array of contracts, worth $1 billion, covers repairs of everything from ports to railroads to sewage plants, soon dropped its idea of selecting big international subcontractors and has now funnelled half the value of its work to Iraqi firms.
With Bechtel in the running for a planned second raft of big-time repair jobs worth another $1.5 billion, Mr Mumm enthuses over the challenge. Patching up the old, rather than installing new equipment, is what he calls a “geek's dream”. As for charges that the whole process has been too cumbersome, he asks how long it took Germany to knock its former communist eastern part into shape. “Iraq is far worse, and they weren't getting shot at.”
Which, unfortunately, is the point. Working in Iraq may, in fact, be little riskier than in Algeria or Colombia, but its violence certainly puts on a damper. Huge hazardous-duty bonuses for expatriate workers, war-risk insurance, $1,000-a-day bodyguards and mine-clearance needs at many worksites can add a good 10% to the cost of business. And this does not include time lost at checkpoints, in assembling convoys, or being mired in traffic when tanks block roads.
The greater cost, however, is incurred by fuzziness over Iraq's future. Big oil companies, for example, have yet to be lured. They tend nowadays to look at the lifetime capacity of a field, not at the chance of a quick profit. “You're talking about a horizon of 10-12 years, minimum,” says a European businessman searching for deals. Despite the high technical calibre of Iraq's oil ministry, outsiders are not yet confident that long-term contracts will be watertight. Similarly, the promulgation of laws to fling open the Iraqi market to foreign investment has tempted few punters.
And then there is the larger political challenge of reshaping Iraq. Plenty of well-wishers share President George Bush's vision of Iraq as a bastion of democracy to inspire the backward Middle East, but opinion polls also illustrate the ambivalence of many Iraqis. A survey out this week revealed that, while most endorse democracy and women's rights, many wonder whether democracy can work in Iraq. Most would like some form of Islamic rule—and want the coalition forces out. But three-quarters of Iraqis also think that in five years they will be better off.
Rebuilding Iraq
Amid the bombs and the rubble, the country is still slowly on the mend
Oct 30th 2003 | BAGHDAD
From The Economist print edition
It is proving much harder than the Americans expected, but the rebuilding of a shattered country is still going steadily ahead
EVERY day, small propeller-driven aircraft corkscrew steeply down into Baghdad airport, lessening the risk of being hit by shoulder-fired missiles. The war-blasted facility is back in full working order, and half a dozen big airlines have been licensed to use it. But the terror threat remains too pressing to admit anything but these costly charter flights, underwritten by the American government, from Amman, neighbouring Jordan's capital.
To the motley bunch of aid workers, reporters and spies on board, the flights would give travel to Iraq a semblance of the ordinary, were it not for the sharp approach angle and the greeting party of grim, gun-toting ex-Ghurkas at Baghdad's near-deserted terminal. Similarly, life in the country, for most of its citizens, would be approaching normal patterns, were it not for uncertainty about the future, anxiety over crime and violence, and the heavy footfall of foreign soldiers.
For many Iraqis, living standards have already risen a lot. Boosted by government make-work programmes, day labourers are getting double their pre-war wages. A university dean's pay has gone up fourfold, a policeman's by a factor of ten.
Before the war, Kifah Karim, a teacher at a Baghdad primary school, took home monthly pay equivalent to just $6. Her husband earned $13 as a factory overseer. Today, with a combined income of close to $450, they no longer rely on gifts of meat from Mrs Karim's brother, a butcher, to buttress a diet dominated by government food rations. They buy 2-3 kilos of meat a week, and have recently purchased a new fridge, a television, a TV satellite dish, a VCR and a CD player.
Stacks of such goods now crowd the pavements of Baghdad's main shopping streets, shaded by ranks of bright new billboards. Prime commercial property, says a real estate broker in the Karada district, easily fetches $1,000 a square metre, four times the level this time last year. For sure, he says, there is some risk in securing proper legal title, but even under strict Baathist rule there lurked the danger that some official would take a shine to your property and seize it.
