Mission Accomplished Again

[Crazy Levi]

Ok, so now that we've won the Iraq war again, can someone clear this shit up for me? Is the U.S. military actually going to be leaving Iraq?

If so, how long before the country descends into complete chaos and the "democracy" flounders?

I give it a year. When that happens, do you think we will be stupid enough to retun? My answer is no, even if a Republican gets elected in 2012.

[Hames Jetfield]

Aren't they still trying to form a government? I'm all for our troops coming home, but until they've established a government with which they can police and protect themselves then nothing's really been won but a pile of dead people and Saddam being gone. I think it's moronic for Obama and Boehner to consider this a fucking victory.

[EvilMadman]

Ok, so now that we've won the Iraq war again, can someone clear this shit up for me? Is the U.S. military actually going to be leaving Iraq?

It really is the official end of "combat operations".

"The last American combat troops left Iraq today, seven-and-a-half years after the US-led invasion, and two weeks ahead of President Barack Obama's 31 August deadline for withdrawal from the country.

The final troops to leave, 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, rolled in convoy across the border and into Kuwait this morning, officially ending combat operations, which began in March 2003."

guardian.co.uk

But tens of thousands of "U.S. advisers" are still going to be sticking around.

"By the end of this month, 50,000 troops will be serving in Iraq. As Iraqi security forces take responsibility for securing their country, our troops will move to an advise-and-assist role."

guardian.co.uk

But however long they're going to remain in Iraq is anyone's guess.

[Skate4RnR]

Boy that was easy! If only Bush could've done a couple more terms.

[bane]

Aren't they still trying to form a government? I'm all for our troops coming home, but until they've established a government with which they can police and protect themselves then nothing's really been won but a pile of dead people and Saddam being gone. I think it's moronic for Obama and Boehner to consider this a fucking victory.

They'll NEVER have a stable government as long as we're around to back our favorites. They're in for a time of unrest and strife. We can stay there 1000 years and that isn't gonna change. They are going to fight over the scraps until somebody is strong enough to hold down the rest of the rabble. That's just how it is. Bush's "mission accomplished" thing was correct. The original mission was accomplished. The secondary part, leaving them stable, will never be accomplished. Obama's doing the right thing. It's long past time to get the fuck out of that quagmire.

[lerxstcat]

Aren't they still trying to form a government? I'm all for our troops coming home, but until they've established a government with which they can police and protect themselves then nothing's really been won but a pile of dead people and Saddam being gone. I think it's moronic for Obama and Boehner to consider this a fucking victory.

They'll NEVER have a stable government as long as we're around to back our favorites. They're in for a time of unrest and strife. We can stay there 1000 years and that isn't gonna change. They are going to fight over the scraps until somebody is strong enough to hold down the rest of the rabble. That's just how it is. Bush's "mission accomplished" thing was correct. The original mission was accomplished. The secondary part, leaving them stable, will never be accomplished. Obama's doing the right thing. It's long past time to get the fuck out of that quagmire.

The thing to do is pull out completely, let that power struggle happen and then make terms with whoever ends up ruling the country. Western-style democracy will probably never work there. Just because WE think it's the best way doesn't mean anybody in the ME agrees, so if we start respecting their cultures and dealing with whoever rises to power from within their internal struggles, we'll be better off.

[SmokingGun]

The thing to do is pull out completely, let that power struggle happen and then make terms with whoever ends up ruling the country. Western-style democracy will probably never work there. Just because WE think it's the best way doesn't mean anybody in the ME agrees, so if we start respecting their cultures and dealing with whoever rises to power from within their internal struggles, we'll be better off.

I agree we should pull out and let them sort it out. I don't agree we should respect their culture, as it is one I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Instead we should just accept the fact that we cannot change their culture.

As for your first point, what if another Idi Amin Dada / Hitler / Pol Pot / Mao / Mugabe / someone else much worse than Saddam should rise to power? Wouldn't the USA be somewhat responsible, seeing as things were more or less stable in the region before the war? Should we deal with them diplomatically or try to oust them?

[Heenan Snuka]

But however long they're going to remain in Iraq is anyone's guess.

false...the rest will be coming home by the end of 2011

[SmokingGun]

seeing as things were more or less stable in the region before the war? Should we deal with them diplomatically or try to oust them?

We oust the tyrant and hold elections and the Shiite majority votes in another regime that is sympathetic to Iran or controlled by Iran. Then you're back where you started.

You got it in one!

[lerxstcat]

The thing to do is pull out completely, let that power struggle happen and then make terms with whoever ends up ruling the country. Western-style democracy will probably never work there. Just because WE think it's the best way doesn't mean anybody in the ME agrees, so if we start respecting their cultures and dealing with whoever rises to power from within their internal struggles, we'll be better off.

