Reconstruction hilarities

Everything else
1

Here. We are fucking doomed.

"Now, we here that California Congressman Darrell Issa, a major recipient of money from hometown cell phone goliath Qualcomm is lobbying the Pentagon to rewire (rewireless?) Iraq with Qualcomm’s CDMA standard rather than the one now used in the country, GSM, which is preferred by European manufacturers. “Hundreds of thousands of American jobs depend on the success of U.S.-developed wireless technologies like CDMA,” says Issa.

And to think that for a moment I thought we were about to turn Iraq into a parodic banana-republic where favored US campaign contributors got to line up for Iraq-pork!

And speaking of the rather shariah-offending concept of Iraq-pork, at least we’re not going to try to evangelize Iraq by turning over aid distribution to evangelical faith-based organizations from the Bible Belt, right?

Well …

Here’s another charmer from the always invaluable Beliefnet. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, said yesterday that his organization, Samaritan’s Purse, has an army of relief workers “poised and ready” to roll into Iraq to serve the physical and spiritual needs of the Iraqi people. He’s in constant contact with the US government agencies in Amman to help coordinate efforts.

Graham says that he knows he can’t just whip out the good book and start preaching the gospel in an Arab country. But “I believe as we work,” said Graham, “God will always give us opportunities to tell others about his Son… We are there to reach out to love them and to save them, and as a Christian I do this in the name of Jesus Christ.”

That should go over well.

I mean, it’s not like the Muslim Arabs have a chip on their shoulder or anything about the Christian West launching a new crusade against them to reclaim Arabia for the cross. So it shouldn’t be any problem.

In all seriousness, obviously the US can’t bar anybody with a Christian affiliation from doing relief work in Iraq. But optics seems to be the issue here. The American president is a deeply-believing born-again Christian. He’s closely associated with Franklin Graham. Graham has repeatedly called Islam a “wicked” religion. And now Graham’s missionaries are coming in behind US tanks invading Iraq."

2

It’s hardly shocking that opportunistic politicians or businessmen want to try and get a piece of Iraq. I’ll wait to see who actually gets a piece of Iraq before I start saying we’re “fucking doomed,” if that’s okay. I don’t doubt that American companies are going to end up with the lion’s share of the rebuilding contracts, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, what with the Americans having shouldered the burden of getting Saddam out of there to begin with. I’ll be surprised (and pissed) if Bush sends a bunch of Christian prosetylizers in there, though. I’m guessing humanitarian aid will come mostly from the UN and the Red Crescent.

3

Let me try to sort this all out for ya:

  1. We’re here to remove Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. When and if we happen to stumble across any. The rest of the world seems to think this can be done through inspections.

  2. We’re here to keep Saddam from giving aid and comfort to ‘Al Qaida like’ terrorists when nobody’s really proven he’s doing much of the sort. In fact, the PR is pretty heavily trying to tie Saddam and Bin Laden together which the American public, but nobody else, is buying.

  3. We’re here to remove Saddam from power, preventing the threats of the aforementioned theoretical problems, and give Iraq back to her people - well, some of them. And maybe, eventually.

  4. What we’re not here to do is exploit, or offer the appearance of exploiting, Iraq’s resources for our own commercial benefit. You better believe it matters how we handle reconstruction as well as the oil issue. We inflicted this war on Iraq’s people because we didn’t like the leader. So far we’re not seeing a major groundswell of support aside from the Kurds (maybe we should be focusing on liberating Kurdistan from the Turks and the Iranians as well as the Iraqi’s if it’s genuinely grateful people we want to see). Just imagine how well it’s going to go over, not only in Iraq but throughout the region and around the world, if American corporations start making insane amounts of money as a direct result of this war.

