The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Iraq (Not about war)
Evigilant
VARegistered User regular
VARegistered User regular
In the news yesterday was this gem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/world/middleeast/06surplus.html?bl&ex=1218168000&en=13e70dd4b3a5f45b&ei=5087%0A
As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding
Excerpt:
“The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”
How much in surplus? Why, about $79 billion by the years end. It also mentions that approx. $48 billion has been spent by the USA for reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
The only thing I could find about potential Iraqi purchases is something about possibly purchasing 140 M1A1(Abrams) tanks and logistic vehicles. The tanks themselves would cost the Iraq government $2.16 billion dollars, but it went on to list other vehicles and supplies the Iraq government would like to purchase.
So what do you think? I personally believe Iraq should be using the money to improve their infastructure, energy supply (for more areas of the country), sanitary problems, education and health. If anything, they should be contributing more to their own reconstruction, not only does the lessen the burden on Coalition troops, but it furthers the nation-pride/reassurance building process with their own citizens.
At the very least, the Iraq government should be using this surplus for building projects, like schools and improving roads and housing as this creates employment opportunities and increases the attachment rate to their government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/world/middleeast/06surplus.html?bl&ex=1218168000&en=13e70dd4b3a5f45b&ei=5087%0A
As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding
Excerpt:
“The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.”
How much in surplus? Why, about $79 billion by the years end. It also mentions that approx. $48 billion has been spent by the USA for reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
The only thing I could find about potential Iraqi purchases is something about possibly purchasing 140 M1A1(Abrams) tanks and logistic vehicles. The tanks themselves would cost the Iraq government $2.16 billion dollars, but it went on to list other vehicles and supplies the Iraq government would like to purchase.
So what do you think? I personally believe Iraq should be using the money to improve their infastructure, energy supply (for more areas of the country), sanitary problems, education and health. If anything, they should be contributing more to their own reconstruction, not only does the lessen the burden on Coalition troops, but it furthers the nation-pride/reassurance building process with their own citizens.
At the very least, the Iraq government should be using this surplus for building projects, like schools and improving roads and housing as this creates employment opportunities and increases the attachment rate to their government.
XBL\PSN\Steam\Origin: Evigilant
Evigilant on
0
Posts
Well, the US has also rebuilt thousands of residential, schools, hospital, and commercial buildings, as well as repairing and improving both their energy output and sanitary issues.
The largest thing I mentioned though was that an Iraq funded reconstruction effort that could employ hundreds/thousands of Iraqi workers would do more to stabilize and rebuild their country then any other effort.
i was under the impression that our reconstruction effort also employed iraqis
well 79 billion in surplus isnt really alot. i doubt they would abscond with it (i mean where would they go?). but they might spend it on other programs besides rebuilding (military) while we pay for them to rebuild. or they might keep it in reserve for when america finally withdraws and use it to keep their economy from crashing.
i really dont know how they think but i somehow doubt we can make them spend their money.
But the citizenship in Iraq could be similar to that of its neighbor Kuwait (speculation). The Kuwaiti workforce is almost ALL TCN's (fact), composing I think upwards to 90% or more of the labor. Kuwait is also notorious for allowing TCN's in to their country, but revoking their Visa's forcing them to stay in the country and work to stay alive, under the hope that if they work hard enough they can re-obtain their Visa and go back home.
Edit: ELM touched upon my view. An Iraqi backed reconstruction effort increases the attachment rate to their government. It's no longer a foreign country providing, it's their own host country. In my personal opinion, I believe the major slowdown and lack of emphasis is on the attachment rate as well as "sense of national pride". If all of a sudden Iraq starts with reconstruction projects to improve their situation, it's now a national issue that employee's their own people for the improvement of their own country. There's more interest to be gained, and it looks like a win-win situation.
In the NYT article, it says that since 2005, Iraq has accrued $156 billion in revenue.
They have a country willing to dump tons of money into their infrastructure with no questions asked, not loans, just handed out money. Yeah, most countries would happily milk that until the donating country wised up and figured it out.
