Iraq in 10 years, or, what SHOULD the US do in Iraq?

[Naimfan]

There's been a lot of discussion about what is happening in Iraq and what should be done about it. I've not seen a lot of discussion regarding what should be done in Iraq and what Iraq might look like in 10 years.

So: What do you think Iraq will look like in 10 years? And what should the US do?

[SMM]

There's been a lot of discussion about what is happening in Iraq and what should be done about it. I've not seen a lot of discussion regarding what should be done in Iraq and what Iraq might look like in 10 years.

So: What do you think Iraq will look like in 10 years? And what should the US do?

Very easy question to answer. It should look like what the Iraqi people think it should look like. What the US should do is leave them to it, come home, get rid of the authoritarians, and start working on the growing list of environmental and domestic issues we have. How hard was that to figure out?

[Badandy]

Very easy question to answer. It should look like what the Iraqi people think it should look like. What the US should do is leave them to it, come home, get rid of the authoritarians, and start working on the growing list of environmental and domestic issues we have. How hard was that to figure out?

Let's work on that $9 trillion debt before anything, shall we?

[skunk]

What is certain is that both Iraq and the US will still be suffering from the aftermath of 2003. Millions of Iraqis will have medical problems caused by the toxic munitions used by US forces - white phosphorus, napalm, depleted uranium - and the almost complete destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure of hospitals, power supplies, clean water and medical personnel. Such fragmented, disempowered and frightened adimnistration as they may still have will have been terminally corrupted by the endemic graft encouraged by the occupation and US attempts to buy respite from their problems by bribing one group after another. The US military will still be there, holed up in huge concrete reservations, spending most of their time defending themselves and alienating further the benighted natives whom they despise. Armed militias will run most local and some national institutions.

As to what the US should do? Probably set up a trillion-dollar reconstruction/reparations fund to be administered on behalf of the Iraqi people by the UN, and set a date for complete disengagement sometime in 2008, ceding the 140 acres commandeered within the Green Zone to the UN as a temporary HQ. There is no "good" outcome available: the US has made such an utter mess that anyone in any way associated with them will be irrevocably tainted in the eyes of his compatriots.

[Badandy]

Like the UN would go in there?

[it5five]

The UN has been slowly coming back to Iraq since their embassy was bombed years ago.

The UN has a desire to help the Iraqi people. It's just hard to help when we have hired and career killers over there tarnishing the reputation of any Western organization or group.

[SMM]

Let's work on that $9 trillion debt before anything, shall we?

So, you are suggesting we do nothing for 50 years until the debt is paid-off? That sure makes a lot of sense to me.

[Badandy]

Yes, exactly what I'm saying :rolleyes:

No, I'm saying that we probably shouldn't expand government at all for a long time.l

[SMM]

Yes, exactly what I'm saying :rolleyes:

No, I'm saying that we probably shouldn't expand government at all for a long time.l

You are not going to get an argument from me about how important it is to pay down the nation debt. If you read my posts over the last couple years, you would know this is a priority issue for me.

With that being said, we also need to address the rape of the environment by Bush. We need to look at the neglect of our cities. Our social programs are feeling a decade of neglect. The family run farm is close to extinction.

We have many issues to work on. But, that does not mean it cannot be done without sound financial accountability. Afterall, President Clinton was able to do so.

[Badandy]

How are we going to pay off the national debt while expanding government so much then?

[zap2]

How are we going to pay off the national debt while expanding government so much then?

raise taxes.....and cut down on unneeded wars....

[Badandy]

raise taxes.....

No way.

[yg17]

No way.


Republicans want the war, but they don't want any of the fiscal responsibility that comes along with it....

[Badandy]

Republicans want the war, but they don't want any of the fiscal responsibility that comes along with it....

Did I ever say I was a republican or that I want the war? No, so please don't quote me when you make those statements.

The point is, I want the government smaller, and taxes lower. I wouldn't even mind to just make government smaller and taxes the same until we're out of some hot water with the debt.

[yg17]

Did I ever say I was a republican or that I want the war? No, so please don't quote me when you make those statements.



Did I ever say you were? No.

