On Humanitarian Grounds:

[Ronin]

Would you go to the Middle East to provide security for reconstruction?

(edit: This was intended to be in poll format, however, I'm a technodumbass and couldn't figure out how to create it :propeller: )

[beyelzu]

ronin, I made you a thread with the poll.

[livius drusus]

No, baby. You kinda skipped the poll bit. :giggle: Hey! You edited it in! Sneaky bastidge.

[beyelzu]

No, baby. You kinda skipped the poll bit. :giggle:
looks like someone jumped the gun.

[Dingfod]

OK, which thread am I supposed to post in?

[livius drusus]

This one. One sec and the poll will be here. And done.

[dave_a]

Would you go to the Middle East to provide security for reconstruction?


I answered 'no'. I wouldn't be against it, but I already did that kind of thing, only for Kuwait during the first go round. At this point in my life I feel I have done enough "saving of the world" and wish to just selfishly hang out with my family and hanging onto my civilian career.

So I personally wouldn't volunteer, but I would be there "in spirit".

[beyelzu]

I would help if and only if the present admnistrations policies were revised. I dont like the way thir polices seem to be aimed at enrichment and not reconstruction. I am opposed to what we are currently doing in Iraq even though I believe that we obviously have a moral obligation to rebuild them.

[Socratoad]

Toad beez confused bigtime, but here goes, I'll paste my eridite post from the other thread here ...... even though the poll is not worded the same :P

Re: ronin's poll on humanitarian grounds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I put yes under certain conditions. First of all in my case its all hypothetical. I'm just too damned old and unwell, so no way would they even have me.

Just a few conditions off the top of my head would be turn the mess over to the UN, kick Haliburton's thieving ass out of there. Insist that the surrounding Arab states actually do their part ...... and so on.

In reality, there are just so many trouble spots in this troubled old world that I more than likely would volunteer to help in the Sudan. If I had my druthers I would rather help in one of the less arid nations ...... me and deserts do'nt get along very well

I've had a helluva lot of experience in the aid field. Not protecting but actually hands-on helping, alas the days of helping are but memories.

[Ronin]

I would help if and only if the present admnistrations policies were revised. I dont like the way thir polices seem to be aimed at enrichment and not reconstruction. I am opposed to what we are currently doing in Iraq even though I believe that we obviously have a moral obligation to rebuild them.

How about Afghanistan specifically then, beyelzu?

PS Thanks for the well intentioned assist on the creation of this thread, it was appreciated.

[Goliath]

No. I would make a horrible soldier, and I do not believe that this war is a just war.

Now if this were the early 1940's and if I were asked to provide security for allied bases in Britain (for example), then my answer might be different.

[Ronin]

Would you go to the Middle East to provide security for reconstruction?


I answered 'no'. I wouldn't be against it, but I already did that kind of thing, only for Kuwait during the first go round. At this point in my life I feel I have done enough "saving of the world" and wish to just selfishly hang out with my family and hanging onto my civilian career.

So I personally wouldn't volunteer, but I would be there "in spirit".

Thanks for your response, dantonac.

I understand and respect your position.

[Ronin]

No. I would make a horrible soldier, and I do not believe that this war is a just war.

Now if this were the early 1940's and if I were asked to provide security for allied bases in Britain (for example), then my answer might be different.

I'll ask you the same thing then, Goliath, how about Afghanistan?

Was that a just war and is security and reconstruction justified morally on humanitarian grounds?

[Goliath]

Afghanistan was much more just than Iraq, in that we were going after someone that actually did attack us (namely Osama Bin Laden). However, I would not make a good soldier, so I would abstain, since an average joe would probably do a better job than I.

[Ronin]

Afghanistan was much more just than Iraq, in that we were going after someone that actually did attack us (namely Osama Bin Laden). However, I would not make a good soldier, so I would abstain, since an average joe would probably do a better job than I.

To be clear...you would go to Afghanistan if you physically could make a good soldier then?

[Goliath]

Well, I physically can go to Afghanistan right now. But if I were fit for soldiering (and I'm talking about the right mentality too, not just physical shape), then....well, I'd have to think about it. I'm honestly not sure.

[Ronin]

Well, I physically can go to Afghanistan right now. But if I were fit for soldiering (and I'm talking about mentality too, not just physical shape), then....well, I'd have to think about it. I'm honestly not sure.

Fair enough, Goliath...and sorry for all of the quick edits I heaped on you with my last post.

[Goliath]

Fair enough, Goliath...and sorry for all of the quick edits I heaped on you with my last post.

No problem. To be honest, I didn't even notice the edits. I probably didn't see your last post until after the final edit.

And I'd much rather have people edit their posts, even a few times, after making them (like I oftentimes do) than not say what they mean.

And by the way, as Warren said in the twin of this thread, I don't mind paying a bit more in taxes to support those who do put their asses on the line for this country. It's the least I can do.

[Ronin]

Oh...and you knobs better start using the Poll feature real soon or there'll be no living with...you...know...who. {:whip:}

[beyelzu]

I would help if and only if the present admnistrations policies were revised. I dont like the way thir polices seem to be aimed at enrichment and not reconstruction. I am opposed to what we are currently doing in Iraq even though I believe that we obviously have a moral obligation to rebuild them.

How about Afghanistan specifically then, beyelzu?
afghanistan doesnt have isnt nearly as loaded for me as Iraq is. I think going to help in Afghanistan would be a good thing. In theory, I certainly agree with it. In practice, I dont know if I could drop my life to go even if they wanted me.

PS Thanks for the well intentioned assist on the creation of this thread, it was appreciated. no problem ronin, I should have known liv was around to fix it anyway. :D

[beyelzu]

No. I would make a horrible soldier, and I do not believe that this war is a just war.

Now if this were the early 1940's and if I were asked to provide security for allied bases in Britain (for example), then my answer might be different.

I'll ask you the same thing then, Goliath, how about Afghanistan?

Was that a just war and is security and reconstruction justified morally on humanitarian grounds?
I would like to point out that security and reconstruction is justified morally on humanitarian grounds in Iraq, I just dont think the reconstruction is happening.

I think you already understand this, sorry if I seem pedantic.

[Ronin]

I would like to point out that security and reconstruction is justified morally on humanitarian grounds in Iraq, I just dont think the reconstruction is happening.

I think you already understand this, sorry if I seem pedantic.

No, not at all. This is the sort of perspective I am seeking. That and whether or not simply attempting security and reconstruction is or should be given our support on humanitarian grounds.

[Adora]

Would you go to the Middle East to provide security for reconstruction?

No.

Because I think the "reconstruction" is a joke.

[beyelzu]

I would like to point out that security and reconstruction is justified morally on humanitarian grounds in Iraq, I just dont think the reconstruction is happening.

I think you already understand this, sorry if I seem pedantic.

No, not at all. This is the sort of perspective I am seeking. That and whether or not simply attempting security and reconstruction is or should be given our support on humanitarian grounds.

I believe that in theory security and reconstruction should be given our support on humanitarian grounds. I think that america has a moral responsibility to rebuild those countries because we went to war with them without them invading us etc... Particularly in the case of Iraq. My problem with helping in Iraq is particularly in the security department is that the person doing it would pretty much be a corporate shill. I dont have a real problem with someone going there for the money but that is a different case.

I guess I see Iraq as being a pretty hopeless case so long as the neocons are in charge and are looking for an economic rape to take place.

Iirc, Afghanistan is seriously underfunded right now, but still I have hope that that will change in the election.

[Socratoad]

If I were able I would go to Iraq or any of the other trouble spots in a heartbeat but only for humanitarian reasons as a member or in assistance to Oxfam, Medcin sans frontiers, or other such international organizations.