$79 Billion dollars is a lot for a country whose GDP is in the $80-100 billion range. And considering we're spending $100 billion there every year, I'd say it's not insignificant with regards to that either. The question is why are they spending only 1/2 of their revenue when their country desperately needs infrastructure?
They need to hire companies to build power plants, to build roads, to build water treatment plants, etc. Which companies? How to choose between them? You need experts to compare bids, you need experts to set up a bidding process. You need politicians to set up sections of government to set up the bidding process. I think all of those things are the hurdles Iraq is facing and one of the reasons its not spending its money fast enough. Plus politicians slow everything down.
Again, why should they pick up the check for resconstruction of all the infrastructure destroyed by the U.S. led forces?
Directly paying for reconstruction is fine (and we've had a lot of drama on that front, too).
The issue is that we're flat out handing them money and improving the infrastructure that wasn't destroyed when they're more than solvent.
It's needed and better for the country the sooner it's in? I mean the US should be doing what they are doing to get things running again, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea for Iraq to to help itself as well.
Iraqi contracts don't work like that. The money will be given to contractors with relations to the political figures, which will in turn make that specific tribe more wealthy and powerful. There isn't bidding, there is only "This guy is my cousin and can do the job." Once Iraq does finally start allocating its resources, we're going to see a surge of wealthy Shi'a families.
There were reports a month or two ago about Maliki basically walking around the green zone handing out cash to anyone he saw.
They're not saving up ;P
And yes, their law enforcement is horrible. Calenur, did you get that briefing on how the UK gave the IP's all new police vehicles before leaving Basra, and then within a few months to a year, all those vehicles where "missing"?
I also believe that Iraqi's employing other Iraqi's will give them more of a sense of nationalism than being employed by US contractors.
I mean, they watched Saddam be a corrupt asshat for so long, they're really just following the leader.
Also, I have heard something about Iraqi public servants being afraid to spend the money, but I can't find it, although I can find many articles about how the US is doing a terrible job of making sure its own money in Iraq is being given to the right people. Maybe we should stop being such hypocrites. :P
They need to figure it out now while the US is still actively involved. It will be much easier for them to go through the growing pains with US forces stabilizing the country and US experts readily available for essentially free.
How about 'fuck that'. I don't see why people seem to think the Army is a goddamn social service. We kill people.
I'm confused by your response. Do you oppose Army experts helping them with the rebuilding? Or with having them rebuild at all?
I mean, the Army has engineers. Why not use them?
Yea I remember hearing about that too.
I hope would be that as the Iraq government starts putting forth their own projects, the people develop this sense of contribution or "national pride" towards their country and realize that hey, maybe we shouldn't blow up the stuff our government is building. And since the employment could consist of people in that local area and around their own country, it'd be paying them for their living expenses and they might actually turn a buck or two.
Then again, that's wishful thinking, but I believe that more action should be taken by the Iraqi government in regards to their surplus and their situation.
I agree and disagree with his sentiment. It's not our job to "rebuild" stuff, it's our job to complete and utterly destroy things with force.
Army engineers are meant to build things that the Army requires, or to blow shit up. Like minefields or barricades, or to build a hasty barracks, landing strip, HQ, field hospital, etc... While they could provide a helpful service for the Iraq government, it increases their reliance on us(which is a different question all together), but as well puts forth this persona that hey, we are a softer, friendlier military who occasionally blow shit up.
There really should be a mobilized state department, a massive group composed of lawyers, judges, police, and construction workers who after the military goes through and wrecks their shit, they help with the rebuilding process. The US Military should really never be involved in a rebuilding process, it starts to blur the lines between our role. We provide security, not great housing and services. We destroy stuff deliberately and with more than enough force. There needs to be that fine line between help and military roles.
My response isn't confusing. I'm tired of being here so Iraqi politicians can take advantage of our services for free. We build a hospital, they blow it up so we pay them MORE money to rebuild it. They take that money and give it to their family members to do the work (at the cheapest cost possible) and pocket the rest to keep their tribe rich. Rise and repeat.
But the bottom line for not using our engineers or any other people for their efforts is: I'm sick of Americans getting killed.
edit: and I agree with Evigilant. Soldiers are trained to do their job to destroy the enemy.