Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[quadraphonics]

This doesn't explain why almost every ministry in Iraq is corrupt. Many of them are far removed from oil.

"Far removed" in what sense? In their designated function, sure. But all of their budgets come directly out of oil revenue, and the appointment of ministers is highly politicized. Which, in a petrostate, means that they're appointed to those positions not so much because they're qualified for them, but as a pretense for those in power to pay them out of the oil revenue and so solidify their grip on power. This corruption propagates down through the ministries. The point is that, in a petrostate, a government doesn't need to tax its population, and so doesn't need to do things to improve their productivity (such as maintain functional, noncorrupt ministries for stuff like education, infrastructure, etc.). All that's required to stay in power is that leaders distribute enough oil revenue to buy patronage (well, and a little cheap populism from time to time). This corrupts the entire state, as there is no incentive for it to function properly; it's all simply a pretense for the distribution of oil revenue. It all works the same way in every petrostate, from Saudi Arabia to Venezuela. Indeed, the oil sector itself is often the *least* corrupt part of the state, as it DOES need to function, and typically requires investment from and collaboration with entities from Western countries who don't view corruption as acceptable.

 

[edward]

"Far removed" in what sense? In their designated function, sure. But all of their budgets come directly out of oil revenue, and the appointment of ministers is highly politicized. Which, in a petrostate, means that they're appointed to those positions not so much because they're qualified for them, but as a pretense for those in power to pay them out of the oil revenue and so solidify their grip on power. This corruption propagates down through the ministries. The point is that, in a petrostate, a government doesn't need to tax its population, and so doesn't need to do things to improve their productivity (such as maintain functional, noncorrupt ministries for stuff like education, infrastructure, etc.). All that's required to stay in power is that leaders distribute enough oil revenue to buy patronage (well, and a little cheap populism from time to time). This corrupts the entire state, as there is no incentive for it to function properly; it's all simply a pretense for the distribution of oil revenue. It all works the same way in every petrostate, from Saudi Arabia to Venezuela. Indeed, the oil sector itself is often the *least* corrupt part of the state, as it DOES need to function, and typically requires investment from and collaboration with entities from Western countries who don't view corruption as acceptable.

I agree with you to a great extent about petrostates. What is different about this situation is that the country is occupied by liberation? forces, and the Iraqis did it right under our noses.

Much of the money even funded the insurgents who were killing Americans, when it was supposed to be used to pay for the cost of the war.

They even managed to scam money in the early years of the war when the so called coalition was supposedly in charge of the purse strings. There is a link to the early fraud below.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621523/

This is one hellava way to fight a war.

 

[Astronuc]

"He who is able to fix the public utilities holds the keys to the kingdom in terms of winning the support of the Iraqi people and ultimately ending this conflict."
SGT. ALEX J. PLITSAS, of the Army, on conditions in the Sadr City section of Baghdad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/world/middleeast/22sadrcity.html

BAGHDAD — Even as American and Iraqi troops are fighting to establish control of the Sadr City section of this capital, the Iraqi government’s program to restore basic services like electricity, sewage and trash collection is lagging, jeopardizing the effort to win over the area’s wary residents.

For weeks, there have been reports that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is preparing to move ahead with a multimillion-dollar program to rebuild the southern swath of Sadr City, which is currently occupied by Iraqi and American troops.

But almost a month after American and Iraqi forces pushed into the area, there are no signs of reconstruction. Instead, the streets are filled with mounds of trash and bubbling pools of sewage. Many neighborhoods are still without electricity, and many residents are too afraid to brave the cross-fire to seek medical care. Iraqi public works officials, apparently fearful of the fighting, rarely seem to show up at work, and the Iraqi government insists the area is not safe enough for repairs to begin.

On Saturday, three Sadr City residents gingerly approached an American Army position to deliver a warning: Unless the Iraqi government or its American partner did something to restore essential services and remove the piles of garbage, the militias would gain more support. . . . .

I wonder if anyone is Washington is paying attention, or are they simply trying to avoid another inconvenient truth.

 

[Art]

Here is an interesting investigation by the BBC which identifies $23 billion of reconstruction funds either stolen, lost or simply unaccounted for. Apparently a gagging order is restricting any media coverage / investigations in the US.

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
By Jane Corbin
BBC News

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Aqz1m4rsW4Jr_cknBu73e6Ss0NUE

BAGHDAD - Iraqi officials stepped up pressure on the United States on Tuesday to agree to a specific timeline to withdraw American forces, a sign of the government's growing confidence as violence falls.

The tough words come as the Bush administration is running out of time to reach a needed troop deal before the U.S. election in November and the president's last months in office. Some type of agreement is required to keep American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.

The Iraqi timeline proposal made public Tuesday appears to set an outer limit, requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide — though that precondition could itself take years.

"Our stance in the negotiations under way with the American side will be strong," said Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, a day after the country's prime minister first publicly said he expects some type of timeline.

Maybe it's time to leave.

 

[Astronuc]

Has a deal been drafted to leave Iraq?

Iraqi officials say they have a draft of a deal to reduce American troops there. The White House said not so fast. Host Kai Ryssdal talks about the U.S. in Iraq with Ken Pollack, author of "A Path Out of The Desert."

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/20/exit_strategy/

Kai Ryssdal: Iraqi officials said today they've reached an agreement with the United States to reduce the U.S. troop presence there. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's not quite a done deal yet. But any agreement would be a big step toward rebuilding the American presence in the Middle East. In his new book on that topic, called "A Path Out of The Desert," analyst Ken Pollack says the first step for the United States is to admit it has a problem.

Ken Pollack: When it comes down to it for the United States, it's all about the oil. It's a hard thing to say, but you need to think of oil in this way: Oil underpins our economy and the economy of the entire developed world. It is important to us because the loss of major supplies of oil would cripple our economy, but also because it would devastate the economies of our trade partners. And in the interdependent globalized world, we can't afford for that to happen either.

Ryssdal: Once you get past the fact that we are there for the oil, there are other problems in that region that the United States will have to deal with to get a path out. There are demographic issues and political issues and socio-economic issues. How do you unify all that in a theory that gets the United States out of the Middle East.

Pollack: The Middle East has problems abounding. And, you know, the good news is that that is something that we and other countries, other regions of the world have found ways to address. Think about Europe before the Second World War. It was the worst region on earth. The heart of genocide, of the world wars, of the worst slaughters, the worst religious wars, starvations, you name it. And through a process over about 50, 60 years, the United States helped Europeans to basically completely reforge their own societies. Now, I don't want to suggest that what happened in Europe is exactly what's going to happen in the Middle East. Not the case at all, 'cause it's going to be up to the Middle East to decide, the people of the Middle East to decide what kind of a path they want to take. But we've never worked with them to try to find a way to make it possible for them to reform in a way that they find palatable. Nor have we really committed ourselves to this kind of an effort the way that we did in Europe, in East Asia and more recently in South America.

. . . .

Certainly there are economic interests (trade and access to oil) as well as security interests.

 

[turbo]

A study at UCLA indicates that sectarian violence in Iraq declined not in response to the surge, but because ethnic cleansing and homogenization reduced the number of minority targets available. The analysis uses Northern Ireland as a comparable case and notes that reduced violence does not equate to "peace".

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1953066020080919