I agree we should pull out and let them sort it out. I don't agree we should respect their culture, as it is one I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Instead we should just accept the fact that we cannot change their culture.

As for your first point, what if another Idi Amin Dada / Hitler / Pol Pot / Mao / Mugabe / someone else much worse than Saddam should rise to power? Wouldn't the USA be somewhat responsible, seeing as things were more or less stable in the region before the war? Should we deal with them diplomatically or try to oust them?

Well, by "respect" I just mean forget about trying to change them and deal with them as they are. In other words don't throw it in their faces that we see their ways as fucked up. It's not our job to change the world into our image.

I don't see how someone much worse than Saddam could rise to power, but if that's what turned out internally after we did free them from Saddam, then as long as they keep it inside their borders it's none of our business, and not our fault. Deal with them diplomatically as long as they don't try to agress. If they start invading their neighbors, well it depends who they invade. If they fight Iran, let 'em slug it out. If they fuck with our allies, thump 'em but DO NOT occupy the country again.

[slzrocker]

A buddy of mine who is in the army said we will always be in Iraq in some form. One of the people above him said we are going to be stationed there, much like we are still stationed in Korea, and Germany many years later. There isn't much combat related deaths in Iraq anymore. My friend also said that we will be in Afghanistan for at least 3 to 4 more years, though Obama said well start pulling out in 2011.

[EvilMadman]

I actually think Iraq has a pretty decent chance of being stable.

The real long-term problem for the U.S. and all it's allies is Afghanistan/Pakistan. Ugh! What a mess.

America has spent $53 billion trying to reconstruct Iraq, the largest development effort since the Marshall Plan.

So how’s it working out?

On the economic front, there are signs of progress. It’s hard to know what role the scattershot American development projects have played, but this year Iraq will have the 12th-fastest-growing economy in the world, and it is expected to grow at a 7 percent annual clip for the next several years. “Iraq has made substantial progress since 2003,” the International Monetary Fund reports. Inflation is reasonably stable. A budget surplus is expected by 2012. Unemployment, though still 15 percent, is down from stratospheric levels.

Oil production is back around prewar levels, and there are some who say Iraq may be able to rival Saudi production. That’s probably unrealistic, but Iraq will have a healthy oil economy, for better and for worse. Living standards are also improving. According to the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, the authoritative compendium of data on this subject, 833,000 Iraqis had phones before the invasion. Now more than 1.3 million have landlines and some 20 million have cellphones. Before the invasion, 4,500 Iraqis had Internet service. Now, more than 1.7 million do. In the most recent Gallup poll, 69 percent of Iraqis rated their personal finances positively, up from 36 percent in March 2007. Baghdad residents say the markets are vibrant again, with new electronics, clothing and even liquor stores. Basic services are better, but still bad. Electricity production is up by 40 percent over pre-invasion levels, but because there are so many more air-conditioners and other appliances, widespread power failures still occur. In February 2009, 45 percent of Iraqis said they had access to trash removal services, which is woeful, though up from 18 percent the year before. Forty-two percent were served by a fire department, up from 23 percent.

About half the U.S. money has been spent building up Iraqi security forces, and here, too, the trends are positive. Violence is down 90 percent from pre-surge days. There are now more than 400,000 Iraqi police officers and 200,000 Iraqi soldiers, with operational performance improving gradually. According to an ABC News/BBC poll last year, nearly three-quarters of Iraqis had a positive view of the army and the police, including, for the first time, a majority of Sunnis. Politically, the basic structure is sound, and a series of impressive laws have been passed. But these gains are imperiled by the current stalemate at the top. Iraq ranks fourth in the Middle East on the Index of Political Freedom from The Economist’s Intelligence Unit — behind Israel, Lebanon and Morocco, but ahead of Jordan, Egypt, Qatar and Tunisia. Nearly two-thirds of Iraqis say they want a democracy, while only 19 percent want an Islamic state. In short, there has been substantial progress on the things development efforts can touch most directly: economic growth, basic security, and political and legal institutions. After the disaster of the first few years, nation building, much derided, has been a success.

