|
 |
January 18, 2004 TRADE SHOWS FOR IRAQ....Hey, it turns out the Iraqi reconstruction effort has its own trade show! And it comes complete with its own military/technical-ish capital letter thrown into the middle of the name: ReBuilding Iraq 2. Naomi Klein covered it for the Guardian:
Anyway, it turns out that the biggest problem for the private sector, perhaps unsurprisingly, is that insurance companies are a wee bit reluctant to offer coverage for work in Iraq these days. To the rescue rides Opic, a U.S. government agency willing to go where no private insurance firm is willing to go:
This is Naomi Klein writing, so take the rhetoric with a grain of salt. But it does go to show once again how foolish it was to publicly announce that non-coalition companies couldn't bid for contracts in Iraq. After all, we have plenty of other levers to pull to make sure that Americans get the bulk of the contracts. Posted by Kevin Drum at January 18, 2004 12:01 PM | TrackBackComments
Another source describes a rapid recovery of the Iraqi economy and attributes much of it to the absence of tariffs (which make importing goods for sale more expensive) and the tax moratorium. If Iraq develops a manufacturing base and wants tariffs on selected goods to protect that developing manufacturing, that's a different matter. Tariffs at this point would be paid by Iraqis and I fail to see the point. What is the "Iraqi industry" that she wants to protect ? This is standard leftist rhetoric with a dash of anti-Americanism for spice. Posted by: Mike K at January 18, 2004 12:30 PM | PERMALINKI believe this piece first aired in The Nation a few weeks back. But it's still a good one. The line about this being a neo-con New Deal is brilliant. Let's not forget what this is - a government sponsored intervention into a foreign economy for the benefit of a few corporations. I fail to see how that's necessarily anti-American to point that out, unless it's become anti-American to speak the truth. Maybe it has been. If so no one sent me the memo. Posted by: eugene at January 18, 2004 12:58 PM | PERMALINKBut it does go to show once again how foolish it was to publicly announce that non-coalition companies couldn't bid for contracts in Iraq. Stupid is as stupid does; that means that this administration is among the stupidest of any country, ever. The announcement of the contract policy, though foolish, is merely a drop in a vast sea of foolish action. Posted by: Matt Davis at January 18, 2004 01:02 PM | PERMALINKWhy, pray tell, should old Europe and those who didn't help get anything? Having done nothing, they deserve nothing. Well, Mike K, reading the article would inform you that Ms. Klein is referring to OPIC, or the Overseas Private Insurance Corporation, a US government-funded program that offers insurance against "political risk," which is to say the risk that a sovereign government will expropriate private investment. Without political risk insurance--and there is special private market for such a vehicle--the investment will be forfeit. The CPA is vending Iraqi state industries, perhaps in violation of international law, and permits 100 percent repatriation of profits. Not only is there no Iraqi constitutional protection for private property, there is a dispute over how a constituent assembly might be seated, and sovereignty still resides with the CPA. Therefore, someone who purchased a several formerly government-owned cement plants, say, and spent millions of dollars modernizing them, could discover that the first act of the Islamic Republic of Iraq was to invalidate the CPA sale. But, that private political risk insurance policy would pay, right? No, it won't, because it doesn't exist. Iraq is too risky for any sane private underwriter to quantify the risk. Therefore, the United States government is acting to protect the investments of its own, American, businesses when those private, capitalist, insurers won't. Why not pour money into Iraq? Buy those state assets without the express consent of a sovereign Iraq? Dump the money on them! The risk of expropriation has been shifted from private enterprise--which deems it too dangerous at any price--to the American public. That's a direct state subsidy, one directed at the largest American corporations. It also represents an enormous potential liability should the Iraqis not agree to validate the CPA sales. That's an Americal liablity, by the way, brought to you by the anti-Americans at the Bush Administration. Posted by: Brian C.B. at January 18, 2004 01:10 PM | PERMALINKLotta hullabaloo over a mere $18 billion. That is about one half what we borrow each month just to keep domestic spending at current levels. ...which $1728 billion is part of how Bush took a record surplus to a record deficit. Roll on November... "Having done nothing, they deserve nothing." Are you talking about the innocent Iraqis who were killed during the invasion? They didn't do anything, did they deserve to die? OK, my bad. I can see that you were talking about something else. Obviously, you're referring to the profiteers at Helliburton et al. What blood of theirs was shed that they should profit so? I am totally with you on that one, PP! Since we now know that the reason for our pre-emptive invasion was for the good of the Iraqi people (something that the American populace was confused about, but has been cleared up by one with moral clarity), it seems that contracts for rebuilding should be awarded to maximize their benefit for the Iraqis. Therefore, if Company X proposes to, say, rebuild a bridge for 30% less than Company Y, the contract should go to Company X. This will provide the maximum amount of rebuilding at a minimum cost. (This seems vaguely free market-ish, but I am not an economist, so I wouldn't know.) American taxpayers, who are largely footing the bill for this rebuilding, shouldn't care if Company X is a French company, because it's saving them money, and it's of greatest benefit to the Iraqis, which is why we're there to begin with. Right?? Posted by: josef at January 18, 2004 02:02 PM | PERMALINKAfter all, we have plenty of other levers to pull to make sure that Americans get the bulk of the contracts. This statement assumes that the only point was to limit profits to American firms, rather than making a political statement. Your approach would have made a rather ambiguous statement. Bush's approach did not. And I think that was his point, he wanted a statement that was loud and clear. It is reasonable to question whether he should have made such a loud and clear statement, but that is another issue. Posted by: Proper response at January 18, 2004 