Such price rises have yet to spur much inflation. Subsidised food and petrol remain in adequate supply. Some prices have even dropped. Used cars cost one-third less than last year, the market glutted by a flash-flood of imports. Conversely, porous borders have pushed meat prices up 30%, as smugglers sneak their flocks to more lucrative markets in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Baghdadis complain, but Bedouin herdsmen are doing just fine.
Yet the downward trickle has not reached everyone. Estimates of unemployment range from 60-75%. Along with around 1m salaried civil servants, some 80,000 policemen and security guards now earn decent wages, 50,000 Iraqis are on long-term reconstruction projects, and double that number profit as day labourers. But Iraq's workforce numbers some 7m. The disbanding of the army alone put 400,000 on to the street, where they get a meagre and temporary dole. Some 40,000 may be rehired, but the rest are fodder for unrest or worse (see article).
The short-term economic priority, everyone concurs, is fixing the appalling infrastructure. Slowness on this score, reckon many Iraqis, has gained America more ill-will even than its soldiers' itchy trigger fingers. Yet here, at last, real progress is being made—and that is without counting the looming bonanza of $33 billion in aid that Iraq has just been promised at last week's conference in Madrid.
Brighter future?
The southern capital, Basra, for example, got only two-to-four hours of electricity a day before the war—and now has a power surplus. Baghdad still works to a regime of three-hours-on/three-hours-off, but the country as a whole is producing as much power as before the war. By spring it will be up by 25%. Within three years, if America sticks to its plan of sinking $5 billion-plus into the sector, power output should have more than doubled.
The repair trajectory for telecoms is even steeper. By February, promises Clifford Mumm, who heads Bechtel's operations in Iraq, all ten bombed Baghdad exchanges will be working, as well as the national trunk system and an international satellite link. By then, three private cellphone networks should be operating.
Oilfield repairs have also proceeded apace. Production capacity, reduced to one-third of pre-war levels by May, is now up to 75% and on target to match them by March. Exports, now at 1.2m barrels a day, have been held up by sabotage, but Iraqi oilmen see this as a temporary obstacle. It will take years, and billions in investment, before Iraq reaches its full potential. But even if it hits the modest target of 2m barrels a day in exports by mid-2004, its crude could be earning $20 billion a year.
Mr Mumm admits that his giant American engineering firm, like others contracted by USAID to kick-start Iraq's infrastructure, made a slow start. Bechtel, whose array of contracts, worth $1 billion, covers repairs of everything from ports to railroads to sewage plants, soon dropped its idea of selecting big international subcontractors and has now funnelled half the value of its work to Iraqi firms.
With Bechtel in the running for a planned second raft of big-time repair jobs worth another $1.5 billion, Mr Mumm enthuses over the challenge. Patching up the old, rather than installing new equipment, is what he calls a “geek's dream”. As for charges that the whole process has been too cumbersome, he asks how long it took Germany to knock its former communist eastern part into shape. “Iraq is far worse, and they weren't getting shot at.”
Which, unfortunately, is the point. Working in Iraq may, in fact, be little riskier than in Algeria or Colombia, but its violence certainly puts on a damper. Huge hazardous-duty bonuses for expatriate workers, war-risk insurance, $1,000-a-day bodyguards and mine-clearance needs at many worksites can add a good 10% to the cost of business. And this does not include time lost at checkpoints, in assembling convoys, or being mired in traffic when tanks block roads.
The greater cost, however, is incurred by fuzziness over Iraq's future. Big oil companies, for example, have yet to be lured. They tend nowadays to look at the lifetime capacity of a field, not at the chance of a quick profit. “You're talking about a horizon of 10-12 years, minimum,” says a European businessman searching for deals. Despite the high technical calibre of Iraq's oil ministry, outsiders are not yet confident that long-term contracts will be watertight. Similarly, the promulgation of laws to fling open the Iraqi market to foreign investment has tempted few punters.
