Phil Carter reads the Wall Street Journal on postwar Iraq and bangs his head against the wall. So do I. It is very important for the national security of the United States that the postwar reconstruction of Iraq be and be seen to be a smashing success. So why skimp?
Posted by DeLong at June 5, 2003 10:15 AM | TrackBackINTEL DUMP: Today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting front-page story (subscription required) on the challenges facing ORHA, the American agency led by L. Paul Bremer III which has the mission of rebuilding Iraq. The article paints a picture of an understaffed, underequipped, and undercapitalized agency trying desperately to impose order on a nation the size of California.... It appears from all accounts that ORHA is putting 110% of its effort into the job. I have no doubt that Bremer's staff is putting in 18-20 hour days and working as hard as humanly possible. However, the problems may be such that even such heroic efforts can't get the job done. If it's true that ORHA is underresourced, no amount of staff or command work can make up that shortfall. Without sufficient troops for security, money for contracts, contractors for projects, or other key resources, ORHA cannot meet the mission's requirements.
Going it alone is not the answer. America has no monopoly on nation-building or reconstruction experience. Our NATO allies, the United Nations, and various NGOs are extremely good at this too. One reason that the UN, civilian contractors, and NGOs have been reticent to deploy to Iraq thus far is the security situation there. It may pay dividends for the U.S. to focus singularly on securing the nation of Iraq, so that others may come in to do the soft work of nation-building. This would play to our military strength, and it would also set the conditions for the influx of 3rd party nations. We need to get these neutral parties into Iraq as fast as possible, largely for political reasons. The Iraqis need to see that we're a benevolent occupier, and that we have the support of the world. Sure, Halliburton and Bechtel can deliver medical services. But it would probably make the Iraqis feel less threatened if they got medical care from Medicins San Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders).
There is a very simple reason the US doesn't want any help in reconstructing Iraq. We want a monopoly on their oil!
Posted by: Alexander on June 5, 2003 11:06 AMBut it would probably make the Iraqis feel less threatened if they got medical care from Medicins San Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders).
I wonder about this. After all, wasn't MSF one of the groups calling for no war in Iraq because it would cause a humanitiarian catastrophe? Is it not unreasonable to expect that Iraqis might be more kindly disposed to those who actually did something about their plight rather than sit on the sidelines and moan about what might go wrong?
Posted by: Jake McGuire on June 5, 2003 11:39 AM"So why skimp?"
One word, Brad: "Shinseki"
Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size
By Eric Schmitt
New York Times February 28, 2003
"In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.
"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said..."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm
One more word, Brad: "cakewalk"
Cakewalk In Iraq
By Ken Adelman
Wednesday, February 13, 2002; Page A27
Even before President Bush had placed Iraq on his "axis of evil," dire warnings were being sounded about the danger of acting against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Two knowledgeable Brookings Institution analysts, Philip H. Gordon and Michael E. O'Hanlon, concluded that the United States would "almost surely" need "at least 100,000 to 200,000" ground forces [op-ed, Dec. 26, 2001]. Worse: "Historical precedents from Panama to Somalia to the Arab-Israeli wars suggest that . . . the United States could lose thousands of troops in the process."
I agree that taking down Hussein would differ from taking down the Taliban. And no one favors "a casual march to war." This is serious business, to be treated seriously...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb12?language=printer
One "Moral" to this GENUINELY disgusting tale of TRULY monumental incompetence, arrogance, venality, corruption AND criminality:
THE WONDERFUL TAR BABY STORY
"Didn't the fox never catch the rabbit, Uncle Remus?" asked the little boy the next evening.
"He come mighty nigh it, honey, sho's you born--Brer Fox did....
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/remus/tar-baby.html
What's worse (to paraphrase some frenchman), It was ALL a big, preventable, geopolitical, economic AND strategic "mistake".
What's even worse than THAT though, is:
LOT'S of people not only KNEW it was a HUMONGOUS blunder, MILLIONS of them--LITERALLY MILLIONS-- from all "walks" of life and from every
"corner" of the planet--tried to tell the STUPID BAS-...er, uh, BUZZARDS so....
ONE EXAMPLE:
Mr. Bush's War
Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2002
Aug. 22, 2002
NEW YORK - US forces are rapidly massing in the Gulf to invade Iraq. Four heavy brigades have been positioned near Iraq, a huge new air complex is now operational in Qatar, and American special forces are active in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The White House is hoping its threats of war will provoke a coup against Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi Army. But if one does not come, the Bush Administration shows every sign of plunging into an unprovoked war that the rest of the world will view as blatant aggression.
Even America's closest allies are appalled by the tide of warmongering and jingoism that has engulfed the United States. Bush's recently proclaimed doctrine of `pre-emptive intervention' anywhere on earth is nothing less than a frightening revival of the old imperialist Brezhnev Doctrine of 25 years ago that called for Soviet intervention wherever socialism was threatened.
`Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisors whose bellicosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy.'
