0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 11:45 am
http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069

Lt. Col. Karen Kowalski talking about the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and how a group of political appointees spearheaded the effort with little regard to the after-effects:

(long, so here's an excerpt)

Quote:
KWIATKOSKI: My retirement date was effective 1 July, but I left the Pentagon basically two days after we invaded Iraq, and I had moved my retirement date up specifically because of my experience in that final tour in the Pentagon at the Office of Secretary Defense Policy.

LAMB: Why did you come out against the war?

KWIATKOSKI: Well, I was actually against the war when I was in the Pentagon, and the reason had to do with what I felt to be lies, not so much lies told to the American people, but lies, in fact, promulgated on us inside the Pentagon. I worked in Near East-South Asia Policy. Doug Fyffe was our boss, over me and 1,000 other people in Policy. The Office of Special Plans had been formed from our office, staffed with political appointees, and they were producing, in the fall of 2002 and '03, and the winter and spring of 2003, talking points for us to use in our own papers, and those talking points did not match the intelligence that we had previously used to put together our papers and our work. So, I felt that we were being lied to.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 12:47 pm
Quote:
With $200 million spent, few Iraq clinics finished

By Ellen Knickmeyer
The Washington Post



The contract, awarded to U.S. construction giant Parsons in the flush, early days of reconstruction in Iraq, was expected to lay the foundation of a modern health-care system for the country, putting quality medical care within reach of all Iraqis.

Parsons, according to the Corps, will walk away from more than 120 clinics that on average are two-thirds finished. Auditors say its failure serves as a warning siren for other U.S. reconstruction efforts coming due this year.

Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Corps of Engineers commander overseeing reconstruction in Iraq, said he still hoped to complete all 142 clinics as promised and was seeking emergency money from the U.S. military and foreign donors. "I'm fairly confident," McCoy said.

Coming with little public warning, the 86 percent shortfall of completions dismayed the World Health Organization (WHO) representative for Iraq. "That's not good. That's shocking," Naeema al-Gasseer said. "We're not sending the right message here. That's affecting people's expectations and people's trust, I must say."

At the end of 2006, the $18.4 billion that Washington has allocated for Iraq's reconstruction runs out. All remaining projects in the U.S. reconstruction program, including electricity, water, sewer, health care and the justice system, are due for completion. As a result, the next nine months are crunch time for the easy-terms contracts that were awarded to U.S. contractors early on, before surging violence drove up security costs and idled workers.

Stuart Bowen, the top U.S. auditor for reconstruction, warned that shortfalls similar to the one involving Parsons may be coming in other reconstruction efforts. "I've been consumed for a year with the fear we would run out of money to finish projects," said Bowen, the special inspector-general for reconstruction in Iraq.

The reconstruction campaign in Iraq is the largest such American undertaking since World War II. The rebuilding efforts have remained a point of pride for American troops and leaders as they struggle with an insurgency and now Shiite Muslim militias and escalating sectarian conflict.

The Corps of Engineers says the campaign has renovated or built 3,000 schools, upgraded 13 hospitals and created hundreds of border forts and police stations. Major projects during the summer, the Corps says, should noticeably improve basic services such as electricity, which have fallen below pre-war levels despite the billions of dollars that the United States has expended toward reconstruction.

Security eats up funding

Violence for which the United States failed to plan has consumed up to half the $18.4 billion through higher costs to guard project sites and workers and through direct shifts of billions of dollars to ramp up Iraq's police and military.

In January, Bowen's office calculated the American reconstruction effort would be able to finish only 300 of 425 promised electricity projects and 49 of 136 water and sanitation projects.

U.S. authorities say they made a special effort to preserve the more than $700 million of work for Iraq's health-care system, crippled by two decades of war and international sanctions.

Doctors in Baghdad's hospitals still cite dirty water as one of the major killers of infants. The city's hospitals place medically troubled newborns two to an incubator, when incubators work at all.

Early in the occupation, U.S. officials mapped out the construction of 300 primary-care clinics, said Gasseer, the WHO official. In addition to spreading health care beyond the major cities into small towns, the clinics were meant to provide training for Iraq's medical professionals. "Overall, they were considered vital," she said.

In April 2004, the project was awarded to Parsons of Pasadena, Calif., a leading construction firm in domestic and international markets. McCoy, the Corps of Engineers commander, said Parsons has been awarded about $1 billion in reconstruction projects in Iraq.

Generous contracts

Like much U.S. government work in 2003 and 2004, the contract was awarded on terms known as "cost-plus," Parsons said, meaning that the company could bill the government for its actual cost, rather than a cost agreed to at the start, and add a profit margin. The deal was also classified as "design-build," in which the contractor oversees the project from design to completion.

These terms, among the most generous possible for contractors, were meant to encourage companies to undertake projects in a dangerous environment and complete them fast.

McCoy said Parsons subcontracted the clinics to four Iraqi companies, which often hired local firms to do the actual construction, creating several tiers of overhead costs.