And then there is the larger political challenge of reshaping Iraq. Plenty of well-wishers share President George Bush's vision of Iraq as a bastion of democracy to inspire the backward Middle East, but opinion polls also illustrate the ambivalence of many Iraqis. A survey out this week revealed that, while most endorse democracy and women's rights, many wonder whether democracy can work in Iraq. Most would like some form of Islamic rule—and want the coalition forces out. But three-quarters of Iraqis also think that in five years they will be better off.
welsh
Junkmaster
Updating this thread-
Speeding up Iraqification
Nov 14th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda
After another grim week in Iraq, Paul Bremer returns to Baghdad determined to hasten the transition to Iraqi sovereignty
The rosy hue that the White House has been painting on America’s occupation of Iraq is slowly fading. This week Paul Bremer, America’s top man in Baghdad, skipped an appointment with the prime minister of Poland to hold urgent meetings in Washington, DC. Meanwhile, the occupation’s woes deepened: at least 27 people, including 18 Italian troops, were killed in a suicide attack on a base in the previously calm southern city of Nasiriya. Italy’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, vowed not to withdraw his country’s 2,300 troops in Iraq. But Japan, chastened by Italy’s tragedy, announced that it would hold off sending troops until sometime next year (previously ministers had suggested that the first Japanese contingent might arrive next month).
The White House publishes Mr Bush's comments on Iraq. The US Central Command and the US Defence Department provide up-to-date news on the security situation. See also the US State Department's information on Iraq and the UN's Iraq section. The Coalition Provisional Authority oversees the reconstruction efforts.
Mr Bremer’s sudden dash back to Washington signals increased worries over Iraq’s political future. A new report from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has warned that America is losing the support of Iraqis. Most Iraqis were delighted to be rid of Saddam Hussein, but the intensifying assaults on foreign troops, and Iraqis who co-operate with them, are sowing doubts about whether America can successfully stabilise the country. The CIA report, which is classified and was first disclosed by the Philadelphia Enquirer, is said to give warning that increasing numbers of Iraqis are joining the anti-American resistance.
A change of strategy seems imminent. Mr Bremer has been tight-lipped about the possibilities, but Washington is clearly hoping to fast-forward its handover of power to Iraqis. America wants to “encourage the Iraqis to assume more responsibility,” President George Bush said on Thursday. Mr Bremer had previously insisted that the drafting of a constitution should precede elections (as in Afghanistan). But writing constitutions is a painfully slow process—Afghanistan’s effort, unveiled two months late, is a case in point.
And as the CIA report suggests, time may not be on America’s side. According to the New York Times, Mr Bremer is expected to urge Iraqis to hold elections in the first half of next year. However, he must still work out an agreement with the country’s Governing Council, a 24-member executive made up of Iraqis but set up by America. The council is expected to seek more immediate power for itself, possibly instead of rushed elections. Any solution will require delicate handling of the country’s ethnic divisions, as the Sunni Muslim and Kurdish minorities will be worried about too much power accruing to the Shia Muslim majority.
Officials in Washington clearly have their eyes on the domestic political repercussions of Iraq. Support for the occupation remains strong, but Americans are increasingly worried about the continuing attacks on troops (not to mention America’s inability to find any weapons of mass destruction). Speeding up the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis seems politically expedient, especially with the American presidential elections coming up next year.
Whether this will quieten the insurgents in Iraq is another question altogether. General John Abizaid of US Central Command puts the number of “thugs” at up to 5,000. They have shown themselves keen to attack Iraqi “collaborators” as well as American (and now Italian) occupiers. This suggests that any government condoned by the Americans will be considered a fair target. Moreover, even if Iraqis take power next year, American forces will still be in the country, drawing more attacks. Transferring sovereignty to Iraqis will therefore be only half of the answer; the other half will be rooting out the shadowy figures who are trying to turn the entire country into a zone of terror.
Speeding up Iraqification
Nov 14th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda
After another grim week in Iraq, Paul Bremer returns to Baghdad determined to hasten the transition to Iraqi sovereignty
The rosy hue that the White House has been painting on America’s occupation of Iraq is slowly fading. This week Paul Bremer, America’s top man in Baghdad, skipped an appointment with the prime minister of Poland to hold urgent meetings in Washington, DC. Meanwhile, the occupation’s woes deepened: at least 27 people, including 18 Italian troops, were killed in a suicide attack on a base in the previously calm southern city of Nasiriya. Italy’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, vowed not to withdraw his country’s 2,300 troops in Iraq. But Japan, chastened by Italy’s tragedy, announced that it would hold off sending troops until sometime next year (previously ministers had suggested that the first Japanese contingent might arrive next month).