There is still very little social trust. Iraq is the fourth-most-corrupt nation on earth, according to Transparency International’s rating system. The role of women remains surprisingly circumscribed. Iraqi politicians clearly find it very hard to compromise (though they may be no worse than American politicians in this regard). Human capital is lagging. Most doctors left Iraq after the invasion, and it is hard to staff health clinics. The engineers left too, so American-built plants lie dormant because there is no one with the skills to run them. Schools are suffering because of a lack of teachers. Ryan Crocker, the former ambassador, recently wrote an article in The National Interest noting that fear still pervades Iraq. Ethnic animosities are in abeyance, but they are not gone. Guns have been put in closets, but not destroyed. If he is honest, Obama will have to balance pride with caution. He’ll have to acknowledge that the gains the U.S. is enabling may vanish if the U.S. military withdraws entirely next year. He’ll have to acknowledge that bottom-up social change requires time and patience. He’ll have to heed the advice of serious Iraq hands like Crocker, Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings and Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, and shelve plans to withdraw completely. Such a move may rob him of a campaign talking point. But it will safeguard an American accomplishment that has been too hard won.

By David Brooks
Published: August 30, 2010
nytimes.com

A Very interesting article.

I really hope the president isn't too busy to read stuff like this.

[EvilMadman]

I really hope the president isn't too busy to read stuff like this.

Hopefully the President doesn't need to read David Brooks to know what's going on in Iraq. Most of what he wrote was spin anyway.

Electricity production is up by 40 percent over pre-invasion levels, but because there are so many more air-conditioners and other appliances, widespread power failures still occur.

The problems with the electricity grid have been all over the news. Brooks makes it sound as if the problems are caused by prosperity. Actually they are caused by poor planning and corruption.

REPORT AIR DATE: Sept. 3, 2010
In Iraq, Electricity Remains Daily Struggle for Families, Businesses
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... 09-03.html

this year Iraq will have the 12th-fastest-growing economy in the world, and it is expected to grow at a 7 percent annual clip for the next several years.

The economy is growing because the US has pumped $53 billion into a $65 billion economy. Factor out US aid and you have a shrinking economy.

According to the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index, the authoritative compendium of data on this subject, 833,000 Iraqis had phones before the invasion. Now more than 1.3 million have landlines and some 20 million have cellphones. Before the invasion, 4,500 Iraqis had Internet service. Now, more than 1.7 million do.

So what? You can make that happen with 20 million bucks.

Baghdad residents say the markets are vibrant again, with new electronics, clothing and even liquor stores.

58 billion created "vibrancy" whatever that means.

The article is a spin job. We won't be able to know whether nation building was effective until US aid stops flowing and the eonomy is self-sustaining. The nation is still on life support.

Okay, now it's possible that David brooks painted a too rosy picture of Iraq or exaggerated, but I still doubt Iraq would crumble without the U.S.

But the coming windfall has the potential, if properly managed, to transform Iraq into one of the wealthiest countries in the region and a heavy-weight on the international oil stage. Indeed, we calculate that by the end of the decade, the increase in oil production could quadruple gross domestic product per capita and leave Iraq with financial reserves in excess of $350bn, putting it on par with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE today.

FT.com
Financial Times
Published: September 15 2010

Oil money from rising production is powering growth, as is pent-up demand for housing and better infrastructure. Now that the government has awarded oil-field contracts worth billions of dollars to BP (BP), ExxonMobil (XOM), China National Petroleum, and others, foreign clients are besieging James Hogan (HSBC's country manager) for help in financing everything from pipelines to power grids to workers' camps. Suppliers are following in the majors' footsteps: Weatherford (WFT) for drilling, Centrilift (CAM) for pumps, Cameron for valves. The International Monetary Fund figures the economy could grow 7.3% in 2010. In 2003 the economy barely had a pulse

Ordinary Iraqis, however, are living more normally than they have in years. Shops on Saadoun and Karrada Streets are filled with flat-screen TVs, computers, and clothing from China, Turkey, Iran, and Korea. Pedestrians have to step around the Turkish and Iranian refrigerators and stoves piled outside. At night many Baghdadis relax watching one of the privately owned television channels that have sprung up, or checking the latest Iraqi Web sites.

The central bank, buttressed by the IMF, has stabilized the dinar at about 1,170 to the dollar (it was once 1,500) and has lowered inflation to single digits from a peak of 80% in 2006. Foreign reserves stand at about $50 billion. "This definitely gives predictability," says Marcel Cobuz, Iraq general manager of Lafarge, the French building-materials maker.

Lafarge (the French building-materials maker) now sells almost half its 5-million-ton annual output in Iraq to construction companies in the Baghdad area. Figuring demand for cement can only grow, Cobuz may next buy derelict state-owned plants, refurbish them, and boost production. Construction, he reckons, will be up 15% this year.

Foreign direct investment is key to Iraq's revival, but the IMF figures less than $1 billion came in last year. That number could multiply fast.

Business Week.com
April 22, 2010

Problems aside (and there are serious problems, no doubt about that), the situation looks at least hopeful.