02:25 PM | PERMALINKThis seems like the correct policy to me and although it sounds like Kevin doesn't want to admit that fact, he agrees. The point at the end deflects the fact that Kevin really doesn't see this being any other way. Posted by: Chad Peterson at January 18, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKKevin wrote: But it does go to show once again how foolish it was to publicly announce that non-coalition companies couldn't bid for contracts in Iraq. After all, we have plenty of other levers to pull to make sure that Americans get the bulk of the contracts. C'mon, Kevin, surely you recognize a rolled-up newspaper being thwacked across the hind end of a mis-behaving dog when you see it, don't you? The point wasn't to inform the world that non-coalition countries wouldn't participate in getting US funded contracts. The point was to embarrass and humiliate them. The pont was to stick it to them a little, not too hard, but hard enough. That's called, politics at an international level. It worked, too. Remember your (Kevin's) prediction about how the timing of this would make it difficult for Jim Baker to sell the idea of forgiving Iraqi debt to these countries? Hmmm, France, Germany, Russia all went along publicly and said they'd do it (at least partially). Say, maybe the rolled-up newspaper worked! Posted by: Steve White at January 18, 2004 03:11 PM | PERMALINKSteve, Precisely, Kenny. The rolled-up newspaper worked not at all. Instead, it hardened opposition to us. You simply do not "embarrass and humiliate" people from whom you need favors. A shame that the Bush administration has trouble recognizing this basic fact of "politics at an international level." Mike K., the Iraqi industries she wants to protect are things like water, electricity, oil, gas -- the items needed by Iraqis and that are now going to be sold, lock, stock and barrel to the highest American bidder. Posted by: PaulB at January 18, 2004 03:39 PM | PERMALINKMoreover, this ends up being a black eye for the United States with the Iraqis themselves. It is going to be ridiculously easy to spin this as the U.S. looting Iraq and you can damn well bet that's precisely what the Arab news organizations are going to do. Hell, it's already being spun this way. What's going to be interesting is what will happen when a true Iraqi government is formed. That government will have the power to nationalize industries and to overturn the unfortunate decisions made by the CPA. These decisions have the potential to do us damage in so many ways that the mind boggles. Posted by: PaulB at January 18, 2004 03:42 PM | PERMALINKWhy, pray tell, should old Europe and those who didn't help get anything? Having done nothing, they deserve nothing. OK, so it's your party - your Marines can do the dying. You said
you didn't need us or our money and we said all of this was a bad idea. Fine. You clean up the mess. Posted by: floopmeister at January 18, 2004 03:47 PM | PERMALINKThe most interesting thing about the Baker trip was the behavior of the New York Times. Their first version of the story laid it on the line that Baker pretty much hadn't gotten anything. That version of the story was changed a few hours later. With the same reporter's byline and the same information, the story was rewritten to pretend that Baker's trip had been a success. Comparing the two stories was quite interesting. Posted by: PaulB at January 18, 2004 03:56 PM | PERMALINKKevin Drum - At the time of Wolfowitz's announcement of the list, I thought it was foolish mainly for the reason(s) that you allude to. There are so, so many ways to keep others from winning contracts in Iraq, why aggravate tensions by publishing a list? That's why, in the end, we'll see these guys off. They're not as sharp as you'd think. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at January 18, 2004 03:58 PM | PERMALINKWhat's also interesting to me is the subsequent disappearance of
Baker. Remember that he was going to be the savior, the grownup who
took control and got things done. Sadly, his trip flopped and he
disappeared again. ...standard leftist rhetoric... Ho hum. Once again those who disagree are 'the Left'. Mike K, it
might help if you broadened your analysis beyond the old 'Right vs Left'
mantra. This is about more than an internal US Culture War, or about
Clinton's evil legacy vs the new Bush 'vision' blah, blah, blah.... The worldwide and growing anti-American feeling is shared by
people across the political spectrum. There is no sympathy for the
position the US finds itself in, especially in light of the arrogance
Bushco showed towards the US' traditional allies. Get it through your head - you are alone. Even if you allowed
other companies to bid for contracts, do you seriously think populations
in other Western democracies will ever support sending their boys to
die alongside your troops? (Apart from such powerhouses as Poland,
Australia and Thailand, that is...) You get the contracts boyo. Good for you. You also get to police the mess. You are on your own in this quagmire. Get used to it. Posted by: floopmeister at January 18, 2004 04:28 PM | PERMALINKWhy, pray tell, should old Europe and those who didn't help get anything? This principle -- "to the victors belong the spoils" -- would apply in a war of conquest and plunder. That's not what this is, is it? Posted by: rachelrachel at January 18, 2004 06:07 PM | PERMALINKNo one has mentioned that the US taxpayer’s business insurance is only as good as long as American troops are on the ground to enforce it. Once the US Army is gone, Iraq will devolve into civil war or will unify to wipe out any remains of the Christian invasion and occupation. Posted by: Jim S at January 18, 2004 08:02 PM | PERMALINK"Mike K., the Iraqi industries she wants to protect are things like water, electricity, oil, gas -- the items needed by Iraqis and that are now going to be sold, lock, stock and barrel to the highest American bidder." With tariffs ? "The worldwide and growing anti-American feeling is shared by people across the political spectrum." As a critic once said of Katherine Hepburn, "She displayed all the emotions from A to B" That's the political spectrum you quote. "There is no sympathy for the position the US finds itself in, especially in light of the arrogance Bushco showed towards the US' traditional allies." You mean like France and Germany ? Allies ? The French rolled over in 1940 and let us and the Brits save their bacon. The Germans I don't even have to comment about. The biggest foreign policy mistake we and the Brits share is our failure to let the Germans beat the French in 1914.
