In this post, I mentioned that I hadn’t seen any commentary from pro-war bloggers on reports that the US will spend no more on Iraqi infrastructure once the current allocation of $18 billion, most of which was diverted to military projects, is exhausted. Although there was lengthy discussion both here and at Crooked Timber, no one pointed to any examples of comments on the topic.
I said at the time I didn’t want to get into a “Silence of the Hawks” pointscoring exercise on this. As a general rule, no particular blogger is obliged to post on any particular topic. But I would have thought, if you made it your business to report regularly on Iraqi reconstruction, that such a report was worth covering or correcting.
The Winds of Change website gives a weekly report on Iraq, with a focus on reconstruction news. It appears to be a successor to Chrenkoff’s Good News from Iraq, though less relentlessly upbeat. This week’s report contains no mention of the end of reconstruction funding. In case the WOC editors missed it, the WP report is here.
Update Armed Liberal at WoC responds (graciously) to this provocation, calling the Administration’s decision “bizarre” and pointing to an earlier critique of the wiretapping policy. That still leaves the policy undefended, so I thought I’d try again.
Instapundit is usually quick to disseminate pro-Administration talking points (for example on wiretapping) and has posted regularly on Iraqi reconstruction. Only a month ago, Instapundit linked to an Austin Bay post headed (rather ironically in retrospect) The White House Finally Gets Serious About Iraqi Reconstruction. So, now that the nature of “seriousness” in the White House has become clear, does Glenn Reynolds support the cessation of reconstruction funding? Does anybody? End update
Oddly enough WOC links to a WP piece from October 2004 on the diversion of funds to military purposes with the revealing quote
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said in a written statement that the administration always knew that “reconstructing Iraq’s infrastructure would require enormous resources beyond what the Congress appropriated — after 30 years of neglect, decay and corruption.”
Whitman said the United States is working to ensure it is “not starting any project without finishing it.”
Presumably that statement does not apply to the big project of building a “peaceful and prosperous” Iraq.
Winds of Change has done a more reasonable job than many of presenting a case for war, but they’ve relied heavily on the assumption that the Administration is committed to the task of leaving Iraq, in its own words “peaceful and prosperous”. Now that the second of these goals has been abandoned, thereby undermining the first (which in any case looks further away than ever), I’d be interested to know if their views have changed.
A final note on all this is that Kim Beazley, has finally called for the withdrawal of Coalition troops from Iraq, arguing, correctly in my view, that their presence is doing more harm than good. Given Beazley’s extreme caution and love of all things military, he must really believe that the whole project is beyond any chance of redemption.
John Quiggin 
No need to rage, Pablito. The sun will rise again in the morning.
Libertarian socialism
IG, the ovewrthrow of the Iraqi monarchy was followed by atrocities, the beginning of a downward slope in methods and standards applied to people, and (as part of that) actual expression was given to antisemitism. (The squeezing out of Iraqi Jews was not, however, as Zionists like to claim all of a piece with their squeezing out of Palestinians a decade earlier – they were distinct.)
However, this isn’t a simple case of causality. It actually stems from the loss of British influence and the collapse of the Baghdad Pact following the misguided US (lack of) statesmanship over Suez. This isn’t hindsight speaking – precisely these reasons were provided by European diplomats. They were all dismissed as hogwash because none of the big boys had any sense of history and the time scales involved.
But the USA was being told repeatedly why there were empires, and what they involved, from at least the ’30s – and applied brute force and ignorance threw away all the benefits of the sunk costs after 1945, probably starting with the Dutch. The USA created today’s problems of this sort, and has no excuse for not knowing – they were told at the time.
sorry Katz, I forgot, both sides of Congress are in on the conspiracy.
Gee, getting a bit heated around here chaps. How about spreading some rose water and flowers around?
