On Humanitarian Grounds:

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Adora

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

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 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]

Originally Posted by Adam

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 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]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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 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, 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

and

One year on the human rights situation remains dire

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...thanks.

[Zoot]

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

Done. Now what?

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

Originally Posted by http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/warcontracts/bechtelbackground.php

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
Bechtel's Friends in High Places (Hm... Who used to work for Bechtel? Why, it's George Schultz!)
Here is a PDF of information about Bechtel's history in Iraq
Here is a PDF with more information about Bechtel's political connections

Originally Posted by http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bechtel_foundation.htm

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

<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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Zoot

"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