Such were the stinging words of Gerald Kaufman, the highly respected former foreign affairs spokesman of Britain's ruling Labour Party, America's closest ally. Bush's accelerating campaign to invade Iraq and turn it into another US oil protectorate is also provoking a storm of outrage across Europe, the Mideast, and Asia where people believe pollution and climate change are far bigger and more urgent threats than the boogeyman of Baghdad.
There are two important exceptions. First, Israel. Last week, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sounding like he was giving orders to a subordinate, demanded Bush speed up plans to attack Iraq. Right on cue, American supporters of Sharon's far-right Likud Party, led by the Bush Administration's Rasputin, Richard Perle, intensified their clamor to send American GI's to fight Iraq. These bloodthirsty `neo-conservatives' - most of whom evaded military service in their own country - currently dominate the Pentagon and exercise a virtual monopoly on US media commentary of the Mideast. They are ardently backed by Armageddon- seekers of the Christian loony far right.
Senior Republican Senator Chuck Hagel spoke for many when he asked if Perle was so eager to attack, why didn't he join the first assault wave against Baghdad. Former national security advisor to Bush's father, Brent Scowcroft, warned an attack on Iraq would be a disastrous mistake.
Meanwhile, in Congressional hearings last week, former UN Iraq arms inspector Scott Ritter courageously stated what many Americans believe, but dare not say: `A handful of ideologues have hijacked the national security policy of the United States for their own ambitions.' Ritter insisted Iraq was totally disarmed and no threat to the US or Mideast. The Bush Administration - more precisely, the people pulling its strings - do not want renewed inspections of Iraq, Ritter said, they only want war.
A torrent of propaganda, lies and half-truths about Iraq have been pouring from the White House in a campaign reminiscent of old Soviet agitprop. The government-appointed `defense' team representing accused 9/11 plot member Zacharias Moussaui, reportedly urged him to falsely claim that Iraq was behind the attack. Moussaui refused. The head of Czech intelligence said there were no contacts in Prague between Iraq and al-Qaida, a key Bush reason for attacking Iraq. CIA veterans and European intelligence officials scoff at White House claims that Iraq is a threat to the world.
The other exception to worldwide outrage over America's Mideast policies was Osama bin-Laden's al-Qaida. In 1998, bin Laden carefully outlined his grand strategy to:
a. liberate Palestine;
b. drive the US occupying troops from Saudi Arabia; and
c. end the punishment of Iraq's people.
To attain these goals, bin Laden planned to provoke the US into a large number of fruitless military involvements that would wear out the US and bleed its military and financial power. Afghanistan, which costs American taxpayers $5 billion monthly, is the first step. Iraq, whose leader is hated by Osama bin Laden - a hatred equally returned by Saddam - will be number two. Then, Iran, Syria, Libya - all also on Perle's hit list - and so on until a host of Lilliputian conflicts tie down the American imperial giant.
George Bush, who takes pride in not reading books, and calls Greeks `Grecians,' is charging like a Texas bull into the trap set for him by both Osama bin Laden and General Sharon. Israel has been trying for 20 years to get the US to go to war against the Arabs and Iran, knowing this will permanently enlist America's vast wealth and power in its cause, and permanently alienate the US from the Islamic World. The extremists in both camps need one another, The main beneficiary of the 9/11 attacks on the US was Israel's Sharon. Bin Laden would never have achieved notoriety and a wide following without Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.
If ever the United States needed real friends, it is now. Real friends, like Canada, Germany, and France are trying to deter the empty, misled George Bush and his hijacked cabinet from committing an outright aggression that risks plunging the Mideast into chaos or even nuclear war.
http://www.bigeye.com/082202.htm
Posted by: Mike on June 5, 2003 12:04 PMMike,
An interesting article about the profoundly bigoted and wrong-headed Margolis (you can liberate a country that has never existed? His 1998 claim is a nonsense - Bin Laden tacked on the "Palestine" issue as a post-9/11 afterthought, and his idea of "liberation" is the destruction of all of Israel) from those good people at Honest Reporting:
ALL WET IN TORONTO
On Sunday, Toronto Sun contributing foreign editor Eric Margolis submitted a column that begins with the journalist's admission of deep, familial pro-Palestinian sympathies, then proceeds with a host of inaccuracies to support his claim that the road map is "a lopsided deal that is only good for one side" (Israel's). Among the distortions and errors:
-- Margolis states that the road map was grudgingly "accepted by Israel with undisclosed key reservations." The 14 Israeli reservations were made public and are easily available (click here to view); instead of doing his homework, Margolis suggests sly Israeli concealment.
-- Margolis claims that Abbas is being forced to "renounce the right of return of 1.5 million refugees." In fact, the road map's third stage calls for "a just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue." A mass "right of return," moreover, lacks any international support.
-- Margolis claims that Arafat, "the democratically elected PLO leader," has been wrongly sidelined by Bush. Democratically elected? Even the Israeli left recognizes that the 1996 Palestinian elections were a sham. Former CIA director Jim Woolsey said, "Arafat was essentially elected the same way Stalin was, but not nearly as democratically as Hitler, who at least had actual opponents."
