Iraq Reconstruction Foibles

You can watch Waxman's hearings yourself -

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1167

The last few days have been pretty damn funny, watching contractors squirm as they can't answer questions

Cycloptichorn

Re: Iraq Reconstruction Foibles


all of it... I get annoyed when squinney puts a can in the trash instead of the recycle bin... I hate waste of all types....

Why are we rebuilding it anyway?

Um, 'break it, bought it?'

I learned that one when I was three

Cycloptichorn

What angers me the most is the number of Iraqis getting paid to do any of the reconstruction... so what are they left with but shoot down helicopters.

I've just been hearing snips of the hearings on the radio. Maybe I should watch the video..... maybe I should wait until this weekend.

I had assumed all this would continue to be swept under a rug, and never really paid much attention from then on. Glad to see they are finally taking notice.

So acting as the three year old you are, you can not provide a more representative answer to a basic question?

How about something like this for a responsible answer.

The intentions of the allied nations is to bring a form of Jeffersonian Democracy to this backwards nation. In order to do that, they feel it is in there interest to rebuild infrastructure, establish a Constitution, and bring elections to the people.

Or how about this:

The poor post-war planning on the side of the invading nations spawned a civil war, where the several parties involved rely heavily on guerilla tactics. Meanwhile, Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists, where recruits from all over the world (including western nations) flock to in order to cause harm primarily to the United States, but also in order to obstruct the re-establishing of a government which would actually have control over the country and react harshly to the threat of terrorism.

Alas, due to the nature of the conflict, it has become almost impossible to win the war with military means alone. The best safeguard against the complete lapsing into a state where terrorist would roam a country freely and with tentative support from the civilian population would be a society with objects terrorist means as a means of solving a conflict.

In order to raise awareness for the problems of terrorism (rather than the possible solution to the problems, that many seem to see in terrorist tactics) and in order to create a functioning civil society, it is somewhat necessary to raise the standard of living to at least a minimum level, so that people can walk the streets without the risk of being blown up or abducted and tortured to death, where people can go about their business without continues electricity failure, where people can live a life without worrying about where to get potable water from, etc. etc.

I'm sorry to say this but it does seem that only the Americans could ship 340 tons of cash into a war zone and then be surprised when a lot of it goes missing.

Robert Fisk: Iraqi insurgents offer peace in return for US concessions
For the first time, Sunni insurgents disclose their conditions for ceasefire in Iraq
Published: 09 February 2007
For the first time, one of Iraq's principal insurgent groups has set out the terms of a ceasefire that would allow American and British forces to leave the country they invaded almost four years ago.

The present terms would be impossible for any US administration to meet - but the words of Abu Salih Al-Jeelani, one of the military leaders of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Resistance Movement show that the groups which have taken more than 3,000 American lives are actively discussing the opening of contacts with the occupation army.

Al-Jeelani's group, which also calls itself the "20th Revolution Brigades'', is the military wing of the original insurgent organisation that began its fierce attacks on US forces shortly after the invasion of 2003. The statement is, therefore, of potentially great importance, although it clearly represents only the views of Sunni Muslim fighters.

Shia militias are nowhere mentioned. The demands include the cancellation of the entire Iraqi constitution - almost certainly because the document, in effect, awards oil-bearing areas of Iraq to Shia and Kurds, but not to the minority Sunni community. Yet the Sunnis remain Washington's principal enemies in the Iraqi war.

"Discussions and negotiations are a principle we believe in to overcome the situation in which Iraqi bloodletting continues," al-Jeelani said in a statement that was passed to The Independent. "Should the Americans wish to negotiate their withdrawal from our country and leave our people to live in peace, then we will negotiate subject to specific conditions and circumstances."

Al-Jeelani suggests the United Nations, the Arab League or the Islamic Conference might lead such negotiations and would have to guarantee the security of the participants.

Then come the conditions:

* The release of 5,000 detainees held in Iraqi prisons as "proof of goodwill".

* Recognition "of the legitimacy of the resistance and the legitimacy of its role in representing the will of the Iraqi people".

* An internationally guaranteed timetable for all agreements.

* The negotiations to take place in public.

* The resistance "must be represented by a committee comprising the representatives of all the jihadist brigades".

* The US to be represented by its ambassador in Iraq and the most senior commander.

It is not difficult to see why the Americans would object to those terms. They will not want to talk to men they have been describing as "terrorists" for the past four years. And if they were ever to concede that the "resistance" represented "the will of the Iraqi people" then their support for the elected Iraqi government would have been worthless.

Indeed, the insurgent leader specifically calls for the "dissolution of the present government and the revoking of the spurious elections and the constitution..."

He also insists that all agreements previously entered into by Iraqi authorities or US forces should be declared null and void.

But there are other points which show that considerable discussion must have gone on within the insurgency movement - possibly involving the group's rival, the Iraqi Islamic Army.

They call, for example, for the disbandment of militias and the outlawing of militia organisations - something the US government has been urging the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to do for months.

The terms also include the legalisation of the old Iraqi army, an "Anglo-American commitment to rebuild Iraq and reconstruct all war damage" - something the occupying powers claim they have been trying to do for a long time - and integrating "resistance fighters" into the recomposed army.

Al-Jeelani described President George Bush's new plans for countering the insurgents as "political chicanery" and added that "on the field of battle, we do not believe that the Americans are able to diminish the capability of the resistance fighters to continue the struggle to liberate Iraq from occupation ...

"The resistance groups are not committing crimes to be granted a pardon by America, we are not looking for pretexts to cease our jihad... we fight for a divine aim and one of our rights is the liberation and independence of our land of Iraq."

There will, the group says, be no negotiations with Mr Maliki's government because they consider it "complicit in the slaughter of Iraqis by militias, the security apparatus and death squads". But they do call for the unity of Iraq and say they "do not recognise the divisions among the Iraqi people".

It is not difficult to guess any American response to those proposals. But FLN [National Liberation Front] contacts with France during the 1954-62 war of independence by Algeria began with such a series of demands - equally impossible to meet but which were eventually developed into real proposals for a French withdrawal.

What is unclear, of course, is the degree to which al-Jeelani's statement represents the collective ideas of the Sunni insurgents. And, ominously, no mention is made of al-Qa'ida.