UNBELIEVABLE! US is outsourcing stabalizing Iraqi cities

I have no doubt nothing I say - nor anything said from the consevative viewpoint nor anything said from any perspective that does not see The Current Administration as the embodiment and personification of evil- will shake you from your convictions in the matter, kw, which is fine. You're perfectly entitled to thoroughly misapprehend the situation.

Sorry for all the criticisms in one post, Timber, but your previous post covered a lot of points that I felt deserved rebuttal.

As far as the posted notice goes, it is entitled "IRAQ: Strategic City Stabilization Initiative (SCSI)", and the description is as follows.



So far, I have seen nothing written in this thread that this notice isn't what it appears to be-a call for bids to economically and socially stabilize ten important Iraq cities in an attempt to fight the insurgency.

I simply don't see anything routine about this at all. Rather, it seems rather clearly to be an admission that we are fumbling around, looking for something that might work.

Are you implying the military is better suited to social and economic stabilization and development than would be private sector entities, and that such undertaking is appropriately addressed during the conduct of open hostilities? Interesting. I would think the private sector best for the task, and I would think also the task best not begun prior to the establishment of local security and some modicum of indigenously effected law and order.

I sense there's a buncha fumbling around happening, but not on the part of those you appear to prefer to suspect.

You'd think someone (or even several someones) might be willing to offer rebuilding plans for free.....

Timber
Timber, are you purposefully ignoring the cause of my astonishment in an attempt to defend Bush et al?

I said that such peace keeping planning should have been part of the overall planning BEFORE Iraq was invaded. The State Department had done such planning but the bush Administration disregarded it. We've been paying in treasure and lives, our own and innocent Iraqis, for that grievous error.

It would be interesting the dust off the Cheney-Rumsfeld ignored State Department's original plans to see if we could save a billion or two.

It is true, our military does not want to be involved in nation building. If the prewar planning had been complete, they would not be forced to do it.

Our military performed with outstanding professionalism and continues to try to do so. One of my big disappointments with out military leadership is that so few were willing to stand up in opposition to the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal. If they had publicly resigned in opposition, we might not have ended up in such a mess. They apparently chose to play the good soldier to protect their careers. Shame on those who failed us---and their troops.

Then there is the Media's failure to uphold its sacred constitutional protection to protect the interests of the citizens. But that's another story.

BBB

Here's a clear example of the problems involving privatization of military function...

more

Best Plan for Victory Wins a Free Toaster!
Best Plan for Victory Wins a Free Toaster!
Mitra Forouhar
12.05.2005

I wasn't sure if I should laugh or cry when I saw the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) invitation for grant applications for a plan to stabilize Iraq and defeat the insurgency. It is laughable because the administration had claimed that they had Iraq and the middle east all figured out and thus did not require advice from other quarters.

It is tragic because it indicates the gravity of the situation in Iraq, and we know that it is the people of Iraq and American soldiers that pay with their lives for the administration's blind ambition to build an empire in the name of the war on terror. Now, not willing to admit defeat, the administration is planning to waste more taxpayer dollars in search of magic solutions for a complex problem that no one in the administration seems to fully understand.

What was most noticeable about the USAID invitation was the absence of the word peace from the description of the initiative's objective. The objective was articulated as "defeating the insurgency" and "stabilization" of Iraq. That approach is consistent with administration's mentality of seeing the world in black and white terms, but the world is made up of many shades of grey. History has repeatedly shown that physical elimination of a people (on whatever basis defined) is not an achievable goal for any power. History has shown that stability created by force is interrupted sooner or later. History has also shown that sustainable stability is only possible through mutual cooperation and reciprocal respect for basic human needs. What are basic human needs? (1) the need for wellness (food, clothing, housing, health, and education); (2) the need for freedom, i.e., political choice and economic opportunity; and (3) the need for self-identity and self-determination. Acts of violence insult all of those needs and consequently beget more violence.

Stability can be created and sustained only by forging a new reality in Iraq through formation of a federal system which should allow a significant degree of social and political autonomy to each of the groups that make up Iraq, and should promote economic cooperation among them. The formation of an Iraqi federation should be coupled with peace education, and dialogue at the community level to heal the emotional wounds of the average citizen and to reconcile the conflicting parties. Those activities should be carried out in the context of Iraq's culture and history. Such new reality can come about through a dialogue, facilitated by a neutral party, among all affected parties, the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds, all of Iraq's neighbors, the United States, and the European Union.

What USAID needs is a plan of peace.