Got it. When the Russians, as seems to be happening, go off the reservation, we won't be there for the French and Germans next time. We bailed out the French twice and we rebuilt Germany after they tore down their own house, along with everybody else's in Europe. Never again. "Even if you allowed other companies to bid for contracts, do you seriously think populations in other Western democracies will ever support sending their boys to die alongside your troops?" I don't know. How about if the revived Russian Empire is knocking on the door ? I think there is a sea change that the Europeans don't understand. We were attacked this time. After coming to the rescue of Europe twice when we had not been attacked, we get no support when it's our turn. I don't think that will be forgotten. The path of least resistance in 1941 was to concentrate on Japan which had attacked us. The Anglophilia helped to convice us to make Europe first on the agenda. It will be tougher next time and I ndon't think it will fly. "(Apart from such powerhouses as Poland, Australia and Thailand, that is...)" At least we didn't have to feed and clothe them and rebuild their countries. We can feel the hatred. When the Muslims are taking over the French government in 20 years, we can see how well the elite takes it. Or takes off.
We bailed out the French twice... Oh, that was after they
helped you win the War of Independence, wasn't it? And gave you a groovy
statue to put up in NY harbour. I mean, you President's family is good friends with the bin Laden
family - Maybe that's why a whole bunch of bin Ladens were whisked out
of the US after 911 courtesy of the USAF. 'OK, we're fighting Islamic
fundamentalism, so let's attack the only secular Muslim country in the
Middle East' - way to go George! If your population is too brainwashed to read a decent newspaper and/or think for themselves then that's your problem. Not mine. We can feel the hatred. What, of my conservative father in
law? He's as rightwing as they come, and he thinks Bush is a dipstick.
'Well, the bloody idiots went and invaded and now they want our help to
pay for their gas guzzling cars? They must be bloody joking!' You still don't get it, do you? Poll after poll, survey after survey -
people around the world think Bush is a bigger danger to world
stability and peace than bin Laden. When I say 'You're on your own', I mean really 'on your own'. Anti-Americanism is not something you find on 'The Left' - it's across the board, boyo. Posted by: floopmeister at January 18, 2004 09:47 PM | PERMALINKEven the conservative US academic Francis Fukuyama is starting to
talk about 'Anti-Americanism' being the defining force in international
relations for the forseeable future. I don't think it's healthy or even
entirely fair, but it's there. I think you are shocked because it doesn't gel with the image you
have of your own country, but for better or for worse the US must start
some serious soulsearching. You must realise that, right or wrong, for a
huge number of people you are no longer the 'Good Guys'. Bin Laden's a
fascist nutcase - but that doesn't automatically make the US the guys in
the white hats. Drop the Left vs Right 'framing' of the story - it's gone beyond that now. Posted by: floopmeister at January 18, 2004 09:52 PM | PERMALINK"When I say 'You're on your own', I mean really 'on your own'." So what you recommend? Should I find a hiding spot? I mean what can Europe and Asia do to me, other than make my cars and electronics, sell them to me cheap, and take a big hit on worthless treasury bonds I sell them? If I am nicer to them, will they cover my social security retirement, pay my medical bills when I am 90? You don't really expect them to buy my products do you? And the Islamics hate my guts no matter what I do, so who cares.
I suppose you're no longer eligible for the draft, Matt - or else you
have a father who can pull strings and keep you safe, just as George W.