Beazley is wrong just as Latham was. The reasons for remaining in Iraq are distinct from the reasons for going there in the first place. As The Economist puts it this week, most Iraqis (Shia and Kurds make up 80% of the population) support the aims of the Americans and many Sunni voted in the recent referendum. Those Islamic terrorists who blow up mosques in Bhagdad and at Palastininian weddings in Jordan should be defeated and will be as muslims themselves come to see them for what they are. But it will take time and will be costly in terms of blood and money.
Gradually military operations should be turned over to Iraqis but a precipitous withdrawal would encourage the murderous fanatics. The cost of Americans remaining in Iraq is high as pointed out on this blog before but the costs of withdrawing will be worse.
Attempts to privartise infrastructure in Iraq should cease and an emphasis placed on getting young Iraqi males back to work whether it be collecting garbage or constructing buildings. The important thing is to increase the capacity of the Iraqi economy to absorb new investment — this will mainly be via public rather than private investments given expectations of violence and instability. Its not just the volume of investment but the ability of the economy to absorb it.
“Attempts to privartise infrastructure in Iraq should cease and an emphasis placed on getting young Iraqi males back to work whether it be collecting garbage or constructing buildings.”
How is this to happen with no more US reconstruction funding? The Iraqi government can barely pay its bills as it is, even with high oil prices.
Miss your point on that one John. I agree the Iraqi government is broke and non-military investment and other aid should continue. There was no implication in anything I wrote that US reconstruction investment or other non-military aid should cease. Just keep investment public and emphasise employment creation at this stage.
I think this is crucial to stabilising situation in Iraq.
US reconstruction funding won’t get young Iraqi males back to work. That is something young Iraqi males have to do themselves and they should not look to the government, either Iraq’s or the US’ to get them back to work.
“The important thing is to increase the capacity of the Iraqi economy to absorb new investment”
This is such a key point, and one you don’t hear much about.
A quick lesson in civics for W by W.
1. The majority determines what’s in a Senate Committee report.
2. Kwiatkowski never testified to the Senate Committee on Intelligence.
The Senate Committee on Intelligence tipped a bucket on Kwiatkowski without ever testing her evidence.
“The important thing is to increase the capacity of the Iraqi economy to absorb new investment — this will mainly be via public rather than private investments given expectations of violence and instability.”
Not sure I agree with you here. Private investment from all over the world would move into Iraq in a heartbeat. Iraqi’s have only to clear the path for it to do so.
Avaroo. let me guess – lower wages, cut taxes and remove any remaining labor laws.
What’s the old saying: “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”?
“Avaroo. let me guess – lower wages, cut taxes and remove any remaining labor laws.”
I haven’t a clue what you’re referring to.
Well that’s the standard right wing prescription for encouraging private investment.
If you had some other idea in mind let’s hear it.
Katz on said January 12th, 2006 at 7:56 am “A quick lesson in civics for W by W.”
“1. The majority determines what’s in a Senate Committee report.”
Yes, its called representative democracy when the majority, as elected, makes the call.
“2. Kwiatkowski never testified to the Senate Committee on Intelligence.”
She’s written enough stuff, so what would her testimony have added. See the George Galloway episode when he lied under oath
“The Senate Committee on Intelligence tipped a bucket on Kwiatkowski without ever testing her evidence. ”
See answer to 2: the committee researched her written materials.
“See answer to 2: the committee researched her written materials.”
So Kwiatkowski’s assertions were important enough to impugn, but not important enough to discredit by cross examination. Hundreds of wackos were making wild claims about Cheney’s Office of Special Plans. Did the Senate Committee take time out to tip a bucket on them too?
Refusal to give a forum to eye witnesses with an unwelcome story to tell is an old technique. For example, neither the Warren Commission nor the House Assassinations Committee took testimony from the Parkland Hospital surgeons who tended JFK’s wounds.
There are many potential explanations for this behaviour. None of them are consonant with a desire to discover the best evidence.
Katz, I am starting to see your logic chain; Iraq is connected to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy.
Ties in with the original “smoking gun” theme about WMDs and Iraq, and the ‘magic bullet’ theory.
All we now need is Mulder and Scully to save us from the Smoking Man.