The White House publishes Mr Bush's comments on Iraq. The US Central Command and the US Defence Department provide up-to-date news on the security situation. See also the US State Department's information on Iraq and the UN's Iraq section. The Coalition Provisional Authority oversees the reconstruction efforts.
Mr Bremer’s sudden dash back to Washington signals increased worries over Iraq’s political future. A new report from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has warned that America is losing the support of Iraqis. Most Iraqis were delighted to be rid of Saddam Hussein, but the intensifying assaults on foreign troops, and Iraqis who co-operate with them, are sowing doubts about whether America can successfully stabilise the country. The CIA report, which is classified and was first disclosed by the Philadelphia Enquirer, is said to give warning that increasing numbers of Iraqis are joining the anti-American resistance.
A change of strategy seems imminent. Mr Bremer has been tight-lipped about the possibilities, but Washington is clearly hoping to fast-forward its handover of power to Iraqis. America wants to “encourage the Iraqis to assume more responsibility,” President George Bush said on Thursday. Mr Bremer had previously insisted that the drafting of a constitution should precede elections (as in Afghanistan). But writing constitutions is a painfully slow process—Afghanistan’s effort, unveiled two months late, is a case in point.
And as the CIA report suggests, time may not be on America’s side. According to the New York Times, Mr Bremer is expected to urge Iraqis to hold elections in the first half of next year. However, he must still work out an agreement with the country’s Governing Council, a 24-member executive made up of Iraqis but set up by America. The council is expected to seek more immediate power for itself, possibly instead of rushed elections. Any solution will require delicate handling of the country’s ethnic divisions, as the Sunni Muslim and Kurdish minorities will be worried about too much power accruing to the Shia Muslim majority.
Officials in Washington clearly have their eyes on the domestic political repercussions of Iraq. Support for the occupation remains strong, but Americans are increasingly worried about the continuing attacks on troops (not to mention America’s inability to find any weapons of mass destruction). Speeding up the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis seems politically expedient, especially with the American presidential elections coming up next year.
Whether this will quieten the insurgents in Iraq is another question altogether. General John Abizaid of US Central Command puts the number of “thugs” at up to 5,000. They have shown themselves keen to attack Iraqi “collaborators” as well as American (and now Italian) occupiers. This suggests that any government condoned by the Americans will be considered a fair target. Moreover, even if Iraqis take power next year, American forces will still be in the country, drawing more attacks. Transferring sovereignty to Iraqis will therefore be only half of the answer; the other half will be rooting out the shadowy figures who are trying to turn the entire country into a zone of terror.
Dunno...
"The other half will be rooting out the shadowy figures who are trying to turn the country in a zone of terror"
In my opinion, the US and coalition troops are the problem, not the solution.
Hmm... How can you claim that a country's been ruled democratically by its own people if the 24 members of the Governing council are set up by a forgein nation?
Let's just hope the whole thing doesn't end up as a second Iran. There's enough Ayatollahs and enlightened nation leaders around.
"The other half will be rooting out the shadowy figures who are trying to turn the country in a zone of terror"
In my opinion, the US and coalition troops are the problem, not the solution.
Hmm... How can you claim that a country's been ruled democratically by its own people if the 24 members of the Governing council are set up by a forgein nation?
Let's just hope the whole thing doesn't end up as a second Iran. There's enough Ayatollahs and enlightened nation leaders around.
welsh
Junkmaster
I agree with the point that you cannot impose a democratic cabinet from abroad.
I would say go with elections and the creation of viable political parties, but I think a lot of Iraqis would be too worried about getting whacked as collaborators because they are not trusting US security.
WHich is yet another botch of the job of post conflict reconstruction done by Baby Bush.
I would say go with elections and the creation of viable political parties, but I think a lot of Iraqis would be too worried about getting whacked as collaborators because they are not trusting US security.
WHich is yet another botch of the job of post conflict reconstruction done by Baby Bush.