I dislike very much the term "reconstruction" as presently applied to Iraq, as it seems to be little more than lets get the oil flowing.

[viscousmemories]

I voted "not sure" for several reasons.

1. Do you mean would I enlist in the military? I hated my time in service and in theory I am restricted from any federal employment under the terms of the chapter under which I was discharged from the Army. So I would not (in fact probably could not) re-enlist.

2. I have an anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, and a terrible fear of flying and beheading. While I realize none of these fears are rational, they exist and would restrict me. If I didn't suffer from these irrational fears I would be much more inclined to go.

3. I don't really know what the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan is today. Is there any realistic reconstruction taking place? I would probably want to know a lot more detail before going over there.

Just off the top of my head.

[Petra]

If I wasn't the sole parent of a ten year old, I would probably try to join the UN.

Then, if the UN were to position me in Iraq, I would go. But I would rather be in either Afghanistan or Palestine.

btw, I voted "Not Sure", but that was because of my confusion between the thread title and the poll question. On humanitarian grounds - absolutely. As "security" - probably not. I'd rather be a part of the rebuilding than be with the security for that rebuilding.

[Dingfod]

I would right now in an international effort that included our traditional allies plus Russia and maybe China, if not for being about 90 pounds overweight, titanium plates in my neck, a badly healed broken ankle, heel spurs, and a sand flea allergy. OK, just joking about the sand flea thing. Being in the desert wouldn't bother me that bad, I fukken hate humidity. I've actually given consideration, in my more suicidal moments in the recent past, to driving trucks over there, maybe for a Turkish company. And when I was really down in the dumps, I was torn between driving fuel trucks in Iraq or getting a job at a convenience store in downtown Tulsa, both jobs with a high risk of getting shot at on a regular basis.

[Cool Hand]

I would like to point out that security and reconstruction is justified morally on humanitarian grounds in Iraq, I just dont think the reconstruction is happening.

I think you already understand this, sorry if I seem pedantic.

No, not at all. This is the sort of perspective I am seeking. That and whether or not simply attempting security and reconstruction is or should be given our support on humanitarian grounds.

I believe that in theory security and reconstruction should be given our support on humanitarian grounds. I think that america has a moral responsibility to rebuild those countries because we went to war with them without them invading us etc... Particularly in the case of Iraq. My problem with helping in Iraq is particularly in the security department is that the person doing it would pretty much be a corporate shill. I dont have a real problem with someone going there for the money but that is a different case.

I guess I see Iraq as being a pretty hopeless case so long as the neocons are in charge and are looking for an economic rape to take place.

Iirc, Afghanistan is seriously underfunded right now, but still I have hope that that will change in the election.

Yes, it is justified on humanitarian grounds. Yes, it is happening. The armed forces of the U.S. and the civilian contractors have done wonders to restore electricity and water to war torn Iraq, to rebuild bombed out structures, and to relocate displaced families and other residents to new homes. They have brought innovations eagerly embraced by Iraqis such as satellite television, internet access, and cell phones. These are radically changing for the better the Iraqi people's unfettered contact with the rest of the world.

The U.S. has a tradition in the last century of helping to rebuild countries we defeat in wartime. The U.S. was instrumental in rebuilding West Germany after WWII, and post-war Japan as well. We stayed in Korea to provide security for South Korea after the Korean War, and we're still there 50 years later. Hell, we're still in Japan after 60 years.

It's a nice counterargument to the charges often leveled at the U.S. for engaging in greedy imperialism. How many other nations do this without colonizing them?

Cool Hand

[Petra]

nm

[Ronin]

I think that there should be more of a concerted effort to investigate the positive reconstruction and associative security efforts that have been ongoing in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Granted, I fully understand the cynicism presented by many here, yet I wonder if that is no small result of purposeful overexposure to only those negative elements of events that serve as a self-fulfilling bias.

I have found that Bechtel (http://www.bechtel.com/iraq.htm) is providing steady progress in the repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction of infrastructure. (http://www.bechtel.com/PDF/Iraq2004Milestones.pdf)

[livius drusus]

Depends on your definition of colonizing, I would imagine, Cool Hand.

To answer the OP, I just don't know. I definitely wouldn't join the US military. I most likely wouldn't work for a US contractor. If there were a multinational force of volunteers I would have no moral opposition to signing up, but to tell the embarassing truth, I suspect I'm just too much of a coward to put my ass on the line.

/me sighs

[Socratoad]

I would like to point out that security and reconstruction is justified morally on humanitarian grounds in Iraq, I just dont think the reconstruction is happening.

I think you already understand this, sorry if I seem pedantic.

No, not at all. This is the sort of perspective I am seeking. That and whether or not simply attempting security and reconstruction is or should be given our support on humanitarian grounds.

I believe that in theory security and reconstruction should be given our support on humanitarian grounds. I think that america has a moral responsibility to rebuild those countries because we went to war with them without them invading us etc... Particularly in the case of Iraq. My problem with helping in Iraq is particularly in the security department is that the person doing it would pretty much be a corporate shill. I dont have a real problem with someone going there for the money but that is a different case.

I guess I see Iraq as being a pretty hopeless case so long as the neocons are in charge and are looking for an economic rape to take place.

Iirc, Afghanistan is seriously underfunded right now, but still I have hope that that will change in the election.

Yes, it is justified on humanitarian grounds. Yes, it is happening. The armed forces of the U.S. and the civilian contractors have done wonders to restore electricity and water to war torn Iraq, to rebuild bombed out structures, and to relocate displaced families and other residents to new homes. They have brought innovations eagerly embraced by Iraqis such as satellite television, internet access, and cell phones. These are radically changing for the better the Iraqi people's unfettered contact with the rest of the world.

The U.S. has a tradition in the last century of helping to rebuild countries we defeat in wartime. The U.S. was instrumental in rebuilding West Germany after WWII, and post-war Japan as well. We stayed in Korea to provide security for South Korea after the Korean War, and we're still there 50 years later. Hell, we're still in Japan after 60 years.

It's a nice counterargument to the charges often leveled at the U.S. for engaging in greedy imperialism. How many other nations do this without colonizing them?

Cool Hand


I'm not sure whether you are being serious or just have a rather delicious sense of irony ....... about Iraq that is.

Ya make money levelling the bloody place then Haliburton and others make even more money rebuilding it. Ah the wonders of uber capitalism :yup:

[Cool Hand]

I think that there should be more of a concerted effort to investigate the positive reconstruction and associative security efforts that have been ongoing in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Granted, I fully understand the cynicism presented by many here, yet I wonder if that is no small result of purposeful overexposure to only those negative elements of events that serve as a self-fulfilling bias.

I have found that Bechtel (http://www.bechtel.com/iraq.htm) is providing steady progress in the repair, rehabilitation and reconstruction of infrastructure. (http://www.bechtel.com/PDF/Iraq2004Milestones.pdf)

Agreed. See the responses to my remarks above.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

It's a nice counterargument to the charges often leveled at the U.S. for engaging in greedy imperialism. How many other nations do this without colonizing them?

Cool Hand


I'm not sure whether you are being serious or just have a rather delicious sense of irony ....... about Iraq that is.

Ya make money levelling the bloody place then Haliburton and others make even more money rebuilding it. Ah the wonders of uber capitalism :yup:

I wasn't being ironic at all, although I fully expected some responses like Liv's above about colonization. I don't for a second believe that the President or his advisers intended that we make Iraq the 51st state or a territory like Puerto Rico or Guam by invading it.

