I was stunned by this piece from The Economist when it came out, and expected a furore. But, with the inevitable exception of Tim Dunlop and the unsurprising exception of Nathan Newman, no-one else seems to have noticed (Nathan’s post did get one link, from abulsme.com).
I find this startling. Far more than debates about imminence or WMDs, and even more than the daily drip of guerilla attack and counterattack, the success or failure of the US policy in Iraq depends on getting the economy moving. Any attempts in this direction are doomed to failure, if, as The Economist asserts, the occupying forces have a policy of not employing Iraqis
If this story is correct, and representative of the policies of the occupation forces in general, it’s time to abandon the “you broke it, you own it” stance I’ve advocated previously. Rather than pursue a strategy that is doomed to be an expensive failure, it would be better to pull out immediately, and let the chips fall where they may.
UpdateSteve Edwards also has a good comment on this, and on the US Democrats proposal to turn half the aid to Iraq into loans (I anticipated this some time ago, but not that it would come from the Dems).