Katz, you do appear to be gloating. You sound like one of those nuf-nufs who demonstrated against the first Gulf War, when the US kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. The Chicken Little Left squawked about how that campaign would lead us all to ruin, only to end up with yoke on their faces.
In spite of the Chicken Little Left’s whining, the war isn’t over yet. There are still a variety of ideas that may be worth trying, like partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni zones, as per the former Yugoslavia.
At the end of the day the US can not walk away from Iraq and leave it as a “failed state” since it would end up a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists. The US is in for the long haul whether it likes it or not.
Finally, do you really believe Iraqis would be better off with Saddam being re-installed? If yes, why don’t you say so?
“Iraq is connected to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy”
Strange attempt at irony, weekly, when you consider the alleged Iraq-Iran-Pyongyang axis hypothesis, the Saddam-Osama cabal theory and the al-Zarqawi mastermind of the insurgency proposition – all brought to you by G W Bush and Associates, purveyors of counter-reality nightmares to frighten the chronically credulous.
Andrew Reynolds (above) is an erstwhile supporter of the Iraq War who is willing to engage with evidence that undermines the premises for his support.
One of the best things about JQ’s website is the opportunity it provides for RWDBs to make fools of themselves. Pablo, Weekly and Steve Munn are merely recent examples of this entertaining breed who come and go.
For a glimpse into their futures check out the fates of Observa, Tipper, Michael Burgess and a particularly tragic esample of the genus who called himself Roberto. All made huge claims but burned out.
1. Weekly, you clearly are addicted to straw men. Michael Burgess used to do that too.
2. Steve Munn, if you must put words into my mouth, at least find the correct ones. i know I can’t prove it now because it was long before the coming of the web, but I actually underestimated the time i’d take to beat Iraq in GW1. And notice, Steve, here you commit the logical fallacy of the excluded middle:
“Finally, do you really believe Iraqis would be better off with Saddam being re-installed? If yes, why don’t you say so? ”
If you need help on this, here’s an easy-to-read guide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle
Roberto used to do this too.
Ian,
I take it this was sarcasm – “lower wages, cut taxes and remove any remaining labor laws”. Wages almost could not be lower, taxes are effectively non-existent and I do not think that labour laws are of high importance at the moment.
No – what I think avaroo is referring to is the basics: institutional stability, moderate to low crime levels and some assurance that, if profits are made, they can be kept.
Avaroo said:
I think you’d find a lot of people agreeing with this sentiment given the popular economic theory of today, and you’d probably find a lot more people agreeing that this is one sentiment that’s important in sustaining productivity and a healthy economy in a developed nation. However, I don’t know how effective a proposition this is for an economy that’s recently had the stuffing bombed out of it and where markets and infrastructure need to be established. In particular, relying on the private sector to provide infrastructure in Iraq could be problematic, considering that the majority of the Iraqis can’t afford to pay the tolls (even if they are competitively priced) on such infrastructure. And without an infrastructure, its difficult to see how ‘young Iraqi males’ (not to mention females) will get back to being productive.
Katz, surely you mean Strawperson! Or are you deliberately choosing to be sexist.
Hal9000 it was Katz that introduced the “Iraq is connected to the Kennedy assassination conspiracyâ€? theme. Can’t take credit for that one.
Jst wtng fr Ktz t strt p bt th ‘Jwwwwwws!’, n ncrsngly cmmn Lftst/slmst bckslp fr nw lls n tdy’s wrld.
“No – what I think avaroo is referring to is the basics: institutional stability, moderate to low crime levels and some assurance that, if profits are made, they can be kept. ”
I would think that basic safety would be the first consideration. Iraqis must ensure that investors considering bringing private investment into Iraq are safe.
alpaca, others have rebuilt their nations, infrastructure included. Germany comes to mind. Japan too. There’s nothing fundamentally different about Iraqis.
Interesting article in the Guardian, which I’ve had a fisk of, about a senior British officer who has gone to town on the incompetence and institutionalised racism exhibited by the US military in Iraq.