That, and the fact that the place hasn't been ruled by a coalition of political parties *ever*. I don't think it'll be easy to implement on a society that worked under dictatorship since the beggining of the century.welsh said:
From what I've read and heard, there are a lot of extremely different ethnic groups in te country, which arent't exactly in the disposition to collaborate. In fact, it's more likely they'll jump at each other's throats, much like happened when the British left India... Only there's no Iraqui Gandhi.
welsh
Junkmaster
The thing that worries me most are the current CIA estimates that what we are facing is not a case of Saddam's old regime trying to cause trouble, or visiting Islamic fundamentalists wanting a bit of violent jihad on infidels, but that the Iraqis themselve might be joining in an insurrection against the US.
We need to win hearts and minds, and apparently its not working.
We need to win hearts and minds, and apparently its not working.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
First off, the reason they implemented a foreign governing council, was because that some sneaky Sadam/Osama loyalists might pretend to be democratic and plot thier take over as soon as the coalition left. Second, why must everyone say this is all going to be a second Vietnam/Iran? Things are going tough, big deal. They aren't supposed to be "hunky dury." The mideast is a zone of anarchy and chaos. The coalition isn't the problem. It's not like everything would be all peaceful even if we weren't there. This is just a tough time for the world. It's not the end. Things were a lot tougher during the World Wars. Situations were tense when the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were facing off as well. This is just another bad situation. We will get through it. Plain and simple. It will cost lives, and time, but we can't just sit on our fat asses and expect everything to be ok.
And what are you trying to say King? That you'll get through it? Probably.
But will the population get through it, THAT is the question. Whether or not a decent Iraq will eventually come out of it.
And in part, the coalition IS the problem, I haven't seen anyone else invade the country and cause a mess. Now Bush has said that they are going to give the government their soverwignity sooner, which is good.
But will the population get through it, THAT is the question. Whether or not a decent Iraq will eventually come out of it.
And in part, the coalition IS the problem, I haven't seen anyone else invade the country and cause a mess. Now Bush has said that they are going to give the government their soverwignity sooner, which is good.
Loxley said:
All countries are too big to control completely, excepting a few small ones like Monaco or Luxembourg...
Generally, the old rule stands "if you have the capitol, you have the country." The UN is officially "in control" of Afghanistan, but do they have anything other than the capitol? I think not. Same goes for Iraq. Same goes for most countries.
welsh
Junkmaster
Kharn said:
Well Kharn, one of the symptoms of a collapsing state is that it has control of little more than the capital. The further the penetrative reach of the state, the more it usually has control.
Actually China was conquered twice, and Russia was dominated by the Mongols for a damn long time.
welsh said:
That was not my point. My point was that the control of an invasion force often doesn't go beyond the capital.
It's one of the things that differs occupational forces from armies stationed in colonies or "annexed countries" (think Napoleon and Hitler).
welsh said:
A bit of an off statement you got there, welsh. "Russia" didn't exist until 1721 (date pricked from memory, not sure if it's right), and Muscovy from which it stems didn't begin expanding before the late 15th century. The only thing resemblnig Russia prior to that was the greater state of Kiev, and that's not really Russian.
The Mongol "hordes" controlled the lands which is now Russia, true, but they've never controlled Russia, because that didn't exist in their time. All they controlled were vast expanses of inhabited land, countriesides filled with farmers that didn't care one way or the other. Heck, Moscuvy wasn't even a city back then, and the lands were just called "Rus', a part of Christendom".
Holding official control over such a land is not difficult. Nobody's claimed it before, and nobody is going to oppose you doing so, especially not if you're called Ghengis. But there's a real difference between holding land and holding a state.
The state of Russia, as far as I know, has never been occupied. Napoleon failed in it, and he had everything from France to the Holy Roman Empire (Germany), Hitler failed in it, the Japanese...didn't really attempt it. Poland-Lithuana, Prussia and the Ottoman Empire all endured long in their fights with Russia, but to no avail. You get my drift.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
What mess? That mess was going to be there no matter what. As soon as Saddam was gone, there would be a much bigger shitty mess. And everyone would be telling us to take care of it. Typical, people want us to take care of everything, but not do anything until it is a really bad situation.