That isn’t the war we were sold. It hasn’t been since it began and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we keep getting little shocks, that we were warned about, along the road. But once the American bodies start piling up we’ll be stuck. Nobody will want to admit the lies or the mistakes. It’ll be Vietnam all over again…

4

  1. What war are you talking about? The U.S. has spent and continues to spend more time and energy figuring out how not to make war on Iraq’s people than how to make war on the regime. How many bombs have we dropped? And with all these bombs, even the Iraqi propaganda machine has stated civilian casualties in the hundreds. We are leaving the electrical and communications grids intact. How are we waging war on the people of Iraq?

  2. As far as a “groundswell of support” is concerned, what did you expect. HOORAY for U.S. marches in the middle of Baghdad? These people are scared to death of getting shot if they so much as say a word welcoming the U.S. troops. And all of our reporters in Baghdad are on the roof of the Palestine hotel under the watchful eye of Iraqi handlers from their information ministry.

5

You think Iraqi companies are going to rebuild Iraq? You’re ignoring one important point: there aren’t any.

I’m being flip, but the point is that Western countries are the ones with the most technology, experience, equipment, and investment money. It’s going to have to be outsiders helping rebuild Iraq. That doesn’t mean outsiders take all, or even most, of the profits. The Iraqis will (hopefully) keep most of the profits. But the rebuilders will make profits as well. Nobody with any authority has ever claimed otherwise. The plan has always been, from the beginning, that we oust Saddam and then rebuild Iraq. In fact, contrary to what you’re saying, the big world fear has been that we would go in, oust him, and then just leave. That’s what people don’t want to see happen.

6
  1. What war are you talking about? The U.S. has spent and continues to spend more time and energy figuring out how not to make war on Iraq’s people than how to make war on the regime. How many bombs have we dropped? And with all these bombs, even the Iraqi propaganda machine has stated civilian casualties in the hundreds. We are leaving the electrical and communications grids intact. How are we waging war on the people of Iraq?[/quote]

I agree with you that we’re trying to avoid civilian casualties. It’s in our best interests politically to do so. However, nobody asked us in aside from the Kurds and some dubious exiles. Judging from the breadth of reporting many there blame us for the suffering of the sanctions. Reality may be that Saddam withheld funds to rebuild his military and covert infrastructures but reality is also that the U.S. appeared to support and enforce sanctions while many in the international community wanted to revoke them. We also have a Shi’ite community that was betrayed by the U.S. in 1991 and has much closer ties to the radical Shi’ites of Iran than us - including their own guerilla forces. Their mullahs seem to be itching to fight the Americans as much as anyone else. Will they rise up in support for us? I suppose that depends how many are left alive after the crossfire between ourselves and the Hussein loyalists. If we even kill a few hundred, though with humanitarian complications a few thousand is eventually a more likely sum, there will still be bodies on the streets of innocents killed by American and British bombs. Iraq and the Arab world doesn’t watch Fox News. They’re seeing a completely different side to this war.

We don’t know what’s going to happen so the best answer is to stay skeptical and contain observations to what you’re actually seeing. I’m not actually seeing an uprising. Maybe the hawks and the Pentagon are telling the truth about death squads holding the population in fear. OTOH, they see us there and they’re not rising up. They rose up before without us even on the scene. Believe what you like but be skeptical about what you’re told.

  1. As far as a “groundswell of support” is concerned, what did you expect. HOORAY for U.S. marches in the middle of Baghdad? These people are scared to death of getting shot if they so much as say a word welcoming the U.S. troops. And all of our reporters in Baghdad are on the roof of the Palestine hotel under the watchful eye of Iraqi handlers from their information ministry.

See the above.

7

So if terrorists blew up your mother’s house and killed only her, it’s not that big a deal?

Even if ONE civilian life is taken, it’s a tragedy, especially in an unjustified conflict like this one.

But then again, who really cares about a couple hundred sand niggers getting blow up, right?