Bludgeoning, singular approach that precludes winning of hearts and minds gets a good going over.
Is it any wonder the occupation is less than a total success.
The US being accused of ‘racism’ in the Guardian? Who would have thought? The Guardian loathes Americans with a passion.
I thought the Guardian’s position on the US military was that it is 100% minorities.
LOL! And wide-eyed Lefties will tell you that they were captured by John HoWARd’s ‘Slave-trading sail barge’!
http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicle/sailbarge/
OMG Lefties, this is the ‘REAL’ reason behind all that money being put into Howard’s ‘future fund’!
Pablo, you need to read a bit more before you shoot your mouth off.
Institutional racism, destructive aggression, rigid hierarchies, no chance of success at counter-insurgency. Go on, tell us how much of a lefty this British Army Brigadier is.
Gah! http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/NovDec05/aylwin.pdf
rigid heirarchies? Whoever heard of such a thing in any military?
“it was Katz that introduced the “Iraq is connected to the Kennedy assassination conspiracyâ€? theme. Can’t take credit for that one.”
No, weekly, Katz merely gave the inquiries into the assassination as other examples of similarly poor inquiry methodology. The linkages are all yours.
The trouble with wars is that by the time the shooting is over the original aims of the belligerents are almost invariably forgotten. By 1919 could anyone recall it was Serbia’s alleged territorial claims on Austro-Hungarian Bosnia that started it all? In 1945 was Polish territorial integrity and independence a serious issue? In 1975 did anyone remember it was Diem’s failure to implement the 1954 Geneva Accords in regard to elections and reunification that got the post-French fighting under way?
The justifications for this war have come and gone with such bewildering speed it’s difficult now to recall the seriousness with which Rice’s ‘smoking gun = mushroom cloud’ nonsense was received at the time. If I have it right, the current justification is to protect the Sunni minority (who are the ones we are bombing back into the stone age because they keep blowing us up) from reprisals by the Shiite majority (who are the ones we betrayed in 1990) for the beastly things Saddam did to them (before we deposed him). God forbid we should cut and run in the face of such a clearly defined and present danger, or before such a well-structured job is done. The Vietnamisation exit strategy is looking shakier and shakier as time goes by, since (as WB Yeats would have it) the centre cannot hold.
On the other hand the US has the military capacity to remain in occupation for the foreseeable future. It has fortified its bases and presumably could hang onto those whatever happens to the country surrounding them. Such is the advanced state of the historical Alzheimer’s syndrome afflicting the US that even the humiliation of withdrawal under fire would be forgotten in a month, so the disaster wouldn’t be catastrophic for US hegemony. The real catastrophe for us in the rest of the world is that this vast treasure – enough to address serious global issues like non-polluting energy, disease and hunger, or at the very least poverty in the US itself – has been squandered for base political purposes. That opportunity has been lost forever.
“The justifications for this war have come and gone with such bewildering speed ”
Actually, every justification for the war, and there were several I agree, were all present in March of 2003 when the war started.
“The Vietnamisation exit strategy is looking shakier and shakier as time goes by, since (as WB Yeats would have it) the centre cannot hold. ”
This exit strategy was never a possibility.
Katz says: “One of the best things about JQ’s website is the opportunity it provides for RWDBs to make fools of themselves. Pablo, Weekly and Steve Munn are merely recent examples of this entertaining breed who come and go.”
You appear to have a defective memory Katz. I clearly place myself on the Left of the spectrum. Social Democrat would be an apt description.
Are you of the opinion that a dictator, no matter no noxious, shouldn’t be removed from power by an external force? For instance, was Vietnam wrong to displace Pol Pot?
Wilful: ‘ 🙂 I found a member of the military that I can agree with!’.
Ahem. The Left loves nothing more than to find an individual fitting a profile that the Left traditionally despises, who happens to agree with the Left on one of their positions, at one point in time.
Such as a member of the military (a ‘racist’), a dissenting Liberal backbencher (Petro Georgio), a person who didn’t go to uni (‘working class’ and ‘probably racist’) a member of the police (a ‘racist’), a billionaire (‘slave-trading racist’), a christian (‘clearly a racist’)…..
I note that satire is currently fashionable among some vistors to this site. In that vein …
It seems lefties care more about David Hicks than Australian police killed in a bus accident in Egypt. Where are they now? Don’t they care? The left hasn’t a clue, etc.
Where were the Left when a hurricane hit Louisina? Wallowing in chardonnay. They care more about David Hicks than Americans.
Pablo: Just waiting for Katz to start up about the ‘Jewwwwwws!’, an increasingly common Leftist/Islamist backslap for new allies in today’s world.
Pablo: . The Left loves nothing more than to find an individual fitting a profile that the Left traditionally despises
Pablo, I’m a Jew and I’m the son of a World War II vet (who as it happens was also a member of the Communsit Party of Australia).
I find your comments offensive – I can’t think of any way to make clear just HOW offensive that wouldn’t violate John’s rules for conduct on this blog.
Paul,
I sit on what I believe to be the right and I think the treatment of David Hicks repellant. We are meant to be the ones who count the individual over the collective, yet here is an Australian individual held overseas for over 4 years now without charge or trial. He may be guilty or innocent, but that is not the point.
A hurricane is a natural event – holding someone without charge or trial is not. Work out what individul rights are sometime, please.
A bit satire-challenged, are we, Andrew?
Weekly, Steve Munz, Pablo,
Here’s an article that you may find will help you to avoid some very amusing errors.
The article is about “special pleading”. Special pleading is one of the most indicative signs of an untrained and/or undisciplined mind.
To quote Wikipedia;
“Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves.”
I hope you understand this. If you need more assistance click on the following;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
I’ve disemvowelled an offensive comment from “Pablo”. Given that this is the second occasion I’ve had to take this kind of action during his appearance here, I’ve placed him on automoderation.
Pablo, please stick to the point and to civilised discussion./
Katz, I assume that the same “special pleading” applies to your comments which I answered @ January 12th, 2006 at 9:04 am re: Kwiatkowski
Your comments on that example were ‘special pleading’ were they not?
Katz – I have to say that on the specific issue of the Senate Intelligence Committee I think you are incorrect.
The Democrat members of the committe made dissenting comments at a number of points. Presumably they would have done likewise in relation to Kwiatkowski if they found her evidence compelling.
Katz, why is it that the opinions of the Iraqi people never rate a mention in your anti-war rants? Is it because they are little brown people who need to be patronised by those who know better?
I recommend you check the opinion polls on Iraqi attitudes, which are conveniently located in the monthly Brooking’s reports. See http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
You will note that when the November 2005 ABC-Time News Poll asked the question “Was the US right to invade Iraq” 46% said yes. This included 80% support in Kurdish areas, 56% in Shiite areas and 16% in Sunni areas.
If you exclude Saddam’s “blue-eyed boys”, the Sunnis, support for the invasion is overwhelming.
The same poll found only 26% of Iraqis support an immediate Coalition pull-out.
Let’s learn to listen to what the little brown people really think, rather than tell them what they must think.
“Let’s learn to listen to what the little brown people really think, rather than tell them what they must think.”
Yes, let’s. From your source:
Iraqis who believe attacks against British and American troops are
justified: 45% (65% in Maysan province)
Iraqis “strongly opposed� to presence of Coalition troops: 82%
Iraqis who believe coalition forces are responsible for any
improvement in security:
Granted, that was from a different poll, but even from the poll you quoted, you get these results:
I oppose Coalition Forces: 64%
Do you support or oppose the presence of Coalition
Forces in Iraq?: Strongly support: 13%
Somewhat support: 19%
Somewhat oppose: 21%
Strongly oppose: 44%
I guess you’ve swallowed someone else’s spin, without actually reading the document that you thought supported it.
The software must have thought that the “less than” symbol was an unclosed HTML tag.
Iraqis who believe coalition forces are responsible for any
improvement in security: [less than] 1%