Slate's Kaplan: Why We Won't Be Coming Home From Iraq Anytime Soon

[flpoljunkie]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2118392/

Why U.S. troops won't be coming home from Iraq anytime soon.

By Fred Kaplan

Posted Tuesday, May 10, 2005, at 11:03 AM PT

Now that an Iraqi government is taking form, however haltingly, how much longer will American troops have to stay? Judging from the data in two recent official U.S. reports, they probably won't be coming home soon.

<>The paradox that stumped the U.S. occupation forces two years ago, shortly after the fall of Baghdad, continues to stump them today. On the one hand, their efforts to provide security won't succeed until they restore essential services. On the other hand, they can't restore essential services until the country's key assets—especially its roads, oil pipelines, and electrical generators—are secure.

Oil revenue was supposed to galvanize Iraq's postwar economy. Yet crude oil production has flattened out at around 2 million barrels a day, well below its prewar level of 2.5 million. Electrical power production hovers around 80,000 kilowatt hours—considerably short of the 100,000 KWH output before the war and far below last summer's declared goal of 120,000. Baghdad homes have electricity for nine to 11 hours a day; in other cities, the figure drops to eight or nine hours.

Iraq's reconstruction was going to be funded by a massive infusion of U.S. aid, $18.4 billion worth. Yet that aid—allocated a year and a half ago—is being directed and disbursed very slowly. Just $12.8 billion (roughly two-thirds) has been appropriated—and a mere $4.8 billion (less than one-quarter) has been spent.

more...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2118392/

[LynnTheDem]

1. Better off under Saddam Hussein.

Isn't that a kicker for the world's "Greatest SuperPower".


And of course Kaplan is WRONG with his little theory of "we must stay because"; as he himself points out, troops are not wandering off base much now, so OF COURSE they're not being killed at as high a rate as they are when they're off the base.

Excuse me but DUHHHHH.

And NO actually, Iraqis are NOT being killed at a higher rate; it's just most Americans, Kaplan included, don't really gives a shit about the rate of Iraqis killed, so most haven't been paying attention.

FACTS are always a nice thing to have to back up one's little theories, Kaplan; you have facts for the electricity, water and rebuilding.

Now go look up FACTS for your death rates, and THEN spout your theories.

[welshTerrier2]

2. i disagree ...

the premise of this article states that the US has been UNABLE to spend reconstruction funds because anything they rebuild will be blown-up ...

i think the reconstruction of Iraq would have led to a weakening of support for the rebel forces and would have led to the forming of a new government much sooner ... the reality is that this is NOT what bush wanted to happen; the reality is that bush is UNWILLING to spend the money ...

until the 3 "pegs" are put in place, the "war" will continue ... peg 1 was putting Chalabi in control of the oil ... peg 2 was getting Wolfowitz installed to head the International Monetary Fund (IMF) ... the problem, however, is peg 3 ... Prime Minister Jafaari is NOT the guy bush wanted ... i think the current strategy is to further bankrupt Iraq ... they have no intention of rebuilding the infrastructure until they get more control over the Iraqi government ...

They will try to do this either by helping one of their hand-picked puppets rise to power or by forcing Jafaari's hand by causing severe shortages of food, water and utilities ... the way the game works is that Iraq will be forced deeper and deeper into debt and eventually will be forced to borrow heavily from the IMF ... when they are unable to repay their loans, the US will step in to "help them" if certain conditions are met ... you might want to think of it as a form of international blackmail ... and who benefits from making Iraq play ball? the answer is certain bush-friendly corporations ...

the "Iraq isn't secure enough to start rebuilding" argument is a smoke-screen ... the reconstruction money is not being spent because bush wants to prolong the instability until he gets greater control ... if things are so insecure, why is the US spending so much money building the world's largest embassy in Baghdad and building so many permanent military bases?? ... it's interesting bush is able to secure the things he chooses to secure ...

[flpoljunkie]

3. Excellent points, welshterrier2.

[welshTerrier2]

4. propaganda ??

when i see articles like the one Kaplan wrote, it really makes me wonder who's signing his paycheck ...

maybe he just buys into the "we can't rebuild yet" argument but articles like this give off the distinct odor of government-financed propaganda ...

[flpoljunkie]

6. Kaplan makes the point that we cannot come home, because Iraq is a mess.

Kaplan also says, "If the United States pulled out now, the Baathists, Zarqawists, and other insurgents would run wild. The country, rough and ragged as is, would fall apart."

I cannot disagree with that. Iraq is Dubya's War and it is looking more like a quagmire every day.

The idea of setting a timetable (Ted Kennedy was castigated for this suggestion) seems like a good idea, but Dubya will not go for it. He is not building those 14 permanent bases for nothing. They are to protect the oil fields, no doubt.

[welshTerrier2]

7. "enduring bases" ???

this past Saturday, i had the chance to speak to my Congressman, Jim McGovern (D-MA) face to face for a half hour ...

he had just returned from a visit to Iraq and had asked the top two generals (i forget their names) why we are building permanent military bases there ... they told him the bases are not "permanent" bases; they are "enduring" bases ...

when he asked them what the difference was, he was told that they are "enduring bases" because, when the US doesn't want them anymore, we will return them to the Iraqis ... of course, that could be a hundred years from now ...

[flpoljunkie]

8. So, Dubya has decreed bases are no longer "permanent," but "enduring."

Priceless.

I expect the media to immediately begin using the word "enduring" rather than "permanent"--after all, they folded like a cheap suit when Dubya declared his Social Security "reform" would now be described as "personal" accounts, rather than "private" accounts--as it was not playing well in their "private" polling.

[CWebster]

5. Yesiree, Dr Dean, that is the way we "fix" things.

Either you are naive or willfully promoting the Occupation by appealing to US nationalistic illusions assuming US benevolence.

Great post wT2.

[Larkspur]

9. And where was Dean in this article?

Your anti-Dean attitude shows your true feelings. You are not interested in peace and justice for Iraq. You are only interested in bashing Dean.

I guess you think that post-WWII occupation of Western Europe and Japan by the US was horrible too. I mean what horrible nations Western Europe and Japan turned into, thanks to the US. :sarcasm:

[welshTerrier2]

10. post-WWII occupation of Western Europe and Japan

while it's true that the Marshall Plan was a balance between providing humanitarian aid and trying to stop the spread of Communism in Europe, I think the bush and the current neo-con regime should not be compared to the Truman administration ...

viewing what is going on in Iraq under bush as a "let's help Iraq rebuild" scheme belies the realities ... we're working on our third year over there and the only construction the US has financed has been for permanent military bases and the world's largest embassy ...

it's incredible to me that so many Democrats seem to put so much faith in bush's good intentions ...

[Larkspur]

11. I don't support Bush's intentions, but the Shiites and Kurds aren't asking

us to leave at this time. If the Shiites really wanted us out, Sistani would have issued a fatwa a long time ago.

It is naive for some liberals to say Iraqis want us out without saying which Iraqis do. The Shiites and Kurds fear a Sunni coup more than our troops, and they need our troops for now to combat the Sunni-led insurgency. Vietnam had more of a unifying national identity than Iraq does. If Iraq had more of a unifying national identity, Sistani would have issued a fatwa against the flattening of Falluja, but he remained silent and the Kurds helped us level Falluja.

What I would support is an impeachment of Bush & Cheney, but I don't see a Repuke led Congress initiating it against Bush.