8

Iraq is actually a fairly modern society with a high literacy rate. Plenty of engineering, science and medical types to go around. Clearly, Sadaam recognizes the value of high tech, though for very different ends then making cool video cards…

However, given our 350 mile long supply lines and no discernable front, Halliburton et. al might not want to count their chickens…

All snideness aside, I hope that our leaders have really thought this one through prior to putting 18-19 year old kids in harm’s way. To see their pictures brings a fresh clarity to the discussion:

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030325wvmianatp4.asp
http://aztlan.net/pfchernandez.htm

9

I’m not saying civilian casualties aren’t a tragedy. What I am objecting to is calling this a war on the Iraqi people. That is a gross misrepresentation of everything that the U.S. is trying to do.

10

Oh God that’s good,

I can’t wait to see Bible thumpers being strung up from buildings with hooks in their backs.

11

Agreed. However, I think what Brian is trying to point out here is that the perception of the Iraqi people may be very different. While we are clearly not trying to carry out a war with the Iraqi people, they may believe otherwise, particularly given the biased media coverage they receive. In order for us to have any success on our longer term goals in Iraq, we need the Iraqi people on our side.

In this case perception is just as important as reality. If the Arab world and the Iraqi people perceive that we’re there to push Haliburton and Fluor construction contracts, Qualcomm’s CDMA, and to send in Billy Graham’s missionaries we will have damaged our ability to carry out our longer term goals.

12

That is a good summary of what the hell is wrong with U.S. foreign policy: This is what we want to do in your country,
If you don’t like it, tough shit.
If you get in the way, tough shit.
If things get worse because we did it, your problem, not ours.

It’s their country. They may want liberation but they sure as hell don’t want invaders.

13

Agreed. However, I think what Brian is trying to point out here is that the perception of the Iraqi people may be very different. While we are clearly not trying to carry out a war with the Iraqi people, they may believe otherwise, particularly given the biased media coverage they receive. In order for us to have any success on our longer term goals in Iraq, we need the Iraqi people on our side.

In this case perception is just as important as reality. If the Arab world and the Iraqi people perceive that we’re there to push Haliburton and Fluor construction contracts, Qualcomm’s CDMA, and to send in Billy Graham’s missionaries we will have damaged our ability to carry out our longer term goals.[/quote]

That’s it though I think it’s important to also understand we’re not exactly getting unbiased coverage either. In our case it isn’t ideology or government propaganda so much as it is ratings that influence coverage. Don’t think CNN and MSNBC haven’t noticed that Fox’s ‘Superbowl of Good and Evil’ style has garnered significant ratings. We’re seeing far more pro-war policy guests and analysts than anyone raising skeptical queries (though there are some). To my mind the best coverage is the BBC and the CBC. They are skeptical and critical but they’re nowhere as slanted as more liberal British publications or Arab news outlets. Still, I’d recommend that everyone, on any side of this conflict, take in as many different sources as possible. Even outlets you’re sure are filled with lies and distortions can tell you alot about how somebody sees things or what they might want someone to see.

14

Christian aid workers don’t have to be a problem per se. Don’t forget that muslims consider Jesus a respected prophet of God. It’s just his divinity, and therefore the Trinity, which smacks of polytheism and therefore heresy for muslims.

Underplaying Christ’s divine nature and focussing more on his deeds and preachings, which are very compatible with Islam, is usually a promising foundation for theological dialogue with muslims. Most of them are proud on the tolerance Islam has shown towards Christians and Jews throughout history, who the Quran considers misguided but promising believers. When they say infidels, they mean atheists. Of course this inherent tolerance has been put at a hard test by the crusades, the founding of Israel and a US President who regularly quotes from the Apocalypse. :(

15

All true, but still woefully short of what is going to be required. I don’t think there’s any reasonably informed person out there who thinks Iraq should rebuild itself without help. There’s not enough money, not enough people experienced at this kind of thing, too much outdated technology, and not enough heavy equipment to do the job. Maybe they could make it work all on their own eventually, but they’d be much better off letting foreign investors come in and help.

16

Foreign (read American) investors is the last thing they want. Iraq is a rich country. Let them sell their oil, and they’ll be fine, especially if the new US installed dictator will be a little less extravagant with his palaces.

