How many people does it take to control a country?

edanto

I was originally going to comment in the What will happen to Iraq after the US leave thread, but as I thought about the post I realised that it has little to do with the US leaving.

I saw an old news story about the new US Embassy in Iraq (known by the locals as G W's palace) and what struck me about it is that there will be at least 8,000 people working at the embassy!! For fcuks sake!! It will be visible from space!

the times

So, what will they all do? Which brings me to the original question. Can there be any doubt that the US want to control the oil in Iraq. Seriously, is there any other conclusion to be drawn from the facts?!

Fair enough they might want to move a lot of the army out, or at least there is pressure on them to do that. But let me just show two small pictures that are striking side by side. Exhibit A, a map showing where most of Iraq's oil is - http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/post_saddam_iraq/img/oil_infra_map_416.gif

And then, this image showing where the 14 US permenant bases (cost $1bn) are. http://www.fcnl.org/images/iraq/iraq_multiple_bases.jpg

The only place where there is a lot of oil and no US bases is Basra, which of course is one of the first places that British troops were sent at the outset of the First World War.

How can we stop the US and UK from raping Iraq?

Judt

Ahem. You do know that they're leaving shortly? Really, you're making up some pretty false assumptions. For example the 8,000 civilians at their embassy do things like liaise with Iraqi government departments to, you know, teach them how to do their jobs.

bobbyjoe

Their never leaving.
Plus Iraq had a civil service, health system, education system and constitution before the Americans destroyed them.

Akrasia

Judt wrote:

Ahem. You do know that they're leaving shortly? Really, you're making up some pretty false assumptions. For example the 8,000 civilians at their embassy do things like liaise with Iraqi government departments to, you know, teach them how to do their jobs.

If they're leaving shortly, why have they built permanent bases?

And why are many of the politicians comparing Iraq to Korea recently (The U.S. still has military bases in Korea)

edanto

Judt wrote:

Ahem. You do know that they're leaving shortly? Really, you're making up some pretty false assumptions. For example the 8,000 civilians at their embassy do things like liaise with Iraqi government departments to, you know, teach them how to do their jobs.

You say they're leaving shortly and then you accuse me of making false assumptions!! Get a grip mate.

What do you know about the 8,000 people in the building. What skills do they have, are they all civillian? How are they teaching people to do their jobs in the Iraqi civil service? What do you actually know? Bring some facts or step out.

Moriarty

Just on the siting of the US bases; they're located around the major population centres of the country. Claiming that they're only located where they are to control oil fields is disingenuous.

edanto

point taken.

bobbyjoe

Their hardly going to let some new Iraqi gov nationalise the oil industry and sell in euros after spending billions invding.

Judt

Their never leaving.

There's a couple of presidential hopefuls who might disagree.

Plus Iraq had a civil service, health system, education system and constitution before the Americans destroyed them.

Yeah, so did Nazi Germany. Then many of them lost their jobs or were hung for crimes against humanity. Iraq was run by the Baath Party, and appointments were to Saddam's croneys. Iraq's civil service was wrecked after the war (for one, all of their offices were looted..........)

If they're leaving shortly, why have they built permanent bases?

For the Iraqi army. At the moment the Iraqi army is based on counter-insurgency tasks, but once Iraq is stabalised it will reform itself into a traditional, modern heavy army which will require military bases. Just like in Germany and so on, the new army will inherit many of the bases of the occupying troops later.

And why are many of the politicians comparing Iraq to Korea recently (The U.S. still has military bases in Korea)

The US will most likely still maintain a presence in Iraq for a long time. But there's a difference between an occupation force and a force that's based there. Ala Germany again... The troops based there don't regularly have to mount police-like patrols through those dangerous streets of West Berlin...

What do you know about the 8,000 people in the building. What skills do they have, are they all civillian? How are they teaching people to do their jobs in the Iraqi civil service? What do you actually know? Bring some facts or step out.

And where are your facts on their CV's? What do you think they're doing, exactly? I think you're confusing anti-Americanism with hard fact.

Sheesh, it seems that the US can do nothing right, eh? If they gave every Iraqi a million quid and built enough hospitals and schools to do the whole country they'd be accused of something or other... Argue what you will about the validity of the war and so on, they're there and they're trying to rebuild a country being torn apart by bigots and racists. I suppose you just want them to pull out and leave them to it?

jonny72

Judt wrote:

Ahem. You do know that they're leaving shortly? Really, you're making up some pretty false assumptions. For example the 8,000 civilians at their embassy do things like liaise with Iraqi government departments to, you know, teach them how to do their jobs.

