Yanks Haven't A Clue!!!

bertiebowl

IMHO,

The current situation in Iraq is a disgrace.

We've seen massive looting, destruction, anarchy and what do the Americans do?

Protect the oil ministry and the oil fields.

Now nearly three full weeks after the war the water and electricity has not been restored to all residents of Iraq

How difficult can it be to get the 'lecky going again if you have the might of Uncle Sam's army behind you??

Also the Americans want all the civil servants to come back to work to "run Iraq".

One small problem - there is no central government to pay for the civil servants - hence they don't want to work!

How difficult could it be to slip a few squids to the civil servants in the first few months until Iraq is back functioning??

Particularly when your budget for the war is a staggering US$70,000,000,000!!!!!!!!!

This has led me to wonder: Do the yanks have a clue what's really going on???

Originally posted by bertiebowl
IMHO,

How difficult can it be to get the 'lecky going again if you have the might of Uncle Sam's army behind you??

I've seen it take up to a week here on parts of the east coast after last octobers storm and no war.
And indeed as long if not longer in isolated parts of France and the UK at times with the help of our own ESB.
Indeed even in parts of the united states itself in wintertime after an ice storm, powere outages can last a long time.

mm

colinsky

Also the Americans want all the civil servants to come back to work to "run Iraq".

i find it extremely interesting that, despite the categorical denounciation of Saddam's government, Garner some how decides that the organization of the civil service in said government is somehow worth retaining and restroring directly. Wouldn't a "democratic" republic of Iraq some imply that the Iraqis made these determinations themselves?

Originally posted by colinsky
i find it extremely interesting that, despite the categorical denounciation of Saddam's government, Garner some how decides that the organization of the civil service in said government is somehow worth retaining and restroring directly. Wouldn't a "democratic" republic of Iraq some imply that the Iraqis made these determinations themselves?

I would have thought three things on that,1. That the structure of administration that worked, would be the model to restore,2. That any Baaathist bad apples working for it wouldn't have the Gaul to come back as they wouldn't be accepted by the people for long and 3. That a democratically elected government would have the authority to make or shake up any civil service.
This is only an interim administration.
mm

CCCP^

After World War II ended in Europe, the process of denazification was put into operation by the Allies. However, Prosecuting the 2 Million + members of the NSDAP would just be impossible, especially since these people were the doctors, civil servants, judges etc which were needed to run the country. Gettting rid of those who collaborated with Hussein's Goverment or Ba'athist officals will be hard, and I would not be suprised if the Americans and British just gave up on it.
I would imagine we are instore for numerous pledges of new found faith in the "democracy" from Ba'athist party members.

colinsky

Actually, I wasn't even making claims about "collaborators" in the civil service. I was questioning whether it was wise to assume that, say, a health ministry under a dictatorship would run like or be organized anything like a health ministry under a democracy. Would it serve the same rule? Would it need the same org chart? Running all the civil services _as is_ is quite a presumtitive maneuvor.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by colinsky
I was questioning whether it was wise to assume that, say, a health ministry under a dictatorship would run like or be organized anything like a health ministry under a democracy. Would it serve the same rule? Would it need the same org chart?

Pretty much. Many of the middle and higher ranking officials would be cleared out and replaced, but it would ultimately it would remain business as usual.

bonkey

Originally posted by colinsky
I was questioning whether it was wise to assume that, say, a health ministry under a dictatorship would run like or be organized anything like a health ministry under a democracy. Would it serve the same rule? Would it need the same org chart? Running all the civil services _as is_ is quite a presumtitive maneuvor.

Its presumptive if he hasnt done his homework to see how they were structured, how the operated, whether or not they were compatible with the interim system, etc. etc. etc.

I would imagine that Garner has had his lackeys do this research. He's not stupid.

As to the initial point....I do think its somewhat discouraging that the "well-drawn" plans for invasion seem to have largely ignored what would need to happen immediately after the shelling stopped.

However, having said that....I would imagine that its somewhat unfair to blanket everything thats happening with the "you only protect the oil" condemnations. For a start, thats the most strategic thing to control in terms of preventing/minimising the havoc caused from any uprising from any potential resistance cells.

What is discouraging is not that its the oilfields being policed, but rather that the US insisted they gave their general everything he wanted for his plan, and the US then tell us that they cant do certain things because they are either not equipped or do not have sufficient human resources.

So either someone is lying about "all he wanted", or the general's plan was a bit lacking in the post-conflict department...which funnily enough is where most commentators have said since day 1 that the US will face its real challenge. Neither option reflects ideally on the US. I wouldnt call it worthy of condemnation just yet either....things arent that bad....but they could have been a lot better, and they could get a lot worse.

