Reply
Fri 3 Oct, 2003 04:27 pm
Charles Krauthammer always manages to find hope where there is dispair, sanity where there is hysteria, and most importantly he finds logical perspective.
Our Instant Experts
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 3, 2003; Page A23
On the reconstruction of Iraq, everybody is a genius. Every pundit, every ex-official and, of course, every Democrat knows exactly how it should have been done. Everybody would have had Iraq up and running by now and as safe as downtown Singapore. Everybody, that is, except the Bush administration, which in its arrogance and stupidity has so botched the occupation that it is "in danger of losing the peace" -- so sayeth John Kerry, echoing Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and many others down the Democratic food chain.
A bit of perspective, gentlemen. What we came upon in Iraq was a country that had just emerged from terror and totalitarianism -- largely physically intact (as a result of an unprecedented precision military campaign) but decaying because of the neglect and abuse of the gangsters who had run it for more than 30 years.
It was as if, when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, we had somehow found ourselves in Moscow in charge of the place. The critics are complaining that we are six months into Iraq's reconstruction and it has not been reconstructed. The Russians are 12 years into their reconstruction and they still are not even close to success.
Yes, the administration has made mistakes, indeed two very large ones. But it pays to understand how and why they were made.
Error No. 1 was the appointment of Jay Garner to run the reconstruction. The reason he was chosen was his success in rescuing the Kurds after the calamity of their failed 1991 anti-Saddam Hussein uprising.
Figuring that the Iraq war would be bloody, difficult and destructive, we expected a similar humanitarian crisis -- hunger, epidemics and refugees. These were perfectly reasonable assumptions. The problem was that none of these crises materialized. There was no lack of food, no health disaster and, amazingly, no refugees (a tribute to the Iraqis' trust in America's intentions and humanity).
Garner was the right guy in the wrong place. There were other jobs to do, and Garner could not do them well. This error cost us a month, a crucial month.
His successor, L. Paul Bremer, has done remarkably well. Consider the task he faces. He has had to rule on privatization, the nature of the currency, the establishment of a central bank, the structure of the oil industry. And these are just the economic questions. Daily, he has had to make political, infrastructure, security, religious and ethnic decisions that will profoundly affect Iraq's future. In the United States, any one of these decisions would take months of deliberation, hearings and arguments. Bremer has to make them within hours or days. The re-emergence of life and structure in a country that six months ago had no civil society at all is testimony to his success.
His major mistake was disbanding the army. And even this judgment should be rendered with a bit of humility. At the time, it seemed the right thing to do. In the Middle East, a major obstacle to democracy has always been the military: military power, military autonomy, military coups. Keeping Hussein's army risked the worst possible outcome: a future return to power of a Baathist army. For the long-run health of the new Iraq, it made eminent sense to abolish the army and start over.
The problem is you only get to the long run if you make it through the short run. And the challenge in the short run is putting down Sunni Triangle resistance. Had we retained the old army, we might have had ready-made military units suitable at least for guarding stationary targets such as oil pipelines, thus relieving coalition troops to go after the enemy. Moreover, dissolution of the Baathist army released a large population of unemployed, disgruntled and weapons-trained young men. Some are undoubtedly shooting at our troops. We have now backtracked a bit, pursuing a less radical de-Baathification for the new Iraqi army.
These mistakes were serious, but have they cost us the peace? The media cover the sabotage of the oil pipelines. This is perfectly reasonable. It is news, and it produces dramatic pictures. But the undramatic story is that Iraq is producing more than 1.6 million barrels a day, more than three-quarters of 2002 production levels. Last week OPEC unexpectedly cut its production quotas -- boosting oil prices and rattling world markets. Why? Because it sees Iraqi oil production coming on line and seriously threatening world prices. Pictures show the sabotage story; OPEC has already acted on the production story.
Losing the peace? No matter what anyone says now, that question will be answered only at the endpoint. If in a year or two we are able to leave behind a stable, friendly government, we will have succeeded. If not, we will have failed. And all the geniuses will be vindicated.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Glad you're not posting tendentious threads, looking for a fight, any more, Perception. It's good to see that you've reformed.
Do you really find this one tendentious Setanta? If so pick it apart piece by piece.
Quote:
A bit of perspective, gentlemen. What we came upon in Iraq was a country that had just emerged from terror and totalitarianism -- largely physically intact (as a result of an unprecedented precision military campaign) but decaying because of the neglect and abuse of the gangsters who had run it for more than 30 years.
I always have a problem when this is quoted by so called "defenders" of the US action in Iraq.