For all I know, you could just be yanking my chain, which is fine. I have a sense of humor too. Do you serious believe that the Bush Administration made a conscious effort to create opportunities for large American corporations to benefit by invading Iraq? Do you really think the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet, and their other national security advisers all are that callous? Do you seriously believe they all conspired to kill Iraqis and to risk American military servicemembers just to put money in Halliburton's pockets? If so, the level of suspicion and political discourse in this country and about it from those outside the U.S. might be a much bigger problem than the Administration itself. That would be partisanship and political cynicism run amok. It would also strain credibility beyond reason.

The American military men and women serving in Iraq, as a whole, support the President and believe the U.S. has made positive changes in Iraq. They are first hand witnesses to the Iraqi people's emergence from the shadows of Saddam's oppressive regime and Iraq's stifled culture. Those same Iraqis are largely embracing some of the West's capitalist products and services. As I mentioned above, it is Iraqis who are becoming willing and enthusiastic consumers of telecommunications devices and services. They have been denied ready access to them in the past, and they are now eager to acquire them and join much of the rest of the world in freely sharing information. Some degree of capitalism and free trade will be inevitable results. Witness the relevant changes in Russia and China since the early 1990s.

Sure, I've heard and seen interviews with Iraqis who are indignant and outraged that American soldiers are still there. I've heard many of them say "get out and leave us alone." I understand why they would feel that way and say that. They may be right. Maybe if the U.S. picked up its hammers and nails and the guns protecting them and went home, Iraqis could be secure in establishing a benevolent government that wouldn't terrorize its own citizens and rattle its saber at its weaker neighbors.

The U.S. is playing it safe, however, by trying to learn from its past mistakes in withdrawing too soon. Most foreign policy experts agree, for example, that had the first President Bush ordered his forces to continue its pursuit of Saddam into Bagdad, or to wherever he might have fled, and deposed him in 1991, then we would never have found ourselves there now. The Administration is concerned that leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves without our military support would result in having another despot, or at least some violent, duelling factions jockeying for military control, try to and succeed in filling the power vacuum there. That is a legitimate concern. It is a criticism other countries have leveled at the U.S. in the past for lending military support and withdrawing it too soon, before the dust had settled. It's legitimate from a humanitarian perspective.

Cool Hand

[Petra]

...but to tell the embarassing truth, I suspect I'm just too much of a coward to put my ass on the line.



That's why I'd like to be inside the secure areas, not be the security itself. :D

[Petra]

Do you serious believe that the Bush Administration made a conscious effort to create opportunities for large American corporations to benefit by invading Iraq? Yes. Do you really think the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet, and their other national security advisers all are that callous? Yes. Do you seriously believe they all conspired to kill Iraqis and to risk American military servicemembers just to put money in Halliburton's pockets?I think they saw an opportunity and attempted to exploit it thinking it would be a cakewalk, and that they'd get away with it because of all the lurv and gratitude the Iraqis would be feeling toward them for "liberating" them. If so, the level of suspicion and political discourse in this country and about it from those outside the U.S. might be a much bigger problem than the Administration itself. Indeed. But the cynicism and suspicion wasn't created in a vacuum or without good reason. As for the level of political discourse just look to the media pundits - Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Hannity, Fox News... That would be partisanship and political cynicism run amok....yes. It would also strain credibility beyond reason.Why is that?

The American military men and women serving in Iraq, as a whole, support the President and believe the U.S. has made positive changes in Iraq.I've also heard that many are not so impressed with the President and his decision to invade Iraq. But I have yet to see any solid info either way. They are first hand witnesses to the Iraqi people's emergence from the shadows of Saddam's oppressive regime and Iraq's stifled culture. Some of them are also witnessing and experiencing the kinds of people who may just find a way to replace Saddam and make Iraq more and more like Iran, Saudi, or Afghanistan, making them even more oppressed and stifled than they were even under Saddam. Those same Iraqis are largely embracing some of the West's capitalist products and services.Like what? McDonald's? Many of the middle class and wealthier people already had things like computers, cell phones and the like. As I mentioned above, it is Iraqis who are becoming willing and enthusiastic consumers of telecommunications devices and services.As I understand it, they already were. They have been denied ready access to them in the past, and they are now eager to acquire them and join much of the rest of the world in freely sharing information.What percentage have this now, compared with then? You are aware there is a war going on, right? As many people as there may be that are enraptured with their new found 'freedom' there will be equally as many who have been rendered destitute, homeless, possibly limbless, and living in fear of a new Iraq being under Sharia law or Taliban-type rule. Some degree of capitalism and free trade will be inevitable results. Witness the relevant changes in Russia and China since the early 1990s.I'm not opposed to capitalism per se, nor am I particularly opposed to free trade - except that I also believe in a degree of socialism, and you must know as well as I do that free trade is a myth due to tarrifs and protectionism, and corporate welfare, among the wealthiest nations. But that's another thread altogether.

Sure, I've heard and seen interviews with Iraqis who are indignant and outraged that American soldiers are still there. I've heard many of them say "get out and leave us alone." I understand why they would feel that way and say that. They may be right. Maybe if the U.S. picked up its hammers and nails and the guns protecting them and went home, Iraqis could be secure in establishing a benevolent government that wouldn't terrorize its own citizens and rattle its saber at its weaker neighbors.

The U.S. is playing it safe, however, by trying to learn from its past mistakes in withdrawing too soon. Most foreign policy experts agree, for example, that had the first President Bush ordered his forces to continue its pursuit of Saddam into Bagdad, or to wherever he might have fled, and deposed him in 1991, then we would never have found ourselves there now. The Administration is concerned that leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves without our military support would result in having another despot, or at least some violent, duelling factions jockeying for military control, try to and succeed in filling the power vacuum there. That is a legitimate concern. It is a criticism other countries have leveled at the U.S. in the past for lending military support and withdrawing it too soon, before the dust had settled. It's legitimate from a humanitarian perspective.

Cool Hand

The fact is, the US should never have gone in there. It should have stayed with Afghanistan. And a more despotic regime may be in the making now that the box has been opened. And lessons from the past have not been learned in any kind of benevolent way, but in a more Machiavellian way.

Of course the US cannot leave now. Jesus, that would be unthinkable given what has been created there. The situation must be fixed somehow, and it ain't going to happen overnight, nor will it happen without great cost - both in human and in economic terms.

I'm not trying to dismiss the work of Bechtel, and clearly they are a force that I need to read up on; so thanks to Ronin for the relevant links. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that the war in Iraq should not have happened in the first place, and that it hasn't made the world a safer place at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[livius drusus]

I'm not quite sure issues like the motivation for war are entirely germane to the subject. Naturally they're going to be touched on, but I think for Ronin's sake we should make an effort to deal with his OP head-on or this thread is going to wander very far afield.

[Godless Dave]

No, and here's why: the primary cause of insecurity in Iraq and the Middle East is the presence of American troops, mercenaries, and personnel. I don't think the people of the Middle East want an American to provide security in any of their countries any more than I want a bunch of Russians or Chinese citizens to come provide security in Minnesota.

[Ronin]

Agreed. See the responses to my remarks above.

Cool Hand

I do understand that, Cool Hand.

Part of the reason for this poll and thread is so I can find out if the overly promoted and (imho) sensationalized negative aspects of the current situation in the Middle East (and what perceptions led us there) has rendered any positive intent and action undertaken in either Iraq or Afghanistan hopelessly invalidated.

Of course, I realize that the results here are by no means a scientific analysis of a national opinion...but it is significant to me because I respect so many of the participants here at FF.

Let me just add that it has become very important for me to look for a positive avenue for action, as I am running out of mojo for just bitching.