Bush did - so you're not worried that because of Bush's lunatic
strategy of insulting all the US's natural allies, the draft is likely
to have to be reinstated if the Iraqi occupation continues. Matt, don't be such a dipshit. The US simply cannot afford to be the most hated nation on Earth for more than a few years (hopefully the length of a single administration), and it's drivel such as you spout that makes everyone so disgusted with Americans. Put it this way: you've tied up most of your military in Iraq, and it's still a total mess. If the hate gets serious worldwide, the US will be in a world of hurt. Posted by: Magnum at January 19, 2004 05:31 AM | PERMALINKMatt Young is right in a way. In the short term foreign anti-american feelings are not likely to affect his personal life much (as long as he stays in the US). The US as a nation, alone in a hostile international environment, however, certainly will feel the effects (the first thing to skip is the ambitions to be a political and moral leader in the World). It will only damage your country, Matt. Washington Post has a good article today on the missing WMD:s in Iraq and the damaged US credibility. Posted by: MartinE at January 19, 2004 07:27 AM | PERMALINK"Put it this way: you've tied up most of your military in Iraq, and it's still a total mess. If the hate gets serious worldwide, the US will be in a world of hurt." The "world of hurt" is across the Mediterranian from you-know-who. The Europeans can fry their own fish now. France was an ally of Iraq until April 2003. That might possibly have something to do with their attitude. Chirac has invited Schroeder to the Normandy anniversary celebration next June. If we had known these guys were so fond of each other, we could have saved a lot of American lives. The first attack on us failed to do major damage. That was in 1993. The administration in power treated it as a police matter. Next came the African embassies, the Cole, the bomb plot in Manila- again avoided by luck. Everybody in Europe loved Clinton. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't work forever, though. It didn't work in 1938 when the Europeans (except the Czechs) loved Chamberlain. If the French had marched into the Rhineland in 1936 the usual suspects would have been outraged. The League of Nations would have sent them a very stiff letter. Fifty million people would have lived out their lives in peace but no one would have known the difference. If we had not been attacked I would not have supported the Iraqi invasion. We were and I did. I think the Democrats have major problems with credibility on defense and that includes terrorism. I don't know if Iraq will be a success. Maybe Islam is not compatible with democracy. I do know that there is less risk of a nation state supporting terrorists now. Iran is the last major refuge they have and I think most of al Qaeda is there. I know they are Sunnis and the Iranians are Shias. They still make common cause because they hate the west. That includes Europe but they don't fear Europe. They'll take that by immigration and the Europeans will all be sneaking in here from Mexico in 20 years. Posted by: Mike K at January 19, 2004 07:51 AM | PERMALINKPlease. This is too funny. Look at all the ticked off Europeans and "Don't Call Me Left, Righty!!!" Americans!!! And listen to the dire warnings! The USA is now doomed- everybody hates us. Old Europe is struggling to become the "political and moral leader of the world"!!! Oh no! Seriously, this could be bad! The country who is most desperate to gain the upper edge allows 15,000 of its eldest citizens die in one month because of heat, for goodness sakes! I certainly don't want them to be leading ME in moral rightness! No one will ever want to come to the USA again! This is why there has been no uproar over stricter standards for Visas, even for students, right? Well, if this thinking is true, at least it might stem the Brain Drain from across the pond (though it seems rather unlikely). No one will want to sell anything to the USA again! No one will want to buy American! Boycott the USA! We all have noticed the tremendous hit the US ecomony has taken due to Mecca Cola! Wow! Even worse, it might become ill-advised to leave the USA, if you're an American. Well, we'll see what happens. I haven't heard of any "hate crimes" against Americans per se in Europe- it seems that the focus right now is on Jewish people there. The funniest, though, are warnings of the draft being reinstated. That is not going to happen for Iraq- what a joke. Keeping your soliders in the military, and calling up former soliders, is common in wartime. It does not constitute the "draft" under any but rather daftish definitions. While it is true that the USA could be in trouble if the rest of the world turned on it, I don't see it happening in the near future. The rest of the world would need to take some time to build up its military and stock it. I can easily imagine some Middle Eastern countries attempting to get nukes and planning to take out the USA. But hey, that's why there's a war on terror, eh? Anyhoo, snark away and carry on. It's good to see the adrenaline flowing around here! The funniest, though, are warnings of the draft being reinstated. That is not going to happen for Iraq- what a joke. Nice snark, Jennetic. Now explain how you propose to continue the US
occupation of Iraq, which is already understaffed and likely to get
worse. I wrote: "Mike K., the Iraqi industries she wants to protect are things like water, electricity, oil, gas -- the items needed by Iraqis and that are now going to be sold, lock, stock and barrel to the highest American bidder." Mike responded: "With tariffs?" Sigh...no, Mike, not with tariffs, but with protection of Iraqi resources. Ownership of Iraqi resources by Iraqis and for the benefit of Iraqis, with the profits remaining in Iraq. Tariffs are completely irrelevant to that point. Sheesh.... Mike also wrote: "I think there is a sea change that the Europeans don't understand. We were attacked this time." Actually, they understand it quite well, which is why there was so much sympathy for us and so many offers of help with the war on Afghanistan. We still have foreign troops assisting us there, including troops from France and Germany. However, Iraq didn't attack us and didn't have a damn thing to do with the people who did attack us. The rest of the world recognizes this. "France was an ally of Iraq until April 2003." You must have a different definition of the word "ally" than the rest of the world does. "I do know that there is less risk of a nation state supporting terrorists now" Hell, we made that clear in Afghanistan. We didn't need Iraq to make that point. Moreover, most of the "nation state supporting terrorists" didn't come from official government support, anyway, and it has not really been affected by the Iraq war. "Iran is the last major refuge they have..." That's just laughable. Jennetic wrote: "???" Well, frankly, I'm not entirely sure just what the hell Jennetic's point was since there wasn't any content in that strawman-laden rant and since Jennetic completely missed the substance of the arguments being raised here. The worst part of this blowback, by the way, would be the intelligence support, or lack thereof, from the rest of the world. We need the cooperation of the rest of the world if we're really serious about the "war on terror." Posted by: PaulB at January 19, 2004 09:10 AM | PERMALINKAs the story goes, the Strawman had the brain all along. It just took a grand adventure and the falling out of the Wizard mirage for him ind it out. Huh. The entire world needs help regarding the war on terror. Terrorism is a serious threat in the US, in France, in Britain, in Ireland, in Iraq- throughout the world. Somehow, I doubt that the rest of the world is going to start ignoring US intelligence. Just a hunch. NOTE: this is not to imply that there were serious errors and that the US intelligence agencies need improvement. It is to note that contrary to many posters here, the US is not on a road to doom over it. Posted by: jennetic at January 19, 2004 09:51 AM | PERMALINKThe bitterness you can sense from people like Mike and Jennetic is quite telling, and they no doubt express the sentiments of a considerable part of the American public. Sometimes I wonder if the US isn't after all on the brink to one of its isolationist periods in its history (listen to Thomas Jefferson, stay home, forget about empire-building and being the policeman of the world). It may or may not be better for the rest of the world. Posted by: MartinE at January 19, 2004 09:54 AM | PERMALINKWell, see, Jennetic, nobody here is predicting that we're on the "road to doom," which explains the use of the term "strawman." You wrote: "Somehow, I doubt that the rest of the world is going to start ignoring US intelligence. Just a hunch." Nice way to completely miss the point, just as you've missed everyone else's points. Let me spell it out for you: 1. We need the intelligence reports and the cooperation of the intelligence agencies of the rest of the countries of the world. 2. We need the cooperation of foreign governments to help stop the flow of money to terrorists and to help stop terrorist plans before they become reality. 3. We need the rest of the world to take our intelligence reports seriously and to view our threat assessments as credible. 4. We need the cooperation of the rest of the world in turning Iraq into a viable democracy, as witnessed by the fact that we are now going, hat in hand, to the UN to ask for help and by the fact that we have asked quite a few countries for financial assistance. All of these points, plus several others I could make, are being damaged by the idiotic policies of the current U.S. administration. Are we "on the road to doom?" Of course not. Have the Bush administration's policies hampered the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, thereby lowering the chance of a successful outcome there, and have those policies lowered the chances of a successful outcome in the "war on terror"? Damn right. Posted by: PaulB at January 19, 2004 10:14 AM | PERMALINKI think I agree with Jennetic on at least one count. The US is pretty unlikely to introduce a draft to continue the occupation of Iraq. More likely to me is the scenario in which victory is declared in the next couple of months, followed by a slow reduction in forces occupying Iraq. What happens in Iraq after that is anybody's guess. Barring another terrorist incident in the US, I just don't see that it is very likely that the US will attack anyone in the near future. The list of easily defeated nations just isn't that long, though it might include Syria. The whole of the Iraq War seems very odd to me. Much of the coverage, at least in the US, seems to focus on justifying why the war was necessary in the first place or in coverage of various violent incidents which occur on a daily basis in Iraq. Very few questions are being asked about the mechanics of rebuilding, or the plausibility of constructing a Western style democracy. Whenever these issues arise, they seem to be answered with a series of platitudes about democracy, free markets, etc., eminating from some sort of official. This seems very out of place, as these questions, together with security, are fundamental for most Iraqis, ostensibly the beneficiaries of the invasion. Posted by: Roland at January 19, 2004 10:20 AM | PERMALINK""France was an ally of Iraq until April 2003." You must have a different definition of the word "ally" than the rest of the world does." No. Trying to block sanctions, selling missiles, assuring Saddam that they would block an invasion in the UN. Stuff like that. ""Iran is the last major refuge they have..." That's just laughable." Who then ? They can hide out in northern Pakistan but the cell phone reception is not too good there. They really need a nation state anjd its infrastructure. That was the error of the Clinton approach. Posted by: Mike K at January 19, 2004 10:27 AM | PERMALINKSure, Roland. The problem with continuing the US occupation of Iraq as a virtually-unilateral operation is that it's unworkable as is. The US simply doesn't have enough boots on the ground to function. As I see it, there are three options: 1. Re-instate the draft. I can see Bush & Co doing this if Bush finagles the election at the end of this year. After all, he and his cronies can be confident that no son of theirs will be drafted. 2. Invest a lot more money into funding the Reservists. A lot of reservists are saying they're not going to sign up again because their families have been suffering financial hardship at home while they were in Iraq. Pay cuts for the military, cuts in benefits, none of this is going to help in even maintaining the current size of the military and the reservists, let alone making it grow. Problem with that, especially for Bush & Co: how to pay for it. Tax cuts are a Bush & Co priority, not money spent that will ultimately help poor people. 3. Get international help. This is clearly and plainly impossible for Bush & Co: they simply don't have the diplomatic nous, and they've spent three years screwing up US foreign relationships. But the obvious solution is, in fact, the one I think Bush & Co will go for: dishonorable, fast, and cheap. Declare "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq (again) and pull out, removal scheduled as suits the November elections. They can't afford to do it too early, they don't want to risk doing it too late. I'll be interested to see what date Bush picks to declare everything a success and troops home. I was no supporter of the Iraq invasion. But the fact is, once the US
is in, it's in. It ought not to be withdrawing just to suit Bush's