I'm open to a third option, but I cant actually see one.

jc

Victor

Regarding comparing the war damage to storm damage. I don't think the two are comparable. With a (this) war you have (often widespread) localised damage, with a storm you have wisespread general damage.

Power stations and transformers weren't being targeted in this war. While power cables will have been damaged, repairs are quite quick. How is it so difficult to turn the lights back on? When you think about it, the lights were running in Baghdad right up to the day before the city fell. Surely only this damage needs to be undone.

(Looting aside).

mike65

I'm surprised as well as to how long its taken to get power and water running again, plainly security is an issue with armed militias still on the loose but I'd have had a small army of engineers ready to be flown in as soon as it was deemed safe to get to work. Protecting the oil fields was vital - thats the income to re-build the country...

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

So given that America has liberated Iraq, let me see if I am correct in the following;

People are rarely able to leave their homes after dark with armed groups roaming around, looting in the American rear.

There is a great area of the country without power or fresh water except what they can acquire for themselves.

The US want control of Iraqi oil reserves to be under US administration rather than that of the United Nations.

The Iraqi military budget has been increased dramatically in the wake of the US takeover.

Oil is more important to the US than getting a team of engineers to restore health facilities, water pumping stations and electricity.

Originally posted by Victor
Regarding comparing the war damage to storm damage. I don't think the two are comparable. With a (this) war you have (often widespread) localised damage, with a storm you have wisespread general damage.

Power stations and transformers weren't being targeted in this war. While power cables will have been damaged, repairs are quite quick. How is it so difficult to turn the lights back on? When you think about it, the lights were running in Baghdad right up to the day before the city fell. Surely only this damage needs to be undone.

(Looting aside).

I dunno enough, Victor , obviously not being in the ESB of Iraq, but I'd guess a lot transformers would have fused anyway with powersurges caused by the bombing.
Couple that with having to re-route underground cables etc, etc.
plus the ongoing need to calm the security situation.

I would have thought also that to start with, it wouldn't be a state of the art grid they'd have, given the years of sanctions, ie, not one that would survive much pressure.
I live adjacent to a moderate sized town on the East and was with out power after the october 2002 storm for 48 hours, and 4 days at Xmas about 3 yrs ago. Go a few miles out of town, and it was closer to 5 daysin some isolated pockets.
In Wales, in the United Kingdom , some parts of Anglesea were out for longer. Thats with,a modern network and loads of engineers working.
mm

vorbis

oh dear do some people put any context on the information available? the same people who predicted over a hundred thousand casualties are predicting mass chaos in Iraq. Eomer the iraqi military budget has not increased. Where did you hear that rubbish. As for the looting, it has calmed down to a degree. The situation isn't perfect butI'd say within a few months things will be back to normal and the iraqis will have a better future to look forward to. Have some patience.

shotamoose

Originally posted by vorbis
As for the looting, it has calmed down to a degree.

Because there was nothing left to loot, in most cases.

The situation isn't perfect butI'd say within a few months things will be back to normal and the iraqis will have a better future to look forward to.

What's 'normal' in the Iraqi context? As far as I can see there's no agreement on what a 'normal' Iraqi society should or would look like.

Sparks

Vorbis,
Those predicting a 500,000 casualty figure did so as a worst-case, and since it was for a point within 6 months of the commencement of hostilities, you need to have patience before saying they were wrong. Further, unless you're posting from a baghdad internet cafe, I don't think you've got a valid right to say "sure and it'll be fine".

Originally posted by Sparks
Further, unless you're posting from a baghdad internet cafe, I don't think you've got a valid right to say "sure and it'll be fine".

The problem with saying that , is it closes down all rights to comment including your own.
It wasn't just the hundreds of thousands of deaths and casulties predicted by the likes of Michael D, robert fisk and others but the prediction of a Beiruit style war in Baghdad before the Iraqi government would fall....
Most of the soldiers just diserted, knowing fighting for Sadam was either pointless or something they didn't have to do if they didn't want to.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Man
Most of the soldiers just diserted, knowing fighting for Sadam was either pointless or something they didn't have to do if they didn't want to.

As an aside, I wonder if they deserted because they felt it was a hopeless military conflict, or because they didn’t want to fight for the Ba’athist regime? Or neither? Or both? I doubt we’ll ever know the truth.

bertiebowl

I was watching "newsnight" last night and they showed Iraqi civil servants queuing to go back to work!!!!

