and without reconstruction, how can Halliburton rake in the dough? (yeah, I know, by any means necessary.)
On 4/8/06, ken hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting that the reporter can blithely report > without even any comment that there will be future US > wars obviously involving occupation of other > countries! > It is certainly unclear how the US could possibly > create security and stability while the infrastructure > and the basic needs of citizens are not met. The new > policy saves insurgents the trouble of destroying > infrastructure since it will already be in a shambles > and they can concentrate on attacking the occupiers > who don't even try to help. > > > April 8, 2006 > Give Rebuilding Lower Priority in Future Wars > > By JOEL BRINKLEY > WASHINGTON, April 7 — As factions in the Bush > administration continue their bitter infighting over > the reconstruction program in Iraq, the State > Department has produced a draft planning document > saying that after any future conflicts, the United > States should not immediately begin a major rebuilding > program. > > Instead, it says, the first priorities should be to > establish a secure, stable environment and begin > political reconciliation. Otherwise, officials said, > Washington and any local government that is formed are > likely to suffer major political repercussions by > making promises that cannot be kept. > > In Iraq, "We set it up to fail," said Andrew S. > Natsios, who was director of the United States Agency > for International Development until January. He and > some White House and State Department officials say > they argued early on that a large-scale reconstruction > program could never succeed in a hostile environment. > > "We certainly have not done as much as we originally > had hoped for," acknowledged James Jeffrey, who is the > State Department's senior coordinator for Iraq. Some > senior officials say they fear that the failures of > the reconstruction program will pose a serious threat > for officials of the new Iraqi government, once it is > formed. "They will be vulnerable to complaints and > hostility for their inability to provide electricity > or clean water," one senior official said. > > Carlos Pascual, who until recently headed the Office > for Reconstruction and Stabilization at the State > Department, which prepared the draft plan, said this > problem "was in part self-generated — we came in and > said we would restore the country, make it whole." > > Under the new plan, the United States would first > establish public security and order, and then > encourage small-scale economic activity while > promoting political reconciliation. "If that is not > done, then the society will unravel at some point," > Mr. Pascual said. > > After that, banks, political parties and other > institutions would be established, followed by news > media, private aid organizations and civilian advocacy > groups. Physical reconstruction would begin "only when > it seems to fit into the other priorities," said Mr. > Pascual, who is now a vice president of the Brookings > Institution. "But the ability to build large-scale > infrastructure before you have established order and > stability is nil because it will be blown up." > > The draft plan reads like a refutation of almost > everything the United States has done in Iraq. It also > reads like another chapter in the prolonged and bitter > debate between the State Department and Pentagon that > began during the months before the invasion of Iraq > more than three years ago. > > The Iraq Working Group at the State Department spent > more than a year preparing a detailed study on how to > manage the country once Saddam Hussein was driven from > power. It anticipated many of the problems that > developed, including the widespread violence and > looting that American forces faced after the invasion > and the badly deteriorated state of the country's > electrical and water systems. > > But the Pentagon won control of reconstruction, over > the objections of the State Department and the Agency > for International Development, and Pentagon officials > refused to use the study, saying it was too > superficial. The Pentagon also blocked the appointment > of Tom Warrick, the State Department official in > charge of the study, to a position in the military's > reconstruction office. > > State Department officials say the Pentagon was > consulted in the drafting of the new plan. But the > document has a clear diplomatic stamp, and seems like > a pre-emptive move by the State Department to reassert > its authority in any future reconstruction efforts. > > Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said that no one > would argue with the notion that reconstruction was > easier in a stable environment, but that "we can't > look at this too simplistically. It is hard to > establish a robust political environment if the people > do not have electricity or clean drinking water. These > are parallel lines of operation that complement each > other." > > Marcia Wong, deputy director of the reconstruction and > stabilization office, said the draft plan should not > be viewed as an immutable template because "a lot of > it will be driven by events on the ground." Officials > will have to go in with "Plan B, Plan C and Plan D" as > well, she added. > > No project since the Marshall Plan after World War II > even approached the scope and ambition of the American > reconstruction effort in Iraq. Over three years the > United States spent more than $20 billion in taxpayer > money and roughly $40 billion in Iraqi money to > rebuild electrical power plants, water and sewer > systems and energy infrastructure. Scores of smaller > projects were intended to improve education, health > care, agriculture, governance and criminal justice. > Many of those did produce important and positive > results. > > But stymied by a vicious insurgency and surprised by > the Iraqis' inability to operate the sophisticated new > equipment, the United States has scrapped scores of > projects and now intends to reduce the program's > budget drastically. A withering assessment by > government auditors last month found that by almost > every measure, Iraqi utility services, the central > focus of the reconstruction aid, are now worse than > before the United States invaded. > > Late last year, as the administration was devising its > 2007 budget, officials said they initially planned to > request money to finish some of the projects that were > not completed or ever begun. But by then, the > administration had given up on the large-scale > construction projects and intended instead to spend > money on agriculture, education and good-governance > projects, among others, several officials said. > > "We decided to draw the line and start focusing on > traditional forms of aid," Mr. Jeffrey said. Asked in > an interview what lesson he had learned from the > reconstruction effort, Mr. Jeffrey said, "Certainly, > that doing massive reconstruction in the midst of an > insurgency drives up costs and diverts funds." > > Mr. Natsios, who was still in office throughout the > budget debate, said, "They realized they made a > mistake." > > Mr. Pascual and others noted that Congress made it > clear that it would not support additional large-scale > financing for reconstruction or rehabilitation > programs in Iraq. As a result, starting with the > proposed 2007 budget, which is to take effect on Oct. > 1, the administration is asking for only about $771 > million, and has reduced its new construction > aspirations to little more than refurbishing fruit > stands and shoe stores. > > Mr. Natsios and others said they argued at the start > against the large-scale building projects, in part > because their experience in other countries over 50 > years had shown that it was not the most useful way to > spend money. Officials still in the government > confirmed that he had made that case. > > James R. Kunder, an assistant administrator at the > Agency for International Development, said in an > interview that the most important priority was "to > build Iraq's capacity to run its own affairs." An > important example, Mr. Natsios said, was strong > support for farming and agriculture, which was Iraq's > second-largest employment sector. > > "If the rural economy collapses, the young men will be > the first to leave for the city and join the > insurgency, and that's what happened," Mr. Natsios > said. The American aid package provided some money for > agricultural assistance, but when money was taken from > the budget for other purposes, primarily security, > that was one of the first programs cut. > -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