election plans. But I think that's just exactly what's going to happen. Jesurgislac I think I saw on the news that something like a 20 percent force reduction was in the works. I don't know if this is a trial ballon or not. It seems like your scenario is the most likely one. A re-instated draft would have some pretty serious electoral consequences for Republicans and Democrats who have hitched their wagons to Bush, even if it was a lame duck proposal. Of course, this reasoning goes out the window if there is a new attack in the next couple of years. My greatest fear about the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation was never the success of the military operation. After all, the Hussein was genuinely despised in his own country and the Iraqi army had been crippled by 12 years of sanctions. However, if reconstruction was done ineptly or on the cheap, the resulting instability in Iraq could lead to a bad outcome. Posted by: Roland at January 19, 2004 11:08 AM | PERMALINKThe latest troop 'rotation' already has a reduction in forces. My prediction all along is that we declare Mission Accomplished, pull many troops out, and barricade the rest on bases in Iraq. What happens to Iraq? Will anyone be looking? Civil war, and a theocracy in all or at least most of it. It is already happening. But the US people won't be paying attention. The spin will be 'We tried. We got rid of Saddam. The Iraqi people (aka muslims) screwed it up.' This itself is happening. The warbloggers had a darling in 'Healing Iraq,' but now that he is reporting negative stuff they say he has 'gone Riverbend on us.' Maybe Cheney will support a coup with his special forces, or maybe we'll just let them go down the tubes. This time next year few Americans will know much of what is happening in Iraq. Posted by: Tripp at January 19, 2004 11:39 AM | PERMALINK"PARIS, Jan 19 (Reuters) - France's drive to better integrate its five million Muslims looked shaken on Monday after a weekend of protests against a looming ban on Islamic veils and a bomb attack on the car of a senior public official of Muslim origin. The veiled schoolgirls chanting "Allahu Akbar" (God is greater) in marches across France and the bomb that destroyed the car of the newly appointed prefect for the eastern Jura area have cast doubt over the policy of winning support among moderate Muslims." Reuters seems to be agreeing with me about the future of France. Will French illegal aliens be eligible for amnesty ? Posted by: Mike K at January 19, 2004 12:11 PM | PERMALINKYep, according to Ms. Klein, it would be unsufferably horrible if Iraq were to be reintegrated into the global economy and its per capita income was, say, doubled over the next fifteen years or so, especially if -- gasp!-- American companies made some money on it. Far better to remain pure as the driven snow under Saddam's totally incompetent command economy (don't forget the brutal dictatorship part) that destroyed Iraq's once-considerable wealth, savaged its professional classes, and spent resources on WMD and conventional weapons while its people (especially the disfavored 80% who weren't Sunnis) were killed (Kurds and Shia), deliberately impoverished (Marsh Arabs), and brutalized by a totalitarian fascist state torture apparatus. Posted by: Daniel Calto at January 19, 2004 12:34 PM | PERMALINKMike K. wrote: "No. Trying to block sanctions, selling missiles, assuring Saddam that they would block an invasion in the UN. Stuff like that." Sigh.... In order: 1. Quite a few countries and individuals had a problem with the sanctions, including quite a few people in the U.S. By this standard, half the countries in the world were Iraq's "allies." 2. If weapons sales are the criteria, then the U.S. is an "ally" of most of the world's nations. That's just silly. 3. This one is simply false. I read the Drudge report but I also read the more detailed information provided by other news sources. This simply didn't happen the way that the pro-war folks tried to spin it. In short, I stand by what I wrote. France was not an "ally" of Iraq by any meaningful sense of that term. "Who then?" Why are you assuming they need a nation as an ally? "They can hide out in northern Pakistan" And in Saudi Arabia and in Libya and in Iraq and in Syria and in..... "They really need a nation state anjd its infrastructure." Why? Terrorist organizations have been around for decades; very few of them have any official or even unofficial connection with a nation state. Look, al Qaida is a loosely affiliated organization of any number of
smaller terrorist groups. These groups are in countries all over the
world, but are not directly connected to any one nation state.
Afghanistan was the exception, not the rule. And that is the
fundamental flaw with the Bush administration's current "war on terror." Um, Daniel, when you're actually ready to talk about the real issues instead of throwing up some rather hilarious strawmen, feel free to come back. Until then, forgive me if I fail to engage your rather ridiculous statements. Posted by: PaulB at January 19, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINKMike - "Trying to block sanctions" Nope, they didn't. "selling missiles" Any actual evidence for this claim ? "assuring Saddam that they would block an invasion in the UN." Did they ? When ? What france did say was that as far as they could see the Iraqi weapon program was blocked or frozen , a war was not in line with UN resolutions and as such they would veto an attempt to get a resolution authorising force unless evidence was produced to prove otherwise. Guess the french were right. Posted by: kenny at January 19, 2004 01:05 PM | PERMALINKPaulB: Funny, I wasn't under the impression that this was your blog. My point is a simple one: Iraq's integration into the global economy will be a major improvement over the long decline and stagnation Iraq suffered under Saddam's regime. If you're too stupid to get the point, it's not my problem. Posted by: Daniel Calto at January 19, 2004 04:31 PM | PERMALINK"Look, al Qaida is a loosely affiliated organization of any number of smaller terrorist groups. These groups are in countries all over the world, but are not directly connected to any one nation state. Afghanistan was the exception, not the rule. And that is the fundamental flaw with the Bush administration's current "war on terror."" That is the position of the Clinton Administration. Agreed. The present cadre of terrorists will not last long. Over 1,000 have been killed or captured in 2003. They need training sites. Once they had Libya. No more. They have the Bekka Valley but Syria is going to be very nervous about who their tenants are from now on. The Pakistan mountains will shelter some but it looks as though the assassination attempt on Musharraf has convinced him to crack down (one bomb driver was a Chechen.). The meetings with India may settle Kashmir and help him to clean out ISI. They need a new site. The Saudis found a small site in the "empty corner" of Arabia. That's closed. Iran may not be safe for them much longer. We're winning. I'm sure that depresses you.