[Godless Dave]

Yes, it is justified on humanitarian grounds. Yes, it is happening. The armed forces of the U.S. and the civilian contractors have done wonders to restore electricity and water to war torn Iraq, to rebuild bombed out structures, and to relocate displaced families and other residents to new homes.
Lies.

They have brought innovations eagerly embraced by Iraqis such as satellite television, internet access, and cell phones.
Doesn't do much good for the millions of Iraqis who don't have jobs.

The U.S. has a tradition in the last century of helping to rebuild countries we defeat in wartime. The U.S. was instrumental in rebuilding West Germany after WWII, and post-war Japan as well. We stayed in Korea to provide security for South Korea after the Korean War, and we're still there 50 years later. Hell, we're still in Japan after 60 years.
True. I don't dispute that, and it's something to be proud of.

But the U.S. also has a tradition in the last century of using overt and covert military force and sponsoring dicatorships in order to facilitate the exploitation of some countries by U.S. corporations. Examples: Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Argentina, Guatamala, the Phillipines, Iran, Grenada, and Haiti.

It's a nice counterargument to the charges often leveled at the U.S. for engaging in greedy imperialism.
No, it isn't. Both are true. Sometimes the U.S. fosters democracy, freedom, and prosperity abroad. Other times it fosters repression and economic exploitation. Iraq is clearly an instance of the latter, not the former.

[Ronin]

No, and here's why: the primary cause of insecurity in Iraq and the Middle East is the presence of American troops, mercenaries, and personnel. I don't think the people of the Middle East want an American to provide security in any of their countries any more than I want a bunch of Russians or Chinese citizens to come provide security in Minnesota.

<emphasis mine>

I don't find this to be entirely accurate, GD.

The Middle East has been a morass of instability for quite some time and the Taliban was just an humanitarian crisis festering with need to be lanced.

I just can't seem to muster the credulity to believe that no matter how you look at the history of that region it all just comes right back to "The Americans ultimately caused that problem too..."

I think it may just be about time to hold everyone accountable for their actions and settle in to reconstruction and rehabilitation for the good of humanity.

In fact, I think that there are many people in the Middle East (intellectuals, entrepreneurs, moderates) who do want any assistance they can get from outside forces to get their society up and running efficiently.

[Godless Dave]

No, and here's why: the primary cause of insecurity in Iraq and the Middle East is the presence of American troops, mercenaries, and personnel. I don't think the people of the Middle East want an American to provide security in any of their countries any more than I want a bunch of Russians or Chinese citizens to come provide security in Minnesota.
<emphasis mine>

I don't find this to be entirely accurate, GD.

The Middle East has been a morass of instability for quite some time and the Taliban was just an humanitarian crisis festering with need to be lanced.

I just can't seem to muster the credulity to believe that no matter how you look at the history of that region it all just comes right back to "The Americans ultimately caused that problem too..."
I meant the primary cause right now. Before March 2003, the actions of the US in the Middle East were one of many lesser causes, and Americans could do humanitarian work in many (but certainly not all) countries in the region fairly safely.

In fact, I think that there are many people in the Middle East (intellectuals, entrepreneurs, moderates) who do want any assistance they can get from outside forces to get their society up and running efficiently.
But they also know from long experience (the Ottoman Empire, Britain, American support of the Shah) that outside forces almost always work for the interests of their home countries, not the Middle Eastern countries they are allegedly helping.

If things had gone differently right after the invasion of Iraq (i.e., if someone in the Bush administration had actually paid attention to the recommendations of the State Department) then the situation would probably be very different, and Iraqis would welcome foreign humanitarian workers as partners in the reconstruction of their country. But after over a year of seeing foreign workers trucked in to perform work that unemployed Iraqis are perfectly capable of doing, and after watching the proceeds from oil sales go into the bank accounts of foreign-owned corporations, and after seeing American troops shut down newspapers, TV stations, and labor unions, and after seeing foreign Muslims come in and kill Iraqis under the pretence of defending the Islamic world, any ideas of goodwill assistance from foreign sources are probably long gone.

I'd love to help Iraq recover from the damage done by Saddam and by my own government, but I don't think they want my help.

[beyelzu]

Agreed. See the responses to my remarks above.

Cool Hand

I do understand that, Cool Hand.

Part of the reason for this poll and thread is so I can find out if the overly promoted and (imho) sensationalized negative aspects of the current situation in the Middle East (and what perceptions led us there) has rendered any positive intent and action undertaken in either Iraq or Afghanistan hopelessly invalidated.

any is a broad term. I think that most of us around here are going to associate reconstruction with either the administration or american corporations like haliburton, which I think explains all the no votes your are getting. I would like to second or third the responses that have said that working for the un or a nonprofit would be an unqualified "good" thing.

Of course, I realize that the results here are by no means a scientific analysis of a national opinion...but it is significant to me because I respect so many of the participants here at FF.
I would blush if I wasnt so fucking manly. ah fuckit

:blush: <-------hoping that I am included in the above comment :D

Let me just add that it has become very important for me to look for a positive avenue for action, as I am running out of mojo for just bitching.

I thought that the op might have something to do with you considering you mentioned security. One thing to note. calm, cool-headed police are needed in Iraq, particularly in contrast to the army. I think that training for the US troops is proably just not as good* as the training that UN peacekeeper forces get. *Good as it refers to being a police force not a military one.

[viscousmemories]

As this thread has developed I realize my answer was stupid. I took the question independent of the thread title, roughly translated: Would you, vm, go to Iraq or Afghanistan today to help out? And answered accordingly that I would probably not.

However, I see now the question is an ethical one. Do I think going there to provide security for the reconstruction is morally justified? Yes, I do. I believe that at this point the alternative (no security) would be no foreign assistance, and that with our (and/or other countries) help Iraq and Afghanistan can rebuild more efficiently.

I don't deny that the foreign contractors will profit from this, perhaps even exorbitantly, but I still suspect it is overall a win/win situation at this juncture even if the contractors are the bigger winners.

[Ronin]

I take full responsibility for any misconceptions derived from the way the thread originated, vm.

To be honest, I had not fully fleshed out how I wanted the poll to be framed and really was on some new ground (within my own perspective) as to what purpose this thread would serve.

By now I realize that the poll wasn't really necessary and I was more interested in the caveats or explanations rather than a "yes, no or not sure" answer.

Thanks for your re-assessment.

I consider you and (yes, you) beyelzu and godless dave such longstanding and diligent friends of mine over the years that there would be little in the way of me thinking of you as being the brothers I never had.

Not to deter my appreciation for any others that have offered their views, especially all of those who already know how much I am indebted to them for just being there when I needed them...natch.

:bow:

[Petra]

:glomp2:

[Godless Dave]

Hey, I wasn't angry. Well, not at anyone posting in this thread. I am angry at a few people in Washington, as you may have guessed.

[viscousmemories]

I consider you and (yes, you) beyelzu and godless dave such longstanding and diligent friends of mine over the years that there would be little in the way of me thinking of you as being the brothers I never had.
I'm honored that you think so, and I agree. :yup:

[Adora]

and that with our (and/or other countries) help Iraq and Afghanistan can rebuild more efficiently.

You mean with proper intervention these countries can rebuild more efficiently. Nepotistic outsourcing, millions of dollars going to foreign hotels and leaving it up to the Germans to educate Afghanistan isn't exactly the best way to help the situation. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with German education- it's one of the best in the world. I just think there's some serious imbalances in what some countries are providing for "reconstruction" compared to others who are actually trying to help.

[viscousmemories]

and that with our (and/or other countries) help Iraq and Afghanistan can rebuild more efficiently.