Only seems nobody had told the American soldiers guarding the building......they were refusing to let anyone into that particular government building......

Do the Americans have a clue?

The top guys say one thing.........

.........while the guys on the ground say the exact opposite

Originally posted by bertiebowl
I was watching "newsnight" last night and they showed Iraqi civil servants queuing to go back to work!!!!

Only seems nobody had told the American soldiers guarding the building......they were refusing to let anyone into that particular government building......

Do the Americans have a clue?

The top guys say one thing.........

.........while the guys on the ground say the exact opposite

Don't worry Bertie,in another office, the oil ministry, they were only letting people in that were on their list.
one by one, in order of importance, the car tax office will probably be last:D
mm

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The Iraqi military budget has been increased dramatically in the wake of the US takeover.

Will be, not has been. In part to replace losses, in part to make up for sanctions. In part to keep Beoing and co. busy.

Éomer of Rohan

Thank you Victor - there you go Vorbis, a slight technicality but will be. The figure I heard quoted on the news was 30Bn USD a month

PS Do not go saying things like 'that's rubbish' unless you are prepared to substantiate it. You are no better informed than anyone else.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The figure I heard quoted on the news was 30Bn USD a month

Thats the American budget for the war. (US$75bn+)

Éomer of Rohan

I understood all that bar the (US$75bn+) reference - how does this fit with the 30Bn USD figure?

Sparks

Man,

The problem with saying that , is it closes down all rights to comment including your own.

Not really - my comment was effectively "wait and see what the outcome is". The fact that I don't have first-hand knowlege doesn't affect the validity of that position. I suspect it's going to get messy - I'm not saying it will. The people on the ground, now that's a different story - they are saying that not only is it messy now, it's going to get worse.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I understood all that bar the (US$75bn+) reference - how does this fit with the 30Bn USD figure?

Getting there, having the war, occupying and getting home.

vorbis

Afaik, Sadamme spent 25% of his budget on military items. I doubt the percentage will be so high under the new Iraqi Governemnt. As an aside to the title. We europeans are far worse at military spending. Accordng to RTE (definetly not pro American !) EU countries spend 60% of what the US spends on military spending yet only have 12% of the US's military capacity.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Thank you Victor - there you go Vorbis, a slight technicality but will be. The figure I heard quoted on the news was 30Bn USD a month

PS Do not go saying things like 'that's rubbish' unless you are prepared to substantiate it. You are no better informed than anyone else.

If fairness Éomer, a slight technicality is all one needs to pervert truth.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Thank you Victor - there you go Vorbis, a slight technicality but will be. The figure I heard quoted on the news was 30Bn USD a month

PS Do not go saying things like 'that's rubbish' unless you are prepared to substantiate it. You are no better informed than anyone else.

The Iraqi military budget is not going to be $30bn a month. They don't even make $30bn a year from oil sales. As Victor said, $75bn was the US budget for the war and tidying up, but wasn't that based on a six-month timespan?

So I really don't know where you're getting these numbers from. If the US have any sense they'll keep the money they've saved on a short war to pay for security over the next while. Iraq just doesn't have the money to pay for a big military, even with maximum oil sales AND debt cancellation.

mike65

I have'nt checked this (why break the habits of a lifetime?) but I'm pretty sure the 30 billion was for the first 4 weeks of operations and the 75 odd billion for, as shootamoose says, 6 months ops/clearing up afterwards which includes the first 30 billion, if you follow...

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by vorbis
Afaik, Sadamme spent 25% of his budget on military items. I doubt the percentage will be so high under the new Iraqi Governemnt.

A maximum of 8.3% of the oil for food Program was allowed to be spent on non-humanitarian / compensation items. This included all the everyday things you need to import from cars to computers to military equipment (of which they weren't getting a whole lot).

Also, Bush is spending about 20% of the (much bigger) American federal budget on defence (excludes state budgets and the National Guard elements, but also nuclear spending under the Dept of Energy and other fudges under the Dept of Homeland Security and CIA, etc.). And we accuse Saddam of being a warmonger?

Originally posted by vorbis
Accordng to RTE (definetly not pro American !) EU countries spend 60% of what the US spends on military spending yet only have 12% of the US's military capacity.

Do you have a reference for this? How does one compare nuclear capacity to humanitarian capacity, both of which can be included in military budgets?

vorbis

just referencing a quote from the news tonight. Since RTE is usually strongly ani American, I doubt this figure has been fudged in the US's favour. A sfor American defence spending, I think they have got good value from it. Its helped make them the worlds only superpower.