The Pakistan mountains will shelter some but it looks as though
the assassination attempt on Musharraf has convinced him to crack down
(one bomb driver was a Chechen.) You blithely assert he's 'cracking down'. Umm, hello - there have
been two serious attempts on his life, one of which obviously came from
within the ISI or with inside knowledge. The Islamists have infiltrated
the army and security forces to a huge extent. Well, he'll need a huge
broom to 'clean out' the ISI, and he has no power base with which to do
it. remember, these are the same terrorist training madrassas that the
US supported and funded for years so you could destabilise Afghanistan
for cheap. Two provinces bordering Afghanistan have elected pro-Taliban
governments (plenty of room to hide 'some', as you call them). He's
considered a pro-US stooge. How the hell do you think he's going to do
any 'cracking down'? He's too busy trying to stay in power. If he makes any serious attempt to 'crack down', he'll find
himself hanging from a lamppost on the Islamabad city limits. You know,
like the puppet Soviet Afghan president that your 'heroes', the
mujahaddin/Taliban, deposed in the fight against Communism. The same
ones you trained and armed and supported... oh, forget it. And all this in a country with nuclear weapons. You know, real WMD's, not the ones thought up by Karl Rove. And to top it all of, the Indian elite and general population
hates you, for your decades of support for the very Islamic forces in
Pakistan that you're now 'fighting'. Who do you think the Indians blame
for terrorist acts in their country? Why, the US trained and supported
Islamists, of course. Ooops, there goes your only real democratic ally on the subcontinent... But don't worry, because We're winning! Mike K. — We're winning. I'm sure that depresses you. Actually, what depresses me is unwarranted, worthless, jingoistic and just plain pin-headed comments like yours. Obviously, you and I see things differently; no doubt each of us is firmly convinced we're right, that the evidence is on our side. (The difference is that I'm actually right. Kidding! Kidding!) That's no reason to accuse me of gloating over bloody bodies, or for me to accuse you of fascism. Agreed? As for your "we're winning" assertion — seems like a lot of wishful thinking to me. Musharraf has next to no control over the ISI, which is thoroughly infiltrated by Taliban sympathizers; if he can meaningfully crack down on them, great. I just don't see it. The new talks may settle the Kashmir issue; they may not. I haven't seen any efforts to exert more control over the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan; if I've missed something, please let me know. Also, you're completely ignoring Southeast Asia. There's a huge Islamic presence there, complete with radical guerilla factions, and it's really difficult to patrol and secure skillions of islands. Anyway, we'll see. You may think that I'm focusing too much on the negatives (which are the things we need to deal with, right?) but your case for "we're winning" reminds me an awful lot of the Perle/Rummy "flowers and candy" mantra. Posted by: nina at January 20, 2004 04:54 AM | PERMALINKActually, Mike K, we have no way of knowing whether we're winning or not because our intelligence just isn't that good. To your signs of progress, I could counter with the recent estimate that al Qaida is being more successful in recruiting as a result of the Iraq war and that a recent analysis found that we were doing a lousy job of blocking the funding of terrorist organizations. Moreover, your assertion that they need a nation state is flatly wrong. There are literally thousands of terrorist organizations all over the world. The overwhelming majority of them have no connection with a nation state, officially or unofficially. Why would you assume they need large scale training sites? That's an absurd notion. Sure, they took advantage of the space offered in Afghanistan. Made good use of it, too, from what I can see. But terrorist organizations have thrived for years as small cells, conducting training and meetings in apartments, private homes, and so on. And then there's always mountains, caves and forests around, particularly in the remote regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. I repeat: Afghanistan is the exception, not the rule. There are times when it is appropriate to use military resources in the "war on terror." Afghanistan was one such time. The rest of the time, we need security, international cooperation, intelligence, and yes, old-fashioned police investigations and arrests. This is just common sense. Posted by: PaulB at January 20, 2004 12:37 PM | PERMALINKA good friend can tell you what is the matter with you in a minute. He may not seem such a good friend after telling. Posted by: Wilson Julie at March 17, 2004 04:56 PM | PERMALINKpecunia non olet ... as say italians. Posted by: buy viagra online at April 19, 2004 08:28 AM | PERMALINKAll Online Casino Gambling sites chosen & recommended here at Online Casino have been thoroughly tested by us for fairness, reliability, online casino game play realism, casino payout percentages, game speed, and bonuses. We have tested hundreds of casino sites ourselves in an effort to bring you the very best online casino promotions. The following is a small sampling of internet casino - only the best from Online Casino Rewards. http://www.666-casino.com Posted by: casino at May 12, 2004 11:11 PM | PERMALINKThere has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra best pill, or visit these sites for news buy levitra and side effects. Try tramadol for pain relief. Please be patient soma best prices. Best scheme is fioricet that go to. Also you can buy cheap propecia for hair loss. Try to loose weight with the best phentermine pill , the best choice also is adipex pill. Also do not forget to start your phentermine diet pills. Please look at your wardrobe at see if youhave a dose of cialis or big feet levitra drug. But many many time ago cialis is best. Dont you think. I reallylike buy cialis because it makes me feelgood. You can go online to apply for payday loan, you can also try to get a loan , but best for you will be mortgage application. Try to get your free debt consolidation service here! Please advise if you have the money.Try to see if you free credit report is good. I really recommend you startr workinng, because this will improve very much your money and with this i hope you can get much high free credit report score. That's for sure. If you do not have them, please try gambling online , you have pretty good chances in this casino Las Vegas , you can try all the games in the casino, but I prefer to play poker and also you can try the