Why dont people realize that the situation in Iraq deotriated so much during the 10 years of UN (read that US) sanctions against that country. Before that, even though there was a bloody and long war with Iran, Iraq was the most advanced, progressive and secular society in the arab world.
U come in, destroy the country, and then rebuild. And then you have a problem when people raise questions ? Is there something wrong with this picture ?
I cant find this online - but I just read in the TIME magazine that a cement factory for which a tender was approved for $15,000,000 to an American company was built by $70,000 by a local iraqi businessman when the company's project failed to take off.
Does make me wonder.....
Gautam wrote:Quote:
A bit of perspective, gentlemen. What we came upon in Iraq was a country that had just emerged from terror and totalitarianism -- largely physically intact (as a result of an unprecedented precision military campaign) but decaying because of the neglect and abuse of the gangsters who had run it for more than 30 years.
I always have a problem when this is quoted by so called "defenders" of the US action in Iraq.
Why dont people realize that the situation in Iraq deotriated so much during the 10 years of UN (read that US) sanctions against that country. Before that, even though there was a bloody and long war with Iran, Iraq was the most advanced, progressive and secular society in the arab world.
U come in, destroy the country, and then rebuild. And then you have a problem when people raise questions ? Is there something wrong with this picture ?
I cant find this online - but I just read in the TIME magazine that a cement factory for which a tender was approved for $15,000,000 to an American company was built by $70,000 by a local iraqi businessman when the company's project failed to take off.
Does make me wonder.....
Have you seen the pictures of Saddams oppulent palaces that he rebuilt? The palaces he built with money earmarked for his country. The money he was supposed to be spending on food and infrastructure improvements? Keep blaming the US for saddams actions, especially if that helps you sleep at night. Just remember though, its just not true.
Just a note to add to that----fhe following article is from CBS and confirms that Iraq is home to 78 palaces---most of them less the 10 yrs. old which means they were built during the sanctions----where did the money come from if not syphoned off of UN money (which the the UN actually had no control over after it was given to Saddam)meant for food and medical supplies for the Iraqi people.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/saddam_palaces.html
I really expected a better response than this !! I read the article with some amusement
Quote:
In a 1999 document entitled "Saddam Hussein's Iraq," the U.S. Department of State reported some of the finer details of what it referred to as "Saddam's monuments to his glory."
Depending on where I stand - one can argue that the "State dept" was just trying to villainify (is there such a word) Saddam...and isn't it the same intelligence that showed us pictures of WMD sites just before the war ?
Quote:
In many cases, Saddam's palaces serve more than one purpose: official residences, military compounds, government office, resort-like villas, farms and VIP housing. The United Nations has even identified eight palaces as potential weapons of mass destruction and subjected them to inspections similar to those normally reserved for chemical laboratories and munitions factories.
So you see, they were not only "playgrounds" for Saddam, they were much much more.
Let's be a little pragmatic here guyz - which leader doesnt spend the tax payers money in having "opulant" accomadation for himself and his cronies ? Money which could be put to better use ?
I mean, does Bush *really* need to live in the White House ?
Do any of our state or national government buildings need to be clad with marble and such, no!
Brand X, in that part of the world, and same from where I come from (India) marble is a common material used in buildings - remember ME is HOT and marble helps in keeping the surroundings cool !
Gautam wrote:
Let's be a little pragmatic here guyz - which leader doesnt spend the tax payers money in having "opulant" accomadation for himself and his cronies ? Money which could be put to better use ?
Are you really trying to use this line of fallacious reasoning to cover-up the fact that Saddam spent most of the oil for food money building palaces and buying toys for his boys and you then have the audacity to blame the US for the sad plight of the Iraqi people
Yep, I know. Here it is a luxury, the gov should be modest not lavish. But hey, OPM(Other Peoples Money).
perception wrote:
Are you really trying to use this line of fallacious reasoning to cover-up the fact that Saddam spent most of the oil for food money building palaces and buying toys for his boys and you then have the audacity to blame the US for the sad plight of the Iraqi people
Perception,
1. Nopes, I am not "using" this line - what I am saying is what is true for the goose, is true for the gander (or something like that - not implying that Bush is a female
)
2. The fact that Saddam spent most of the oil for food money for toys for the boys is *according to the reports by yr state department*. For all I know, this might be a figment of their imagination, just like the "45 minute" or WMD claim was
3. Did you really go to war because you could not see the suffering of the poor iraqi people ?
Gautam
Talk of the non-existent WMDs is analogous to the right constantly reliving the days of the stains on the blue dress. Wolfowitz has already admitted that when they decided Saddam must be removed to stabilize the ME, the next step was to establish a reason which turned out to be a real blunder but in retrospect I think it was necessary. They believed Congress would not accept the real reason( to stabilize the ME) as sufficient justification to go to war so they decided the next step was to use the threat of WMD as the most logical because Clinton's 8 years had provided ample proof they really existed.