You mean with proper intervention these countries can rebuild more efficiently. Nepotistic outsourcing, millions of dollars going to foreign hotels and leaving it up to the Germans to educate Afghanistan isn't exactly the best way to help the situation. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with German education- it's one of the best in the world. I just think there's some serious imbalances in what some countries are providing for "reconstruction" compared to others who are actually trying to help.
Yep, I definitely agree that intervention is not necessarily useful in itself. It's entirely possible that we might do more harm than good depending on how it's approached. I confess though that I really know nothing about how the effort is currently being handled, who is involved, or any other details. I have some reading to do on this subject methinks.

[Cool Hand]

Godless Dave provided me a link to the Project for the New American Century, a PAC dedicated to advancing the notion of America as a world leader and international police in the Reagan school of military strength and world stability. Some less charitable might call it imperialistic. Others might regard it as advancing some humanitarian and democratic principles.

Regardless of what view one takes regarding it, PNAC's statement of principles is the very antithesis of the school of deference to the U.N. as international rule making body.

PNAC has an article from this past Sunday's Los Angeles Times that contains bits and pieces from columnists, including Christopher Hitchens, hardly a Christian Bushie-style right-winger (he's an outspoken atheist), describing some of the very real, tangible benefits Iraqis are experiencing, as individuals and as a society and nation, as a result of our having deposed Saddam and assisted in the reconstruction of the country physically and culturally.

Here's a link to the article:

What's Going Right in Iraq ([URL=http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20041024.htm)

Hitchens

It was a heartening story last weekend, about the huge generator being installed, piece by gigantic piece, in Baghdad. When it comes on stream in a few months, there will supposedly be more than enough energy to power all the new gadgets that liberated Baghdadis have been plugging in.

No, it wasn't a heartening story, either. Where was this generator when it was needed, about 18 months ago? Who was supposed to be in charge of seeing to that then, and why has he or she not been summarily fired?

Much of the good news from Iraq has been qualified or worse by a downside of this kind. Thus, if they hear a bang in the night, the people of Iraqi Kurdistan can now turn over and go back to sleep: It won't be the death squads of Saddam Hussein anymore. But this new security has given some the opportunity to decide they want to quit what they regard as the failed state that has replaced the regime.

On the other hand, there are some unambiguous gains. The Marsh Arabs, former inhabitants of the largest wetlands in the region and victims of an ecocidal assault, have seen their ancient habitat partly re-flooded. Politics has returned to the Iraqi Shiite discourse, which now has a reciprocal influence on the important debate within neighboring Iran. Iraq has been verifiably disarmed (not quite the same as taking Hussein's or Hans Blix's word for it) and the socially devastating epoch of Hussein-plus-sanctions (vamped on by the U.N. in its disgraceful Oil for Blood program) is over.

Democratic voices are being raised insistently, in Syria and Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and though you may say this would have happened anyway, there is no doubt of what ignited the current debate.

Most important is the military traction that is being gained. One Welsh regiment of the British army recently killed more than 300 Mahdi army thugs for the loss of three soldiers: odds too painful for the boastful jihadists to take. A dangerous Osama bin Laden emulator, Abu Musab Zarqawi, imported to Iraq before the intervention, will very soon be destroyed along with his foreign infiltrators.

The U.S. armed forces are learning every day how to fight in extreme conditions, in post-rogue-state and post-failed-state surroundings, with the forces of medieval tyranny. Does anyone think this is not experience worth having, or that it will not be needed again? And does anyone want to imagine what Iraq would have looked like now if we had let it go on the way it was before? Too late and too little, to be sure, but nonetheless one of the noblest responsibilities we have ever shouldered.


(my emphasis in bold added)

I won't reproduce the whole article here, although it is worth reading, but here's another perspective, this time from Michael Rubin:


Rubin

As a visiting professor in Iraqi Kurdistan four years ago, I found that there were three words my University of Baghdad-trained interpreters could not translate: Debate, tolerance and compromise. The concepts did not exist in Hussein's Iraq. When I returned to Iraq in the aftermath of war, society was changing.

I watched city council meetings in places such as Kirkuk. Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens compromised on issues that spanned the languages taught in public schools to affirmative action within the police force. In the southern city of Nasiriya, taxi drivers, religious students and engineers debated the merits of federalism.

Dire predictions of civil war between ethnic and sectarian groups did not materialize, despite terrorist bombings against Shiite processions, Christian churches and Kurdish celebrations.

Iraqis complain about security but are positive about the future. They reflect optimism not only in polls but also in actions. The new Iraqi currency, issued on Oct. 15, 2003, at 2,000 Iraqi dinars to the dollar, is free of Hussein's image. It is also free-floating, and even at the height of the April uprising and the battle for Najaf, it remained stable, trading between 1,400 and 1,500 dinars to the dollar. If Iraq is in trouble, don't tell the Canadians: The dinar regularly outperforms the Canadian dollar on international markets.

Iraqis also express confidence with investment, which spans the country. Electricity is unreliable, so restaurateurs have invested as much as $50,000 for top-model generators. A new clothing boutique represents a $200,000 investment. There are new hotels in Najaf and Karbala. Cigarette venders have traded pushcarts for tobacco shops. Kurdish investors are constructing a cancer treatment center in Erbil. In the slums of Sadr City, houses cost $45,000, nearly double their prewar value. In the swankier district of Mansur, new houses sell for more than 10 times that amount.

No Iraqi would invest his or her life savings if they feared civil war or perpetual lawlessness.

Freedom matters. Before the war, only the top 3,000 Hussein loyalists could access the Internet. Today, more than 100,000 households have dial-up connections. This number does not reflect the thousands of young Iraqi men who surf the Web (and try to pick up women) at cafes that dot cities, small towns and villages.

During Hussein's rule, 1 out of 6 Iraqis fled the country as refugees. Not only has there not been a mass exodus since Iraq's liberation, but more than a million refugees have returned.

Even at the height of the insurgents' bombing campaign, young men lined up at recruitment stations, not only for the salary but also to make Iraq a better place.

The television cameras do not lie, but they fail to give full perspective. The fiercest critics of the situation inside Iraq are those who have never been there. The coalition has made mistakes, and Iraqis are frequently frustrated at the pace of change. But they do see light at the end of the tunnel.

(emphasis added)

Mainly, I thought it might provide some counterbalance to what Godless Dave and LunaChick have said in this thread about the reconstruction efforts and its effects in Iraq. I welcome any commentary from either or both of them, or from anyone else.

As I said, the article is worth reading, if for nothing else than a different perspective from the ones we tend to get in most of the mainstream televison and print news sources.

Cool Hand

[godfry n. glad]

My regret is that we have to undo all the misery we had such a huge hand in creating. Keep in mind that Saddam Hussien was our man, an American client, right up until he wanted more than we wanted him to have.

godfry

[Ronin]

I agree that abandoning the law enforcement model and Bush's strategy of "pre-emptive" military action in Iraq was a seriously flawed and dangerous concept.

One which still sickens me to this day...as just about every dismal failing that was foreseen and warned of that would come from such an abandonment has emerged and antagonized very respected and needed allies.

However, I am convinced (more and more) that even if both military actions were given the cherished UN mandate on humanitarian grounds we would still see many of the same intense atrocities (http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1338683,00.html) committed by "insurgents" as we do now.

That said, I believe that there is an abundant humanitarian justification for continued security, reconstruction and repair efforts in both countries...from every civilized country able and interested in helping.

[Adam]

No, but simply because I've determined for myself that I am not the military type. I have too many ethical dilemmas with the idea of violence too ever bring myself to sign up for a job where I would be required to kill on someone else's say so.