How do they liaise? I heard only a handful, maybe 30 or so actually speak Iraqi..

Judt

jonny72 wrote:

How do they liaise? I heard only a handful, maybe 30 or so actually speak Iraqi..

1. A lot of educated Iraqi's speak English
2. There are quite a few Arabic - English translators in the world, for whatever lucrative reason...

Think a little before asking a silly question... By the same logic, how does the EU work, what with all of its languages?

jonny72

Judt wrote:

Sheesh, it seems that the US can do nothing right, eh? If they gave every Iraqi a million quid and built enough hospitals and schools to do the whole country they'd be accused of something or other... Argue what you will about the validity of the war and so on, they're there and they're trying to rebuild a country being torn apart by bigots and racists. I suppose you just want them to pull out and leave them to it?

This war was dreamt up and implemented by bigots and racists. American racists and bigots and if the Russians were there, in the same situation, then it would be Russian bigots and racists. Its not an anti-American thing.

The Bush administration has been infested with rats from the start, arrogant white men with dreams of oil, imperialism, forced democracy and of course dillusions that Iraq would go the way that Germany and Japan did. These idiots listened to noone. I feel sorry for the good men on the ground, doing all the dirty work, getting killed, all because of these small minded incompetent administration rats who treated the whole thing like it was a game.

As I've said before, those who supported the war, or somehow still see the Americans are liberators and not occupiers have little left to say apart from blaming the Iraqis. This is a proxy war being fought between America and Islamic fundamentalists on Iraqi soil. Many of the blunders made by America are irreversable, so the question now is not how to turn Iraq into a democracy, it is how to stop Iraq turning into a greater chaos than it already is.

jonny72

Judt wrote:

1. A lot of educated Iraqi's speak English
2. There are quite a few Arabic - English translators in the world, for whatever lucrative reason...

Think a little before asking a silly question... By the same logic, how does the EU work, what with all of its languages?

Silly question? excuse me

"WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (Reuters) - Among the 1,000 people who work in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, only 33 are Arabic speakers and only six speak the language fluently, according to the Iraq Study Group report released on Wednesday.

"All of our efforts in Iraq, military and civilian, are handicapped by Americans' lack of knowledge of language and cultural understanding," the bipartisan panel said in its report. "In a conflict that demands effective and efficient communication with Iraqis, we are often at a disadvantage."

The report, written by five Republicans and five Democrats, recommended the U.S. government give "the highest possible priority to professional language proficiency and cultural training" for officials headed to Iraq."

That is shocking. The EU works because people in the embassies SPEAK the local language.

Victor

edanto wrote:

How many people does it take to control a country?

More than the number of people that don't want you to control the country.

edanto

No, I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I think a small group of people can control a larger group, and often do, for their own benefit.

I'm not talking about controlling a country by force, but by laws and economics.

Victor

You forget that most of the time, most of the people don't care who runs most of the country, so it is merely for one faction to adequately out-size the other(s).

Yes, Prime Minister wrote:

One of the best descriptions of British newspapers is in this episode: The Times is read by the people who run the country. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country. The Morning Star is read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country. The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who still think it is their country. And the Sun's readers don't care who runs the country providing she has big tits.

Judt

jonny72 wrote:

Silly question? excuse me

"WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (Reuters) - Among the 1,000 people who work in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, only 33 are Arabic speakers and only six speak the language fluently, according to the Iraq Study Group report released on Wednesday.

"All of our efforts in Iraq, military and civilian, are handicapped by Americans' lack of knowledge of language and cultural understanding," the bipartisan panel said in its report. "In a conflict that demands effective and efficient communication with Iraqis, we are often at a disadvantage."

The report, written by five Republicans and five Democrats, recommended the U.S. government give "the highest possible priority to professional language proficiency and cultural training" for officials headed to Iraq."

That is shocking. The EU works because people in the embassies SPEAK the local language.

Yes, via translators generally...

Victor

Judt wrote:

Yes, via translators generally...

Some yes, but Pat Cox seems to be equally at home in French as English.

jonny72

Judt wrote:

Yes, via translators generally...

Here's another example..

"Al Hurra television, the U.S. government's $63 million-a-year effort at public diplomacy broadcasting in the Middle East, is run by executives and officials who cannot speak Arabic, according to a senior official who oversees the program.