But the "small government and no taxes" BS sure does make you sound like one of them though....

[solvs]

The reason why none of us has any idea what to do is that there really isn't a good way out. It's been screwed up since the beginning, and if the top gov officials and think tanks who know everything and anything about the issue can't figured it out, how can anyone else?

My guess would be something of a slow circular pull out, where we keep some troops around the borders. Slowly pulling back, but keeping some there just in case, temporarily. And instead of having our people overcharge us to build and rebuild after what we built explodes or falls apart, we have them do the building. Can't believe we don't already. We subcontract so much anyway, and they need jobs. Maybe they can partition out the areas like we have here with states, while still keeping the overall country as a whole to share the good and bad. All parties being represented in the non-theocracy based gov.

But that'll never happen, so I'll just shut up now.

[Badandy]

Did I ever say you were? No.

Well you quoted me on when I said I didn't want more taxes and then said, under that quote, Republicans want the war and not the fiscal responsibility that comes with it. So yes, you were implying it, strongly.

But the "small government and no taxes" BS sure does make you sound like one of them though....

I love the hate for "them". It's just oozing out. Anyway, subjectivity aside, I consider myself more of a libertarian than a Republican. Kind of a mix, and neither party catagorizes me well enough.



EDIT to solvs: That sounds like a good idea. Do we know of any Iraqi contractors who have put up bids for rebuilding? That would be a way to stimulate their economy for sure.

[SMM]

No way.


Raise taxes for the individuals making > $250,000
Quit subsidizing 'corporate farms
Reduce the cost of the criminal justice system with a drug policy that makes sense
Quit using taxpayer money to benefit corporate profits
Make corporate 'user fees' actually cover government costs
Review and eliminate privatization, where it does not make sense
Reduce the influence of lobbyists
...etc


We pay enough taxes to afford good government. However, we are not getting it, and are actually going into the hole. This is just piss-poor management, and even worse execution. The management and running of the government resides solely with the Administrative branch. You cannot tag Congress with the mismanagement that has plagued us since the republicans took over. They took a vibrant economy, which had produced a significant monetary surplus, and totally hosed it up.

Do you remember the republicans saying, "the money belongs to the American people and should be in their pocketbook". That was their justification for the tax rebates. Well, how in the h*ll can you ignore the trillions of dollars in debt we were (are), and see this as 'free money'? Reagan ran up the debt and Bush 1 continued in his footsteps. Clinton paid it down and could have done even better. That is what Greenspan and he wanted to do. The rest is history.

[Badandy]

[LIST=1]
Raise taxes for the individuals making > $250,000


They already pay more than their fair share of taxes. I don't care if you think they can afford it, they already pay a higher rate of tax than others, don't penalize them more for making more money.

[SMM]

They already pay more than their fair share of taxes. I don't care if you think they can afford it, they already pay a higher rate of tax than others, don't penalize them more for making more money.

Sorry, just cannot agree with you on this. Those making the most should pay the most.

[Peterkro]

Certainly there are some people with high incomes who pay their share of tax the majority however do not.

[Badandy]

Certainly there are some people with high incomes who pay their share of tax the majority however do not.

Please back that up with some facts. The tax percentage on income is progressive, and even if you are the owner of a business you can only write off business expenses. There have been cases of tax evasion, but to say the majority of those earning over 250k are not paying their (un)fair share seems to be motivated more by jealousy than by facts (unless you show some to back up your ridiculous statements).



SMM: I think it should be a flat percentage, but I can respect your opinion since you said it blunty and, frankly, I doubt anything either of us could say would persuade us to think differently on that issue.

[hulugu]

There's been a lot of discussion about what is happening in Iraq and what should be done about it. I've not seen a lot of discussion regarding what should be done in Iraq and what Iraq might look like in 10 years.

So: What do you think Iraq will look like in 10 years? And what should the US do?

Tough question:

First, I think skunk's assessment of Iraq in 10 years is probably about right.

Second, what should the US do?