Starting in 2004, the need for security sent costs soaring. Insurgent attacks forced companies to organize minimilitias to guard employees and sites; work often was idled when sites were judged to be too dangerous. Western contractors often were reduced to monitoring work sites by photographs, Parsons officials said.

Faced with a growing insurgency, U.S. authorities in 2004 took money from many projects to put it into building up Iraqi security forces.

"During that period, very little actual project work, dirt-turning, was being done," Bowen said. At the same time, "we were paying large overhead for contractors to remain in-country." Overhead has consumed 40 to 50 percent of the clinic project's budget, McCoy said.

By 2005, plans were scaled back to build 142 primary clinics by December of that year, an extended deadline. By December, however, only four had been completed, reconstruction officials said. Two more were finished weeks later. With the money almost gone, the Corps of Engineers and Parsons reached what both sides described as a negotiated settlement under which Parsons would try to finish 14 more clinics by early April and then leave the project.

The agreement stipulated that the contract was terminated by consensus, not for cause, the Corps and Parsons said.

Both said the Corps had wanted to cancel the contract outright, and McCoy rejected the reasons that Parsons put forward for the slow progress.

"In the time they completed 45 projects, I completed 500 projects," he said. Parsons has a number of other contracts in Baghdad, from oil-facility upgrades to border forts to prisons. "The fact is it is hard, but there are companies over here that are doing it."

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
Source
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 02:59 pm
The whole thing is a lie.

The biggest con job in history.

"The Great Iraqi Swindle"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 04:37 pm
revel wrote:
Ican, do you consider various members of parties who commit violence against each other to be insurgents? If you do then you are not in accordance with the definition of insurgents.
I don't use the word insurgents to refer to those who murder civilians, and to those who are their abettors, their advocates, and their ignorers. For these people I use the term terrorist malignancy. Failure to exterminate terrorist malignancy will lead to thousands of murdered civilians per month.

The El Salvadore approach is necessary to stop the slaughter of civilians in Iraq. That grim reality is inescapable. It requires that we risk our military and risk killing hundreds of civilians, while openly killing and not capturing hundreds of terrorist malignancy, in order to end the killing of thousands of civilians.

Setting a reorganization deadline for the newly elected Iraqi government is also necessary, such that if that deadline is missed, we cease protecting the members of the Iraqi government.

The two together are necessary and sufficient for ending the slaughter in Iraq.

...
I don't know if it is going to make that much difference if we go or stay in terms of the violence. Everything they said would happen if we leave seems to be happening now. However, it just don't sit well with me if we leave Iraq worse off than when we found it and just desert it.
There is no point in our staying unless we do what is necessary and sufficient to end the slaughter of civilians in Iraq. Failure to do what is necessary and sufficient in Iraq, is merely facilitating the loss of hundreds of American military lives in Iraq as well as the loss of thousands of Iraqi lives in Iraq. That of course does not include the thousands of American civilian lives that will in future be lost here at home to terrorist malignancy.

On the hand if we stay it seems like we give the Bush administration an excuse to meddle in their political issues.
...
Frankly, we can no longer afford diverting our attention from our real problem to our imagined Bush administration problem.
...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 04:53 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069

Lt. Col. Karen Kowalski talking about the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and how a group of political appointees spearheaded the effort with little regard to the after-effects
...

Quote:
KWIATKOSKI: My retirement date was effective 1 July, but I left the Pentagon basically two days after we invaded Iraq, and I had moved my retirement date up specifically because of my experience in that final tour in the Pentagon at the Office of Secretary Defense Policy.
...
So, I felt that we were being lied to. [/b]

Cycloptichorn

The primary reason for invading Afghanistan, Saturday, October 20, 2001,was that al-Qaeda possessed sanctuary in Afghanistan. The primary reason for invading Iraq, Thursday, March 20, 2003, was that al-Qaeda possessed sanctuary in Iraq. The allegation that Iraq possessed WMD was a supplementary but false reason for invading Iraq.
President Bush, Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, in a broadcast to the nation wrote:
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.


Congress, Friday, September 14, 2001 wrote:
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


President Bush, Thursday, September 20, 2001, in an address to Congress broadcast to the nation wrote:
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.


Congress, Friday, Wednesday, October 16, 2002 wrote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens; The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.


Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Wednesday, February 5, 2003, in a speech to UN wrote:
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.


9-11 Commission, Monday, September 20, 2004, in Chapter 2.5 wrote:
U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.78
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 06:15 pm
Quote:
Frankly, we can no longer afford diverting our attention from our real problem to our imagined Bush administration problem.


It is not imagination:

Quote:
Friday, March 31, 2006

Al-Anizi: The US is Training an Insubordinate Iraqi Army
Sistani Blows off Bush

Guerrillas shot dead 8 oil workers at the Baiji refinery north of Baghdad. The guerrillas have for some time had a strategy of cutting the capital off from fuel and electricity as far as they can, and their sabotage in Baiji is for this purpose. At the same time, they siphon off the fuel and smuggle it out to fund the insurgency.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has blown off the president of the United States. Bush sent Sistani a letter asking him to intervene to help end the gridlock in the formation of a new Iraqi government. Asked about his response, an aide said that Sistani had not opened the letter and had put it aside in his office.