I would be willing to actually be part of the reconstrruction effort if a) such an honest effort actually existed, IMO, b) I had some useful skill to contribute (does Iraq need anyone to support their web servers for them), and c) my safety could be ensured to a reasonable degree (i.e. obviously there are no guarantees, but I'd like to know that I wasn't travelling into the midst of an incipient civil war).

[viscousmemories]

I would be willing to actually be part of the reconstrruction effort if a) such an honest effort actually existed,
Are you suggesting that there is no reconstruction effort underway, or just no honest one? In either case, on the basis of any particular source(s)? Also what do you make of this site (http://www.bechtel.com/iraq.htm) Ronin linked to earlier? Do you think Bechtel is lying, exagerrating, or otherwise misrepresenting all the work they're doing? I'm not trying to call you out or anything, it's just that I've spent the last hour Googling this subject and I can't find any recent reports that suggest anything but structural growth at this time.

[Adam]

Are you suggesting that there is no reconstruction effort underway, or just no honest one? In either case, on the basis of any particular source(s)? Also what do you make of this site (http://www.bechtel.com/iraq.htm) Ronin linked to earlier? Do you think Bechtel is lying, exagerrating, or otherwise misrepresenting all the work they're doing? I'm not trying to call you out or anything, it's just that I've spent the last hour Googling this subject and I can't find any recent reports that suggest anything but structural growth at this time.

I'm trying to think of the best way to phrase what I was trying to say. Here's a stab at it:

While there certainly is a reconstruction effort underway in Iraq, I think it is largely doomed to failure, for a number of reasons, not least that the interests of American business appear to have taken precedence over the good of the Iraqi people in determing the overall structure of reconstruction, and that it is being carried out in the middle of what appears to be am increasingly insecure situation. As for the first, I'm reminded strongly of what happened to Russia immediately after the fall of the Communist government, when the state's assets, on the advice of Western market ideologues, were privatized rapidly and indiscriminately, leading to, essentially, a fire sale on the apparatus f Russian industry for wealthy (and often Western) investors, and one of the sharpest divides between rich and poor in the world, and sacrificing one of the few things the Russian economy had going for it, a rough equality among citizens. It seems that a similar approach has been followed in Iraq, although, to my eye, it seems less based on market ideology and more on run of the mill business interests on the part of the Bush administration's corporate backers. As for the second, I don't think I need to comment.

Does that halfway make sense, anyway?

On a side note, of course I think Bechtel is exaggerating, overselling, and otherwise misrepresenting their actions in Iraq. While I'm sure they are doing some good there, the PR content on their website is almost assuredly overstating the benefits of their work and downplaying the costs, not that I hold it against them in particular, mind you. I just don't expect outright honesty from content generated by a corporate communications division.

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for your reply, Adam. I don't know enough about economics, history or politics to reply intelligently to your Russia comparison, but hopefully someone else can comment on it and I can learn something more. I'm sure you're right that Bechtel (and indeed any corporation) is likely to overstate their accomplishments, but I think we also agree that reconstruction is at least underway - even if doomed to ultimate failure.

[Gawen]

I voted no on humanitarian grounds. I have enough on my plate here. And I really don't cotton to going someplace around the world to get blown up or beheaded while I'm trying to help those that do the blowing up and beheading (amongst other reasons). If I want to die or get hurt while helping people, I can think of several much closer major American cities where I can acheive this.

However, if I had no commitments and 20 years younger I may consider employment in the reconstruction, but only for the money.

I have never been a very good humanitarian. I can just barely keep myself afloat.

[Zoot]

The actions of the United States government are almost never for humanitarian reasons. Liberating people from oppressive regimes is certainly never the motivation behind US foreign policy. Very occasionally an action may coincide with this motive, but that is always accidental. The true motivation remains maintaining hegemony and establishing foreign governments that favour US foreign investment and a local privileged elite, at the expense of the majority.

The invasion of Iraq was not only about the US government providing monopolous reconstruction contracts to a company that still pays the vice-president of the United States (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.html), and not only about securing US investment in oil exports, and not only about establishing another virtual US military base in the Middle East (a la Israel, Turkey, Saudi). It was also about proving to the world that the US government can get away with flagrantly breaching international law and manufacture enough consent at home to be re-elected.

Before Saddam edged a little too close to Saudi Arabia, Iraq was the most developed nation in the Middle East, with universities that people attended from all over the world, excellent hospitals, etc. 10 years of continuous US and UK bombing (which never stopped during the '90s) and crippling economic and medical sanctions (imposed by the US-dominated UN sanctions committee, which is not answerable to the General Assembly) left it pretty broken. But there are still many well-educated, qualified people there. It fascinates me that foreign contractors are being hired by the foreign occupying force to reconstruct the country while unemployed Iraqis are left desperate enough to join the Iraqi police force and army.

So no, I wouldn't go to Iraq to reconstruct, unless I was hired by an Iraqi.

And even then, fuck that. I'd have to be crazy.

[Blake]

I feel deeply for Iraqis and Afghanis; they deserve a great deal of reconstruction, mostly or entirely funded by the United States. However, I've been convinced for some time that the US has completely exhausted whatever possibilities there are for it to do any good in Iraq. We're at this point universally seen as occupiers, good only for killing and kidnapping; we need to find other people to fill whatever useful shoes we're filling and pay them.

As a practical matter, the only thing that I think would be accomplished by my going to Iraq or Afghanistan to offer humanitarian assistance would be my futile death. So no, I wouldn't go.

[godfry n. glad]

Thanks, Blake. I resemble your remark.

How many "humanitarians" are perceived as "carpetbaggers"? I fail to see why we need to be there. We have done what we came to do, remove a ruthless dictator. Our presence seems only to assure that disorder will continue, rather than abate it. So...if we're not there to bring order, why are we there?

What is meant by "reconstruction"? Why are American contractors even needed in Iraq?

I think we ought to be paying reparations and staying the hell outta the way.

godfry

[Zoot]

How many "humanitarians" are perceived as "carpetbaggers"? I fail to see why we need to be there. We have done what we came to do, remove a ruthless dictator.

"Ruthless dictator" is Sanskrit for weapons of mass destruction, right?

[Ronin]

Again, while I do find US motivations ill-concieved (others outright sinister), I still wholeheartedly maintain that there is an abundant humanitarian justification for continued security, reconstruction and repair efforts in both countries...from every civilized country able and interested in helping.

Afghanistan action, in my view, was completely justified and continues to be. Iraq action was and continues to be justified on humanitarian grounds regardless of one's citizenship or politics.

I do not support much of how the "coalition" is handling the post-invasion situation in Iraq. That is not what I am arguing for or against in this thread. I am saying that I believe that those human rights groups I respect have called for and continue to call for reconstruction, security and socio-political repair in that region.

I agree with them.

I do not come to this determination lightly or carelessly. After much historical scrutiny and my own self-evaluation as a humanist, I will continue to promote and encourage support in those regions.

Systematic torture of political prisoners (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAQ)

and

One year on the human rights situation remains dire (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140062004)

PS ~ I think that inaction in the face of humanitarian need is more living a life of futility than dying while trying to help.

PPS ~ Zoot, take a look here: Bechtel (http://www.bechtel.com/iraq.htm)...thanks.

[Zoot]

PPS ~ Zoot, take a look here: Bechtel...thanks.

Done. Now what?

Let's see what else Bechtel has done...

After privatizing the water systems in Cochabamba, Bolivia, a Bechtel subsidiary made the price of water so expensive that many, particularly the poorest users, could no longer afford it. Then Bechtel sat still while the Bolivian government met mass public protests with deadly force. In the end, the people of Cochabamba prevailed and the government canceled Bechtel's contract. In response, Bechtel is suing Bolivia for $25 million in lost profits.