1. Invite (or plead) the NATO countries, as well as France and Russia to bring in troops. The surge proved that an influx of troops can have a temporary calming influence on sectarian fighting, and a reintroduction of foreign troops will not only bring the needed military muscle, but will help to bring the rest of the western world into a fight that frankly needs to be won.
2. While much hay has been made about the Iraqi security forces, little has been mentioned about how screwed up Iraq's infrastructure really is. And this, more than nearly anything else, is helping to drive Iraqis towards the various sectarian factions. The only way to fix this is to a) create a serious investment towards companies with a stern auditing policy of their work. This means that any contractor who has either lost funds, failed to construct the work that was promised, or produced shoddy work, should be immediately ejected from the bidding process. Oh yeah, and there should be a bidding process. b) This should incorporate Iraqis whenever possible, creating jobs and a real economy. With the above, it will be easier for Iraqis to build sewage, eletrical conduits, and other necessities of modern life.
3. Hard and soft diplomacy with Iran. We have to keep them and the Saudis from importing weapons and advisers into the fray. This means a mixture of concessions and Special Ops troops moving along the borders.
4. Along with diplomacy, keep the Turks the hell out of the Kurdish north, so the Pershmerga can continue to fight AQI and others, but quietly insist that they tread lightly on the oil issue.
5. Using whatever connections are at our disposal to work the diplomacy between the Mahdi army, the Sunni insurgents, the Kurds, and anyone else. We're not, so far as I know, talking to all the various groups and trying to convince them to work with us. We've had some luck with the Sunnis tired of AQI, but we need to exploit this.
6. As much as I think Petraeus can be a political operative, I also think he has a handle on fighting insurgencies. Let the man do his job and give him everything he needs. If he needs more vehicles, build them and send them. If he needs more troops, maybe it's time to start pulling men from South Korea and other commands.
7. Hire someone besides Karen Hughes to sell the US vision for Iraq. We need to sell ourselves to the Iraqis, to the Mid-East, and to the rest of the world. We've made it far too easy for the US to be seen as the great boogeyman rather than the guys who detonate bombs in markets and torture people with electric-drills.

I know there are other solutions and I'm sure I'm going to be very unpopular for the suggestion that sending more troops is the right thing to do, but I can't help but think that US troops can offer the right kinds of security.

Oh and tell Blackwater they're under the USMJ, and therefore can be prosecuted, or send them home. They're helping us lose the PR war.

[solvs]

I love the hate for "them". It's just oozing out.
Well, if they'd stop screwing up so much, we wouldn't hate them so much.

EDIT to solvs: That sounds like a good idea. Do we know of any Iraqi contractors who have put up bids for rebuilding? That would be a way to stimulate their economy for sure.
All of our contracts there are going to no-bid contractors. Most of them Republican contributors like Halliburton or Blackwater. Kind of part of the problem.

[hulugu]

Well, if they'd stop screwing up so much, we wouldn't hate them so much.


All of our contracts there are going to no-bid contractors. Most of them Republican contributors like Halliburton or Blackwater. Kind of part of the problem.

The no-bid contracts have been an absolute disaster. We've spent billions for naught and lined the pockets of Halliburton, KBR, and others.

And incidentally, while Cheney claims he has a blind trust, does anyone believe that Halliburton/KBR would continue to have the administration's appoval in spite of numerous overcharges and screw-ups if Cheney weren't a former board member?

Oh wait, nevermind, apparently, everyone from Parsons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001801.html), who built a barracks for Iraqi police recruits so well that human waste leaks from the ceiling, to Halliburton who over-charged for fuel delivery (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7201320) and food (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0gm34XPCvl4J:www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050627170106-72589.pdf+mayberry+halliburton&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us).

[Badandy]

Well, if they'd stop screwing up so much, we wouldn't hate them so much.

They are not in power to screw anything up. We're being screwed up by big government, religious Republicans.


All of our contracts there are going to no-bid contractors. Most of them Republican contributors like Halliburton or Blackwater. Kind of part of the problem.