Sistani does not approve of the American presence in Iraq, and certainly disapproves of the Bush administration's attempt to unseat Ibrahim Jaafari as the candidate of the United Iraqi Alliance. Middle Easterners have had Western Powers dictate their politics to them for a couple of centuries and are pretty tired of it.

It is rumored that after the December 15 elections, Bush told Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish President of Iraq, that he would prevent the Shiite coalition from taking power this time, which encouraged Talabani to try to unseat Jaafari. Bush's plan, however, would only work if the neo-Baathists, the Sunni fundamentalists, the Kurds and the secular Shiites can consistently work together, and if a substantial number of Shiites defects from the United Iraqi Alliance to help elect a president by 2/3s majority. Pigs will fly first.

Meanwhile, Bush's tinkering with Iraqi politics has contributed mightily to the gridlock in forming a government. Jaafari's bargaining position has been perhaps fatally undermined. And Washington is blaming the Iraqis! At least Bush is a consistent foul-up.


http://www.juancole.com/

( good deal of this is opinions, but nevertheless, good ones)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 06:38 pm
revel wrote:
Quote:
Frankly, we can no longer afford diverting our attention from our real problem to our imagined Bush administration problem.


It is not imagination:

Quote:
Friday, March 31, 2006

Al-Anizi: The US is Training an Insubordinate Iraqi Army
Sistani Blows off Bush
...
Meanwhile, Bush's tinkering with Iraqi politics has contributed mightily to the gridlock in forming a government. Jaafari's bargaining position has been perhaps fatally undermined. And Washington is blaming the Iraqis! At least Bush is a consistent foul-up.

I'll try to be clearer.

Our imagined Bush administration problem is, the Bush administration lied about Iraq possessing WMD and abetting 9/11.

Our real Bush administration problem is, the Bush administration failed to do what is necessary to exterminate the terrorist malignancy in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 10:14 pm
ican711nm wrote:


Our real Bush administration problem is, the Bush administration failed to do what is necessary to exterminate the terrorist malignancy in Iraq.


ican's real problem is that he is suffering from one of the worst known cases of SIS...... Self Imposed Stupidity.

There's nothing imaginary about bu$h, his lies and his obscene, illegal war. There's nothing imaginary about the 2300+ dead soldiers & thousands of innocent bystanders caused by that lying AWOL moron in the oval office.

Bu$h is the cause of the terrorist malignancy in Iraq. Bu$h is the world's foremost terrorist. So why are you supporting terrorism against the Iraqi and against the citizens of this country?

You unpatriotic quack!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 06:52 am
US and UK forces establish 'enduring bases' in Iraq

Quote:
Despite talk of withdrawal 'when the job is done', there are signs that coalition troops will be there for the long term


Quote:
Some analysts believe the desire to establish a long-term US military presence in Iraq was always one of the reasons behind the 2003 invasion. Joseph Gerson, a historian of American military bases, said: "The Bush administration's intention is to have a long-term military presence in the region ... For a number of years the US has sought to use a number of means to make sure it dominates in the Middle East ... The Bush administration sees Iraq as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for its troops and bases for years to come."
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:08 am
From Revel's post:

Quote:
The Bush administration sees Iraq as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for its troops and bases for years to come.


That sounds very true to the Bush administration's thinking.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:14 am
wandeljw wrote:
From Revel's post:

Quote:
The Bush administration sees Iraq as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for its troops and bases for years to come.


That sounds very true to the Bush administration's thinking.


I've read that the US maintains over 700 overseas military bases in about 130 countries, not including those on US territories, so I discount this as a Bush Administration brainchild.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:15 am
Quite right, too--it's a brainchild of the Project for a New American Century.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:20 am
The Project for a New American Century wrote:
-- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region [refers to the Middle East, in the section of the PNAC's web site for that region, and in which this text is found], and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power


Letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott, May, 1998, signed by, among others, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:23 am
Setanta wrote:
Quite right, too--it's a brainchild of the Project for a New American Century.


You make that sound like it's a bad thing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:26 am
Of course, no other conclusion would be intelligent and rational--although i don't doubt that you believe otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:38 am
Setanta wrote:
Of course, no other conclusion would be intelligent and rational--although i don't doubt that you believe otherwise.


It's your opinion, so it comes as no surprise you're convinced it's "intelligent and rational."
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:41 am
Calm down, Tico. You never should have disagreed with me in the first place. Smile
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:54 am
We just got off the bench..let's not return to it.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:58 am
I knew that over half of the reconstruction money had been blown to security measures that were unanticipated. In my stupid assumptions, I assumed that subsequent appropriations had made up for the shortfall.

No wonder there is no good news to report out of Iraq. For one thing, and only just one thing, reconstruction has been ignored, or allowed to lapse.

I'm not surprised that Sistani has not bothered to open Bush's letter. He has lots of other things on his mind.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 09:11 am
wandeljw wrote:
Calm down, Tico. You never should have disagreed with me in the first place. Smile


I'm quite calm I assure you. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 07:45:50