In the 1980's, with the help of then Middle East envoy Donald Rumsfeld, Bechtel aggressively lobbied the Iraqi government to allow Bechtel to build an oil pipeline from Iraq to Jordan, while Hussein was simultaneously bombarding his own people and the people of Iran with chemical weapons. Hussein called off the deal. Now Hussein is out and Bechtel is in - this time, pumping water instead of oil.

An investigation into how Bechtel won contracts in Romania (http://corpwatch.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=9870)
Bechtel's Friends in High Places (http://corpwatch.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=6548) (Hm... Who used to work for Bechtel? Why, it's George Schultz!)
Here is a PDF of information about Bechtel's history in Iraq (http://actagainstwar.org/downloads/BechtelIraqFact.pdf)
Here is a PDF with more information about Bechtel's political connections (http://actagainstwar.org/downloads/BechtelInsidersFact.pdf)

Bechtel Foundation

Financed by money from Bechtel Construction, one of the largest privately-held companies in the U.S. Closely tied to the oil companies, Bechtel holds the contracts for building most of the oil wells in Saudi Arabia. First Stephen Bechtel, Sr., and then Stephen Jr. "...cultivated political power at the national and international levels," with Stephen Jr. developing close ties to the Reagan Administration. Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Schultz were both former executives with Bechtel. Forbes estimates both Junior's personal wealth as well as that of his son Riley at $1.4 billion apiece, making them among the country's sixty richest individuals. Bechtel has funded a wide range of conservative think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

It's these conservative thinktanks that bother me the most. I heard Daniel Pipes speak a few months ago, and there's still a bad taste in my mouth.

[Ronin]

Zoot:

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you read my post the very moment it was posted...that would suggest you only gave the Bechtel site (with associated articles/info sources) about a 30 minute perusal.

That, in my view, wasn't sufficient time to make a reasonable assessment of information.

I don't discount that there have been multitudes of insider deals and preferential treatment in most politically charged arenas...believe it or not, this occurs at the UN as well.

In any event, I offered the link to show you directly that it is not all bad news and that Iraqis are being given contracts and participating in the reconstruction and repair of their own country.

I'm promoting that continued humanitarian support is required in spite of conspiracy theories, mismanagement and side-taking.

Thanks.

[Zoot]

Sure. All I'm saying is that the systems are in place to make a profit, and humanitarian interests are subordinate to that. Humanitarian interests are good PR - that helps make a profit. But when it comes to a choice between people and money, Bechtel will pick the latter, because it is a successful business, and that is how businesses become successful.

Humanitarian support is required. No one is disputing that. I'm glad some people are being helped by Bechtel. However, I am aware that helping people is a happy, and not necessarily inevitable, side-effect of Bechtel's aims.

Were the Iraqis free to hire, say, a French or Russian contractor, who might have provided reconstruction at a lower cost? Is Iraq rebuilding herself, or is the United States investing in Iraq? Who will own the waterworks once Bechtel has finished building them?

Why is the country that caused the destruction now profiting from its crimes?

[Ronin]

Sure. All I'm saying is that the systems are in place to make a profit, and humanitarian interests are subordinate to that. Humanitarian interests are good PR - that helps make a profit. But when it comes to a choice between people and money, Bechtel will pick the latter, because it is a successful business, and that is how businesses become successful.

Humanitarian support is required. No one is disputing that. I'm glad some people are being helped by Bechtel. However, I am aware that helping people is a happy, and not necessarily inevitable, side-effect of Bechtel's aims.

Were the Iraqis free to hire, say, a French or Russian contractor, who might have provided reconstruction at a lower cost? Is Iraq rebuilding herself, or is the United States investing in Iraq? Who will own the waterworks once Bechtel has finished building them?

Why is the country that caused the destruction now profiting from its crimes?

<emphasis mine>

That is a breath of fresh air to me, Zoot.

It is difficult to consider, however, that there really is no disputing that humanitarian aid is required when it is rarely, if ever, actually promoted in a proactive way.

Instead, there are vast numbers of freethinking people that I respect constantly bemoaning the screwed pooch that is the middle east.

What is going wrong is more than apparent. It may be time to start thinking about what is going right and seeking to support continuing those aims.

So, leaving everything else aside, I think that there is and continues to be dire need for continued reconstruction, security and socio-political repair offered by any civilized country or able person.

[Zoot]

Ronin,

Bechtel is a division of the invading and occupying force.

And, again, who's going to own those waterworks when Bechtel has finished them? The Iraqi people? It'd take a lot to convince me this isn't a matter of feeding poisoned meat to starving people.

[Ronin]

Ronin,

Bechtel is a division of the invading and occupying force.

And, again, who's going to own those waterworks when Bechtel has finished them? The Iraqi people? It'd take a lot to convince me this isn't a matter of feeding poisoned meat to starving people.

Well, I see it otherwise.

I see the Iraqi contracts and the reconstruction successes as good things...very good things, which need to continue.

[Zoot]

Someone comes to your home, kills your kids, knocks down half the house, then changes shirts and offers to rebuild it for you. Afterwards, your plumbing belongs to them. They're not the good guys.

So, as I said, if I was to help reconstruct Iraq, it wouldn't be by working for the murderous demolition team.

[viscousmemories]

Someone comes to your home, kills your kids, knocks down half the house, then changes shirts and offers to rebuild it for you. Afterwards, your plumbing belongs to them. They're not the good guys.

So, as I said, if I was to help reconstruct Iraq, it wouldn't be by working for the murderous demolition team.
I understand your criticism Zoot, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say humanitarian support is required, but then you say that the American companies who are providing it are the bad guys. So I'm not sure what solution you support. Are you endorsing pulling all American companies out and leaving the reconstruction up to the "good guys"? Who are the good guys?

[Zoot]

I understand your criticism Zoot, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. First you say humanitarian support is required, but then you say that the American companies who are providing it are the bad guys.

The American companies who are providing it are effectively a branch of the US government, who are the criminals that caused the damage to begin with. They are bad guys for that reason, and it would require levels of cognitive dissonance beyond my capacities to work for them.


So I'm not sure what solution you support. Are you endorsing pulling all American companies out and leaving the reconstruction up to the "good guys"? Who are the good guys?

An example of a situation I'd be more happy with would be, first of all, there being no limits on which countries may bid for reconstruction contracts in Iraq. I would almost go as far as to say that Coalition countries should not be able to bid, but really, if the Iraqis want to contract US or UK companies, fair enough.

Once some semblance of government is set up in Iraq (ideally this would be a meaningful participatory democracy, but we're just going to have to live with a US client government and hope that media attention keeps them semi-honest), the US, UK, and other Coalition countries would officially apologise to the Iraqi people for illegally invading their country to disarm them of weapons everyone knew they didn't have, and defer to a multilateral group's judgement on how much the Coalition should pay Iraq in reparations. The Iraqi government would then continue to use that reparation money to contract companies - their choice whether to contract to Iraqi companies or foreign companies - in rebuilding the infrastructure, which the Iraqi people would then own.

In other words, the alternative to the starving man being fed poisoned food by the guy who starved him in the first place... is the starving man being given an apology and a lot of money by the guy who starved him in the first place, so that he can buy his own food from whoever offers him good food for a good price.

[Socratoad]

I'm far too tired to go into it in any depth right now, but as a person who was formerly involved in international aid I believe that just about everything possible is wrong with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq at present. All the bloody giant corporations involved in the reconstruction are so damned corrupt that the extent of the ripoff both for the american taxpayer and the average Iraqi cannot be fully appreciated or understood by those that insist on wearing rose coloured glasses. Millions of dollars are being ripped off each and every day. Meanwhile the both the national debt and the deficit continue to spiral out of control.