best online game blackjack even more go to the board and play bingo too best wishes. You can try the to contact ne if you want on best personals dating service sites. It is pretty populat to go chatting in those dating sites. Posted by: phentermine at May 15, 2004 05:01 PM | PERMALINKphentermine online and adipex is the fastest growing online source for buy phentermine and buy adipex prescription medication that phentermine you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for cheap adipex and cheap phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/ Posted by: buy phentermine at May 15, 2004 05:01 PM | PERMALINKThe professor makes the syllabus, not you. Do you need urgent cash till pay day? Now? Payday loan online is alot easier faster and less hassle then going to your bank for a personal loan or credit card.Payday on your paycheck, usually ranging from $100 to $500. What is a payday loan? Payday loans are meant to help tie you over when you are short on cash between paychecks. http://www.payday-loan-payday.com Posted by: payday loan at May 26, 2004 02:45 PM | PERMALINKReality is not affected by our apprehension of it. Hmmmmm interesting zapraszamy po czadowe gry java na gry java, You can find the best nokia ringtones and logo at
Online Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com Posted by: tramadol at June 30, 2004 02:56 PM | PERMALINKSorry to keep you Tramadol, but there Tramadol HCL is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Ultram Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.x-tramadol.com Posted by: tramadol at June 30, 2004 02:56 PM | PERMALINKGot here Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com Posted by: fioricet at June 30, 2004 02:56 PM | PERMALINKUltram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability fioricet of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com Posted by: fioricet at June 30, 2004 02:56 PM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm or visit these sites for news and side effects : http://www.one-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at June 30, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKWe provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Levitra that is true Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com Posted by: levitra at June 30, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKThat is the case tramadol is one of the best pain ever treatments the world. Most think and use ave taken cheap tramadol is best to relieve all kind of buy tramadol pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By reducing the amount of pain signals that travel throughout the body, tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! buy tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.i-buy-tramadol.com Posted by: buy tramadol at June 30, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.hot-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at June 30, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKBest buy ultram fioricet reversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 and thus online fioricet yeah, because this is the true Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others fioricet explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.fioricet-online-fioricet.com Posted by: buy fioricet at June 30, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.new-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at June 30, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.top-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at June 30, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKWe provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Levitra that is true Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.hot-levitra.com Posted by: levitra at June 30, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKNUTSONSLUTS PISS MOPS SEX PRANKS MOVIES SHELBY BELLE THE MEAT HOLE WHITE MEAT ON BLACK STREET aboslutely male blowjob auditions blow job quickies frank wank pics Posted by: ashton moore at June 30, 2004 07:46 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - more Posted by: the best online casinos in the world of casino at August 21, 2004 05:20 AM | PERMALINKIn your free time, check some relevant pages in the field of http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.worldwide-em.com/ online poker http://www.tramadol90.net/ tramadol http://www.buyviagra50.net/ viagra http://www.onlinepharmacy2004.net/ online pharmacy http://www.bestbuys-online.net/ phentermine http://www.mrspike.biz/ viagra http://www.online-deals99.com/ online poker http://www.onlinecasino-4u.com/ online casino http://www.texasholdem777.net/ texas hold em http://www.viagrapills100.com/ viagra http://www.online-deals24x7.com/ texas hold em http://www.online-shop-24x7.com/ online pharmacy http://www.online-casino-4u.com/ online casino http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.online-pharmacy-24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.tramadol-pills.net/ tramadol http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em http://www.online-pharmacy-pills-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.bestonline-shopping.com/ online pharmacy http://www.worldwide-games.net/ blackjack http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ online casino http://www.worldwide-21.com/ online casino ... Thanks!!! Posted by: viagra at August 22, 2004 02:03 AM | PERMALINKYou may find it interesting to check some relevant pages dedicated to http://www.phentermine-today.com/ phentermine http://www.melincs.org/ phentermine http://www.bestonline-medication.com/ tramadol http://www.worldwide-online-pharmacy.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-poker-winner.net/ online poker http://www.online-pharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.blackjack777.net/ blackjack http://www.tramadol90.net/ tramadol http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ online casino http://www.worldwide-games.net/ blackjack http://www.sydney-harbour.info/ online casino http://www.worldwide-21.com/ online casino http://www.phentermine-experts.com/ phentermine http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em http://www.viagra-100-deals.com/ viagra http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol http://www.mrspike.biz/ viagra http://www.black-jack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.viagra-online-sales.net/ viagra http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.texas-hold-em-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.online-poker-555.com/ online poker - Tons of interesdting stuff!!! Posted by: phentermine at August 22, 2004 02:04 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