-- Margolis decries Israel "annexing large chunks of former Palestinian lands." Historically, set borders of an autonomous Palestinian region have never existed; on what basis, therefore, are any lands considered "Palestinian"? Margolis also objects to Israeli land acquisitions "after the 1948 war" and "conquered in 1967," with no reference whatsoever to the Arab hostility that caused those wars.
-- Margolis claims that the settler community forms Sharon's "political core support." Sharon's Likud party won 31% of the vote in January; West Bank and Gaza residents are just 3.9% of the Israeli populace, and many settlers support parties to the right of Likud.
In the article, Margolis proudly affirms his credentials: "I have been steeped in Mideast affairs since the early 1950s." But with so many inaccuracies, this article is all wet indeed.
Posted by: Jabotinsky on June 5, 2003 12:46 PM
I don't put a lot of "stock" in ad hominum arguments like yours, Jabotinsky.
What's more, I didn't append the Margolis article because I take everything he (or ANYBODY, YOU, most definitely included) writes for "gospel".
I put it there EXPLICITLY as an "example" of the kind of SANE arguments from competent, professional people the Branch Dickweedians currently infesting the Executive Branch (AND the craven politicians of ALL political "faiths" in Congress--mostly Republicans though--as well as MOST of the editors, reporters and pundits ALL OVER our wonderfully "free, diverse, and independent" media) simply wouldn't "entertain".
I could probably dig up some timely "something"
along the SAME lines taken by Margolis written (or spoken) by Senator Chuck Hagel (R) Nebraska (I believe), Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb or former something or other Brent Scowcroft for your perusal (and, of course, dismissal). But I'm not inclined to do that. And I won't.
Here, here, Mike.
Posted by: Ras_Nesta on June 5, 2003 01:58 PMUh- I am not sure that security is really our strong point. Our strong point is military effectiveness and eliminating opposing forces and weaponry. Security requires POLICING. Our troops are trained for combat, not policing. Combat troops shoot first. Asking questions is not even in the training. Policing asks questions first, trades information, provides assistance resolves disputes, alerts appropriate agencies to fix problems (downed electrici lines, gas leaks, fires). Think about what the police in our own communities do. Could you replace your highly trained police force with a platoon of teenagers fresh out of boot camp?????
We have the wrong force structure in Iraq. We need battalions of linemen, engineers, administrators, bankers etc. As Mr. Bush said one month ago, the war is over.
This result is not surprising given GOP ideology that believes that government does no good other than the military. We are now seeing what government with all military and little else looks like. Chaos. Send in Rudy Guliani and a bureaucrat team from NYC. That is needed more desperately than more troops.
Posted by: bakho on June 5, 2003 02:01 PM"It may pay dividends for the U.S. to focus singularly on securing the nation of Iraq, so that others may come in to do the soft work of nation-building."
It does seem like we are in a bit of bind. Ignoring basic infrastructure and delaying the transition to local government may only cause further unrest.
Posted by: nameless on June 5, 2003 09:52 PMWhile on the subject of banging one's head against the wall, I was mildly annoyed the other day to see Brad -- in one of his "no pink on my diapers" moods -- blaming Mario Savio for Ronald Reagan.
Within California's ambit, I thought it was Clark Kerr's doing.
No, my thought is not "the Reagan folks were brought to power in reaction against Clark Kerr rather than against Mario Savio." Quite differently, Clark Kerr explored in depth the notion of the entire state being smithed in heat to the shape needed by the warfare state, and Reagan rather abstrusedly drifted in along the same flow.
Changing the subject slightly, but only very slightly:
I invite people to consider the question Is it possible to imagine a reason for a majority of the world's population to believe that it would be a good thing for Al Quaeda to have nuclear weapons?
I suggest an answer at
http://www.katyjohnson.com/
A frisson for everybody: It is illegal in the United States to suggest that the woman running that website, one Katy Johnson (fortunately *not* ex-FCCommissioner Nick Johnson ["The most radical man in Washington" --LBJ]'s excellent sister, Katy,) a different Katy Johnson, is a drunk and a slut.
She has an injunction from the local Federal Circuit Court against such things.
I know nothing about whether she might be a drunk or a slut, but I do know that she was Miss Vermont '99, and that her website is now, too, trying to inveigle young girls in the the same sort of flesh show biz..
And these knowledgeable nation-building third parties, given what we did to them pre-war--stonewalled, denied, insulted, attempted to discredit, undermine their points of view--would want to come to Iraq now, why?
Charles
Posted by: charles on June 6, 2003 06:29 AM"Why skimp?"? A certain VERY SHRILL New York Times columnist pointed a few weeks ago to the Bush admin pattern of "malign neglect".
Posted by: Stephen J Fromm on June 6, 2003 12:06 PMBecause it is not good to have a disgruntled neighbour? The USA have been rather aloof in the confidence that distance put them out of range of most possible enemies.
DSW
Posted by: Antoni Jaume on June 6, 2003 01:11 PM