Whether or not people like it, some large companies will need to be involved. They tend to be more competent than small businesses in major reconstruction efforts. Besides KBR has broken ties with Haliburton, they are no part of the same company. Cheney was VP, and he is not making any money on the deal. It just so happens that Haliburton is quite good at what we're asking them to do. I mean, you can't send in "Joe's Contracting" to do the work. I'd venture a guess that people would hate whatever large corporation was doing work over there.

[hulugu]

They are not in power to screw anything up. We're being screwed up by big government, religious Republicans.




Whether or not people like it, some large companies will need to be involved. They tend to be more competent than small businesses in major reconstruction efforts. Besides KBR has broken ties with Haliburton, they are no part of the same company. Cheney was VP, and he is not making any money on the deal. It just so happens that Haliburton is quite good at what we're asking them to do. I mean, you can't send in "Joe's Contracting" to do the work. I'd venture a guess that people would hate whatever large corporation was doing work over there.

I disagree. While there are few companies capable of doing the work that Halliburton/KBR and others are doing, the lack of oversight and accounting is just astounding.
If you read the links I provided, you'll see a serious problem is happening with numerous contractors who've provided shoddy work at ridiculous prices. This isn't hate for hate's sake, but rather a demand for good work.
As for Cheney, I don't buy he's not making money, but nonetheless his political clout has done wonders for his former employers and that's shady no matter how you spin it.

[solvs]

They are not in power to screw anything up. We're being screwed up by big government, religious Republicans.
That was my point.

Whether or not people like it, some large companies will need to be involved. They tend to be more competent than small businesses in major reconstruction efforts.
In some cases, yeah. But not in the scale we've done it. And one only has to look at the waste, the poor construction in some areas, being overcharged, and all of the other problems we've had to see that simply isn't the case.

Cheney was VP, and he is not making any money on the deal.
He still has stock. Not to mention the fact that contributors to the party are making money. As are family members. And since he's so secretive of everything he does, we don't actually know he isn't.

It just so happens that Haliburton is quite good at what we're asking them to do.
Again, overcharging and poor construction, while hiring subcontractors, who hire subcontractors, who hire subcontractors, who do a lousy job for no money because the upper contracting agencies took it all.

I mean, you can't send in "Joe's Contracting" to do the work.
In some cases that's exactly what happens when they subcontract. This is what's been happening in NOLA as well. It would be better to let the locals do it themselves with better supervision.

I'd venture a guess that people would hate whatever large corporation was doing work over there.
Not if they were better at it, without overcharging us, and weren't given no bid contracts to do it.

[Badandy]

He still has stock. Not to mention the fact that contributors to the party are making money. As are family members. And since he's so secretive of everything he does, we don't actually know he isn't.


His stock is from when he worked there. It was deferred payment, and he has already signed it over to an account that has been giving 100% of it away to charities, and will continue to do so for the duration of yes stock he is getting from when he worked there.


EDIT: All of their contracts are not "no-bid" contracts. They were the most competitive in some of the contracts, and some others were given to bid because they needed the resources of Haliburton to do whatever was being contracted in an urgent manner.

[solvs]

Well, he has pledged to give after tax proceeds, but again, that doesn't discount the others still receiving benefits from the whole affair, even what doesn't relate to Halliburton. And ok, not all of it was no bid. But that still doesn't answer why what was was, and why they overcharged us for shoddy work, with little to no oversight.

[hulugu]

Well, he has pledged to give after tax proceeds, but again, that doesn't discount the others still receiving benefits from the whole affair, even what doesn't relate to Halliburton. And ok, not all of it was no bid. But that still doesn't answer why what was was, and why they overcharged us for shoddy work, with little to no oversight.

No-bid contracts were a way of elimating red-tape, by rapidly getting to the actual work rather than spending months dealing with big process. For something that's needed yesterday, this is an important and necessary thing to do. However, it should be met with oversight, at some point the work should be inspected and payment should be tightly controlled. The problem with Iraq wasn't just no-bid contracts, but no-bid contracts without any kind of control and the continued payments for shoddy, unnecessary, or even phantom work.

This is fraud, and someone—especially the CEO who signed off on such work—should be tried and convicted for fraud. That this hasn't happened is indicative of an administration that is more interested in greasing their own palms (directly or indirectly) than actually making progress.