That might explain why critics say the service has recently been caught broadcasting terrorist messages, including an hour-long tirade on the importance of anti-Jewish violence, among other questionable pieces.

Facing tough questions before a congressional panel last week, Broadcasting Board of Governors member Joaquin Blaya admitted none of the senior news managers at the network spoke Arabic when the terrorist messages made it onto the air courtesy of U.S. taxpayer funds. Nor did Blaya himself or any of the other officials at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the network."

Zebra3

Judt wrote:

Iraq was run by the Baath Party, and appointments were to Saddam's croneys.

And Ireland is run by FF, and appointments are made to Ahern's cronies.

jonny72 wrote:

This war was dreamt up and implemented by bigots and racists. American racists and bigots and if the Russians were there, in the same situation, then it would be Russian bigots and racists. Its not an anti-American thing.

The war was not dreamt up by bigots and racists. It was carefully planned by extremely rich and powerful people in America who are worried about how unstable the oil supply is from Saudi Arabia. Taking control of Iraq's oil supply eases that concern.

Also, having US military bases in Iraq helps them keep control over the huge oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea.

edanto

And where are your facts on their CV's? What do you think they're doing, exactly? I think you're confusing anti-Americanism with hard fact.

I don't have any facts about the people in the embassy. But all I have is a proven pattern of misdirection and agression by the US and a strong hunch that it revolves around the oil. Call me anti-american if you like (though I'm not), but don't say anything else that's toned as an insult or suck up a ban.

Would I be anti-Irish if I disagreed with a decision of my government? Of course not, but it shows that you're not that good at using logic to make a case.

I'm anti-invading countries and trying to install puppet regimes as the US has been doing for decades, covertly and overtly - and particularly in the Iraq case when Wolfowitz & co. laid out their plans to militarily/politically resource-control the Middle East in the PNAC writings.

Sheesh, it seems that the US can do nothing right, eh? If they gave every Iraqi a million quid and built enough hospitals and schools to do the whole country they'd be accused of something or other...

Oh I dunno, altruism?! And who'd want to throw that dirty label?! But let's do the maths. Say 14 megahospitals and education complexes and $1,000 dollars for every Iraqi (since the ol' greenback goes a lot further in the majority world than in the west -something to do with the US dominated Bretton Woods institutes).

A hospital can cost half a billion, so that'd be $7bn, lets double that to include the price of the schools and 30 years salaries. 27,499,638 x $1,000 is a nice round $28bn plus the 14 gives us a grand total of forty two billion dollars to do a really good job of restoring the country. Or 10% of the cost of the war so far.

Argue what you will about the validity of the war and so on, they're there and they're trying to rebuild a country being torn apart by bigots and racists. I suppose you just want them to pull out and leave them to it?

Yes, I'm a pacifist, but only because I think that war is stupid and particularly unjustified in the Iraq invasion.

And I don't think they're trying to rebuild the country for the good of the people that live there, I think that the American government is full of shit and that they are sending young kids to die there so that the Oil and Defense lobbies at home will continue to make money.

I want them to pull out and give the money that they're happy to spend on the war to the UN to send in an Arab-dominated peacekeeping and rebuilding force.

jonny72

Zebra3 wrote:

The war was not dreamt up by bigots and racists. It was carefully planned by extremely rich and powerful people in America who are worried about how unstable the oil supply is from Saudi Arabia. Taking control of Iraq's oil supply eases that concern.

Also, having US military bases in Iraq helps them keep control over the huge oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea.

You think thats the sole reason??

The war was also dreamt up by..

People who wanted revenge on Saddam, people with imperialistic delusions about the forceful spread of democracy, people who wanted Israel to have one less enemy, people who saw it as an opportunity for one giant experiment, people who wanted to use up their stockpiles of aging cruise missiles, people who wanted to test new weapons, etc, etc, etc..

I remember seeing a documentary about Somalia post '93. In it they interviewed a relatively minor warlord, he said to the interviewer without any shadow of a doubt that the Americans were gonna come back for their revenge. This seemed like the oddest statement at the time. Fastforward to today, and how right he was.

Just because Hitler is dead and we pat ourselves on the back for our incredible tolerance of other races doesn't mean we aren't still disgustingly racist or go to war for such reasons, we just hide it alot better, and please you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the GOP who isn't a bigot, they're proud of the fact for godsake, they wear it like a badge.

What has the US done after 911?

Invaded, killed, tortured and imprisoned a hell of alot of Muslims, and someone said that the Muslims are the bigots and racists? Doesn't make much sense to me.