Enough for now. I am unable to control my rage.
And then some here wonder why I despise the present regime.

[godfry n. glad]

How many "humanitarians" are perceived as "carpetbaggers"? I fail to see why we need to be there. We have done what we came to do, remove a ruthless dictator.

"Ruthless dictator" is Sanskrit for weapons of mass destruction, right?

No...It was the English language rationale used while Allied (i.e., American) troops were crossing the border into Iraq. The WMD rational took second place to "liberating the Iraqi people" from the control of a "ruthless dictator".

As if....

We didn't support other ruthless dictators throughout the world if it served our purposes. Others we sponsored...including Saddam Hussien's.

As for "liberating"...well, it seems that there are still people who think they have yet to be liberated. Of course, I could be misinterpreting their response....maybe they show their appreciation by shooting and bombing our soldiers?

What happened to the U.S. commitment to "self-determination"? I guess as long as they self-determine that it's in their best interests to be what we want them to be, then, uh...everything is just fine, right?

And.... What ever happened to that sage old advice...so trite that it's now used for comedy: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia..."?

We have U.S. troops deployed around the Middle East and Central Asia. How many for how long?

Yeah, right...Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

As if.

godfry

[Ronin]

I originally posted this over at IIDB and I think much of the sentiment applies here as well:

"Good things are happening as we each post our respective sources...even as risk and strife rage on.

That is my point.

I am not a believer in a "War on Terror" because terror has been and always will be around. I can personally attest to that.

Without mischaracterizing my opinion as "support" for the military mishandling and false premise of the Bush administration, which I do not...my intent here is to promote that there was and still is a need for humanitarian support from any and all capable civilized societies.

There seems to be a continued false dichotomy prevalent here in this forum...that if you support humanitarian aid or reconstruction in Iraq, you must then outright support the entire American Administration's premise and each military offensive action and the results.

I think that there is room for other views."

I hope that clears up any misconceptions anyone may have about my position.

[viscousmemories]

An example of a situation I'd be more happy with would be, first of all, there being no limits on which countries may bid for reconstruction contracts in Iraq. I would almost go as far as to say that Coalition countries should not be able to bid, but really, if the Iraqis want to contract US or UK companies, fair enough.

Once some semblance of government is set up in Iraq (ideally this would be a meaningful participatory democracy, but we're just going to have to live with a US client government and hope that media attention keeps them semi-honest), the US, UK, and other Coalition countries would officially apologise to the Iraqi people for illegally invading their country to disarm them of weapons everyone knew they didn't have, and defer to a multilateral group's judgement on how much the Coalition should pay Iraq in reparations. The Iraqi government would then continue to use that reparation money to contract companies - their choice whether to contract to Iraqi companies or foreign companies - in rebuilding the infrastructure, which the Iraqi people would then own.

In other words, the alternative to the starving man being fed poisoned food by the guy who starved him in the first place... is the starving man being given an apology and a lot of money by the guy who starved him in the first place, so that he can buy his own food from whoever offers him good food for a good price.
I agree that sounds like a great plan. However - as I'm sure you know - it's unlikely to happen. Given that, what should we do? Support the American corporate tyrants who are making the unfortunately unjust reconstruction effort, or oppose them and let Iraq and Afghanistan fend for themselves?

I see that this is probably a false dilemma but I just don't know what other realistic options exist.

[Zoot]

I don't think it's beyond reality to suggest Iraq be able to take bids from anyone in the world who wants to reconstruct Iraq. That would be a good start in eliminating waste and US profiteering.

I'd like to hear Socratoad's thoughts on what changes should be made.

[Ronin]

I don't think it's beyond reality to suggest Iraq be able to take bids from anyone in the world who wants to reconstruct Iraq. That would be a good start in eliminating waste and US profiteering.

I'd like to hear Socratoad's thoughts on what changes should be made.

Wouldn't that still be considered "war-profiteering", Zoot?

That seems to suggest that as long as there isn't only US profiteering, then more people would be A-OK with reconstruction?

I don't care one way or the other as long as more people support any and all reconstruction...it is worthwhile.

[Dingfod]

Maybe insurance adjusters should go appraise the damage we've caused and we can write checks to the Iraqis so they can rebuild on their own. I understand they did a fair job of it despite the UN sanctions, rebuilding 102 of 130 bridges destroyed by coalition forces in Desert Storm. They are capable people, they should get first crack at any rebuilding at all. In one case, an Iraqi engineering and construction firm came up with an estimate of about $250,000 to rebuild one bridge over the Tigris, tried to submit it, but the contract was awarded on a no-bid basis to Bechtel for some $3,000,000, more than 10 times the amount of the Iraqi bid. Who has a better knowledge of how much it will cost to rebuild a bridge they already rebuilt once in the past decade, Bechtel, or the Iraqis?

[Zoot]

Wouldn't that still be considered "war-profiteering", Zoot?

That seems to suggest that as long as there isn't only US profiteering, then more people would be A-OK with reconstruction?

I don't care one way or the other as long as more people support any and all reconstruction...it is worthwhile.

The profiteering occurs when there are limits on the contracts, and the Iraqi people are forced to pay their own aggressors to reconstruct their country at unnecessary prices. If there was competition for the bids, the Iraqi people could get a better deal on the reconstruction, and thus get more rebuilding for their buck. Profiteering is "making excessive profits on goods in short supply." The Coalition has enforced this short supply, and it is unjustifiable. The Iraqi people will be served once they can take bids from anyone, and they choose who's going to undo the damage inflicted by the US, UK, etc.

[Zoot]

In one case, an Iraqi engineering and construction firm came up with an estimate of about $250,000 to rebuild one bridge over the Tigris, tried to submit it, but the contract was awarded on a no-bid basis to Bechtel for some $3,000,000, more than 10 times the amount of the Iraqi bid. Who has a better knowledge of how much it will cost to rebuild a bridge they already rebuilt once in the past decade, Bechtel, or the Iraqis?

Well, the Iraqis are dirty Arabs. They'd probably BLOW UP the bridge, given half a chance. Best the good strapping lads from the US come and do a proper job of it.

And make it a toll bridge, with all profits to Bechtel.

[Ronin]

The profiteering occurs when there are limits on the contracts, and the Iraqi people are forced to pay their own aggressors to reconstruct their country at unnecessary prices.

<emphasis mine>

I see...and since the Germans are not the "aggressors" then it would be alright for a German company to do it.

If there was competition for the bids, the Iraqi people could get a better deal on the reconstruction, and thus get more rebuilding for their buck. Profiteering is "making excessive profits on goods in short supply." The Coalition has enforced this short supply, and it is unjustifiable. The Iraqi people will be served once they can take bids from anyone, and they choose who's going to undo the damage inflicted by the US, UK, etc.

Then you would have to argue about just "which" Iraqis get to bid and recieve the contracts...those favored from the old regime, connected to anyone perceived to be tainted by American interests, etc...or even overly "anti-American".

The point is the work is getting done and Iraqi subcontactors/workers are getting benefit from these contracts.

[Ronin]

In one case, an Iraqi engineering and construction firm came up with an estimate of about $250,000 to rebuild one bridge over the Tigris, tried to submit it, but the contract was awarded on a no-bid basis to Bechtel for some $3,000,000, more than 10 times the amount of the Iraqi bid. Who has a better knowledge of how much it will cost to rebuild a bridge they already rebuilt once in the past decade, Bechtel, or the Iraqis?

I've been looking for a source for this information.

Do you have a link or anything, warrenly?

Thanks.