17

How do you think they’re going to sell their oil without a bunch of people going in there and rebuilding their country? I mean, of course they are going to pay for the rebuilding with oil, but it’s not like the Iraqis can go close their eyes and make magical wishes for oil and then send off the tankers. Someone has to come in and get all the wells working (particularly if they’ve been trashed by Saddam), and get the rest of the infrastructure going as well. Whether that means US companies or French companies or Russian companies or whatever, it’s not going to be exclusively Iraqi companies. I’m not talking about someone there permanently (although I’m sure Iraq might find it advantageous to partner with foreign investors, just like other countries do). I’m talking about getting the Iraqi economy back on its feet so that they can sell their oil and raise their standard of living back to where it used to be, and beyond.

18

You’d think, though, that it should be Iraqis that make the decisions about their future. The reality is that we want a quick reconstruction to avoid humanitarian/infrastructure problems as well as to promote our image as ‘liberators’. Unfortunately this means we want to have everything in place before we liberate Iraq and this means making decisions for the Iraqi people - decisions with long reaching consequences about who will be managing and maintaining vital internal systems. On top of this we’re calling ‘security clearance’ a reason to disallow foreign, non-US, companies from competing on reconstruction contracts altogether (though they may be allowed to subcontract). How is the bulk of this reconstruction going to be paid for? Evidently with Iraqi oil revenues. If nobody else sees the somewhat ghoulish nature of this dividing of the spoils then perhaps I’m alone here. As an American I have to confess I have problems when Americans practice taxation without representation.

At least Haliburton withdrew from the bidding for the larger reconstruction contract. That was the first relatively smart thing I’ve seen about this process. Likely, though, they’ll get pretty big subcontracting chucks from whomever does win.

19

I can totally see your concerns, Brian, and agree to some extent. But I also think it’s important, if we’re going to go in and remove a foreign dictator, that we stay to help clean up the mess afterwards. I mean, it’s easy to say, “Well, we should let the Iraqis decide who helps them rebuild.” But as a practical matter, how do they decide? They no longer have any chief executive. Do we just put one there? That seems worse than just helping the reconstruction. Do we try to coordinate some sort of nationwide vote on who should do what? That’d be completely unworkable, and doesn’t seem like a very good idea anyway, since most Iraqis probably have no information on which to make such a decision. Do we try to let them vote in a chief executive, and let him or her decide who helps? Again, it seems totally unworkable in the short term (it will probably take months to get Iraq ready for elections), and in the meantime the country is in non-infrastructure anarchy hell, and all their oil is likely burning or pouring out into the sand due to Saddam’s sabotage. I dunno. If you have a workable idea on how we could let them decide, I’d be interested to hear it.

OTOH, we could just let some other entity, like the UN, decide who gets what contracts. But the UN has already shown itself to be a partisan morass / freewheeling bazaar of bribes-for-votes. So that doesn’t seem any fairer than just having the US do it, and certainly wouldn’t be any better for Iraq. Not to mention the fact that the US is bearing nearly all the costs of removing Saddam, while the rest of the world reaps just as many benefits (whether they’re willing to admit it or not).

20

I agree that this seems to be the only workable solution in the short term but it’s yet another consequence of this military option which, as the days go by, seems increasingly ill-conceived from the beginning. I think the only honorable solution, assuming we have the luxury of it, is actually paying for the reconstruction ourselves or through whatever international support we can muster. Otherwise, again, the appearance that we’re profiting from the misfortune of others is inescapable and it offers yet more fodder to those who want to portray America as rapacious and opportunistic.

The way things are going, though, we may have far more substantial problems than reconstruction. The more events are shifting it looks like we’re going to be faced with the choice of a rushed attack on Baghdad before the reserves are in place and optimal air attrition of the Republican Guard can take place or revolts in neighboring countries as hostility to our action takes on yet more force. The statements in Egypt today and reporting from Jordan as well as Saudi Arabia make it sound as if those governments are really scared of the consequences of a drawn out conflict. The ‘street’ may yet have its say.