Had Saddam not been so stupid he could have remained in power by just saying OK ----we've been fooling you just a bit---come on in and look all you want. Any weapons you find I will destroy as you watch me.
I was very worried that he would do just that----we then would have been stymied----we could never have removed him.
All your talk of oil, and wanting to steal it from the Iraqi people is just BS---we had to remove him and have access to all of Iraq to:
1. Prevent the al Queda from using it as a massive staging and training area----sure they're there now and that is where we will kill them.
2. Prevent Saddam from eventually gaining control of the entire ME and blackmailing the Global economy which is totally dependent on ME oil
3. Prevent Saddam from financing more suicide attacks on Israel---sure they're still coming but we have removed one more source of financing.
4. To provide a staging area for our military because we wanted to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia
5. To prove to, Syria, and Iran that we intend to persevere against terrorism even if it involves removing a dictator to do it--that we have the political will to do so.
There are other tertiary reasons but to "steal the Iraqi oil" is not one of them.
Re: Will the Instant Experts be Vindicated on Iraq?
Any 'instant expert' worth his salt knew long ago that the reconstruction wouldn't go as smoothly as Bush claimed. That puts us one step ahead of the morons in Washington. Also, the Russian analogy was.....retarded.
perception wrote:Gautam
Talk of the non-existent WMDs is analogous to the right constantly reliving the days of the stains on the blue dress.
Pointing out that we went to war, thus leading to thousands of deaths and billions of dollars lost, for a figment of the Presidents imagination is analogous to pointing out the moral deficiency of a past president? Curious logic.
Quote:1. Prevent the al Queda from using it as a massive staging and training area----sure they're there now and that is where we will kill them.
Where is the connection between Saddam and Al -Queda? Post the links. Thanks. And, be sure to include sufficent evidence to prove that whatever connection exists between Saddam and Al -Queda is greater the the well documented terrorist connections of Sudan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. I'm looking forward to your Earth shattering revelations.
Quote:2. Prevent Saddam from eventually gaining control of the entire ME and blackmailing the Global economy which is totally dependent on ME oil
Saddam posed a threat to 'the entire Middle East'? Where is the evidence to back up this statement? Where is the military capability? What possessed you to think the world community would allow him to do such a thing if he tried?
Quote:3. Prevent Saddam from financing more suicide attacks on Israel---sure they're still coming but we have removed one more source of financing.
What about the bunch of other nations that contribute more than Iraq? Should we invade them too?
Quote:4. To provide a staging area for our military because we wanted to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia
Maybe, but I doubt it.
Quote:5. To prove to, Syria, and Iran that we intend to persevere against terrorism even if it involves removing a dictator to do it--that we have the political will to do so.
Yes, setting an example was certainly one of our main goals.
ILZ
I believe my post was addressed to Gautam and I'm fairly certain he can answer for himself ---- let's just let him try---it that OK with you?
perception wrote:ILZ
I believe my post was addressed to Gautam and I'm fairly certain he can answer for himself ---- let's just let him try---it that OK with you?
Not really, now that you asked. My retardo meter went off the scale when I read your post. Somebody better explain what you said ..... or .... theres gonna be ...... stuff...... happening .... mark my words.
ILZ. I see you've met Percy. My condolences. HE will never address your points. he usually posts stuff that is heavily edited and without attribution, then buggers off or becomes insulting (sometimes buggering off while being insulting) when challenged.
perception wrote:Gautam
Talk of the non-existent WMDs is analogous to the right constantly reliving the days of the stains on the blue dress. Wolfowitz has already admitted that when they decided Saddam must be removed to stabilize the ME, the next step was to establish a reason which turned out to be a real blunder but in retrospect I think it was necessary.
Really!
How about a citation on that. I'd like to read it.
ILZ wrote:
Not really, now that you asked. My retardo meter went off the scale when I read your post. Somebody better explain what you said ..... or .... theres gonna be ...... stuff...... happening .... mark my words.
Oh --- really---like what----are you gonna Huff and Puff and blow me down?
How about dealing with my statement that " had Saddam not been so stupid he would still be in power---by just letting the inspectors have a free hand---would you dare try to refute that?
Instead of nit-picking some little perceived point that you want to pretend is a profound question that will astonish the world.
It's all history and been pointed out a zillion times.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace