Are things in Iraq that bad?

[miloblithe]

I find if baffling when conservatives whom I encounter wonder if things in Iraq are "really that bad." To me, the question has always seemed kind of pathetically trusting of the good face the administration has to put on the war. I want to jump up and say, "of course it's going that bad! Are you insane?"

I bring this up because I'm wondering how much of a doomsayer I've been. Yes, I think the war is a mess and can't be won, but I'm also pretty sure I've been overlooking the few positive stories that do exist. I was just looking at oil production data

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/supply.html

and while Iraqi oil production remains down from pre-war (and way down from pre-1990s) totals, it's in the same ballpark--an accomplishment when people are trying to blow up the pipelines. Of course, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that oil production is one of the things the U.S. has done well on. Also, the accomplishment of nearing pre-war levels in a country that had been devestated before the war isn't exactly amazing either. But still, it's better than low oil production.

[Durandal7]

The Administration prefers a rosy version of the Iraq situation. The media thrives on sensationalizing every negative occurence in the world. The truth likely is somewhere in between.

[solvs]

It's not about it being bad over there, but the fact that it's worse than it should be, and the administration will not admit to it's mistakes. In order to fix your mistakes, you must at first admit to them. It's no surprise that oil is more important than the protection of our troops or getting the guy who actually attacked us, which I thought was the reason we were supposed to be over there in the first place. Which is why a lot of us are pissed off at how bad things are going and that everytime we bring it up, we are attacked for not being patriotic enough or somehow being against the troops.

[Thomas Veil]

It's not about it being bad over there, but the fact that it's worse than it should be, and the administration will not admit to it's mistakes. In order to fix your mistakes, you must at first admit to them. It's no surprise that oil is more important than the protection of our troops or getting the guy who actually attacked us, which I thought was the reason we were supposed to be over there in the first place. Which is why a lot of us are pissed off at how bad things are going and that everytime we bring it up, we are attacked for not being patriotic enough or somehow being against the troops.
Hmm...why did the name "Kerry" pop to mind when you said that? Oh, right...because he was vilified for saying the same damn thing!

Meanwhile, it's December and...


President Bush pointedly acknowledged Monday that U.S.-trained Iraqi troops are not ready to take over their country's security, and cautioned that next month's elections there are only the beginning of a long process toward democracy. (Link) (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041220%2F1243179084.htm&photoid=20041220WASW205D)

Gee, what happened to those scads of Iraqis who were supposed to be ready by now?

Yup. Things are just swell.

[solvs]

Hmm...why did the name "Kerry" pop to mind when you said that? Oh, right...because he was vilified for saying the same damn thing!
That's why I voted for him (for all the good it did). Can't stand the man, but he had a good point when he brought it up. Too bad he couldn't convey his message better. And, you know, stop sucking. That, and it was better the first time I heard it... when it was coming from Howard Dean.

I remember when my friend told me he was being sent over there, and I was watching Bush give a speech about terror with his then pregnant wife (my surrogate little sister), and wondering why he was pushing Iraq when the terrorist were in Afganistan (among other places). We kept saying, "why is he talking about Saddam?" and "why are we pulling troops from other places to go to Iraq?". "What about Al Qaeda?" As I'm watching him buy his own gear with what little money he has (among other things), while his wife has to go on food stamps, even though she works too, and wondering why people say Bush is for the troops and I am not simply because I'm asking questions.

As it gets worse, I just keep getting more pissed off. Especially after she and I both lost our jobs (but hey, the economy's doing great right?), no WMDs found, no ties to Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden's still out there ready to attack us again (which he will). But people voted for Bush because he's strong and will protect us.

Pardon me if I'm not so convinced.

[Mr_Ed]

The Administration prefers a rosy version of the Iraq situation. The media thrives on sensationalizing every negative occurence in the world. The truth likely is somewhere in between.

Amen to that.

[skunk]

In answer to the question: YES. And they're going to continue to be that bad until this godawful Administration "fesses up" and deploys enough troops there to keep a lid on it and provide security for the occupied country. This is an OBLIGATION onder the GC, not some soft option you can discard. Without another 100,000 troops, the anarchy will continue. But George has chosen Occupation Lite, which doesn't have all the necessary industrial-strength features of the full-size Professional Edition. I guess he's just too proud or too stingy to upgrade.

[IJ Reilly]

U.S. Contractor Pulls Out of Reconstruction Effort in Iraq

WASHINGTON — For the first time, a major U.S. contractor has dropped out of the multibillion-dollar effort to rebuild Iraq, raising new worries about the country's growing violence and its effect on reconstruction.

Contrack International Inc., the leader of a partnership that won one of 12 major reconstruction contracts awarded this year, cited skyrocketing security costs in reaching a decision with the U.S. government last month to terminate work in Iraq.

"We reached a point where our costs were getting to be prohibitive," said Karim Camel-Toueg, president of Arlington, Va.-based Contrack, which had won a $325-million award to rebuild Iraq's shattered transportation system. "We felt we were not serving the government, and that the dollars were not being spent smartly."

Although a few companies and nonprofit groups have pulled out of contracts in Iraq because of security concerns, Contrack's is the largest to be canceled to date, U.S. officials said. The move has led to fears that Iraq's mounting violence could prompt other firms to consider pulling out, or discourage them from seeking work in Iraq, further crippling reconstruction.

...

"It's not a terrible loss," said Amy Burns, spokeswoman for the Pentagon's Iraq Project and Contracting Office, which oversees the bulk of the reconstruction work in the country. "It actually may be good that we're both moving on."

But reconstruction experts say Contrack's withdrawal might foretell trouble with other contractors.

""It's a very bad sign," said Michael O'Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington who has closely followed the reconstruction process. "If this is how other private companies are thinking, it's a very bad potential warning."

...

Reconstruction officials declared at a news conference last week that they had reached a milestone: more than 1,000 construction starts out of an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 planned projects.

"Even though the situation is difficult, even though the security environment is not what we'd like it to be, progress is being made," Charles Hess, director of the reconstruction office, said at the conference. He made no mention of Contrack's withdrawal.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-pullout22dec22,1,761501.story

[Ugg]

U.S. Contractor Pulls Out of Reconstruction Effort in Iraq

WASHINGTON — For the first time, a major U.S. contractor has dropped out of the multibillion-dollar effort to rebuild Iraq, raising new worries about the country's growing violence and its effect on reconstruction.



I love the irony. "Oh, but it's so much cheaper to hire outside contractors and let our forces concentrate on their core duties, blah, blah, blah...." Well, for better or worse, the forces can't just pull out when it so pleases them. So much for rummy's "new" armed forces. When are he and gw gonna understand that you can't apply private business practices to the majority of government functions?!?

[miloblithe]

We should be paying Iraqis to rebuild the Iraqi transportation system, not US contractors.

[Xtremehkr]

We should be paying Iraqis to rebuild the Iraqi transportation system, not US contractors.

Then how would companies profiteer?