The "New Way Forward" factsheet

[JP]

George doesn't speak to the nation for another half-hour yet as I post this, but the factsheet is already out:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html
the bolding is theirs:
The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

* Iraq Could Not Be Graver – The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq. Our enemies throughout the Middle East are trying to defeat us in Iraq. If we step back now, the problems in Iraq will become more lethal, and make our troops fight an uglier battle than we are seeing today.
I'm pretty sure the bolded "cannot be won if" part is wrong. The fight against communism didn't fail because we failed in Vietnam, after all.

[DMHinCO]

A couple interesting statements in the President's well-delivered speech tonight.

a) 80% of Iraq's violence is within 30 miles of Baghdad. Is that because that is the only area with significant religious mixing? I honestly don't know and he wasn't answering mutterings I aimed at the TV.

b) The Iraqi voters chose a unity government. My interpretation of the elections has been that each voter selected a candidate who was the most militantly aligned with that voter's ethnic/religious self-interest.

c) The Sunnis provoked the Shia in the hope that they would overreact, which they did. This is a nice way of putting the blame on the Sunnis. However, the Shia death squads, who apparently often wear police uniforms, aren't exactly reining in their overreaction, are they?

Tim Russert came on and said this is the Presidents last chance in Iraq. I can't figure out why he would say that. Wasn't the last time his last chance? And the time before that? When was Johnson's first last chance in Vietnam? When was Nixon's first last chance?

The milestones the President mentioned sounded eerily like the last-chance options we have been giving the Iraqi government for a long time.

I was surprised he said $10Billion of Iraqi money would be devoted to a jobs program. Where did they get that $10Billion?

[trojanrabbit]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/10/olbermann-a-look-backward-at-the-commanders-credibility/#more-13443

Yup, George is going to be right this time, just you wait and see. :rolleyes:

[DMHinCO]

Why are the internet headlines proclaiming "Bush takes blame in Iraq"? He gave the most general and ineffective mea culpa in history. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
The president's speech left me feeling like he thinks this is Day 30 of the conflict. And that he made a big show of listening to as many points of view as possible and then ignored the 95% who said to pull out.

Hmmm. Wait a minute. He is ignoring the majority of the evidence and focusing on a few speculative and suspect tidbits that tell him what he wants to hear. That'll probably go just fine this time. :rolleyes:

[Martin Tupper]

Assuming that the extra 20K troops are able to bring Baghdad under control, what's to stop the insurgency from flaring up elsewhere within the country. Granted that the importance of Baghdad goes beyond mere symbolism, but either this is the first of many such regional deployments of additional troops, or it will be a continuation of the whack-a-mole tactics that allowed the insurgency to flourish in the first place.

"I drove us into this ditch, and I'm just the man to get us out...now get out 'n' push" - W

[smak]

Tim Russert came on and said this is the Presidents last chance in Iraq. I can't figure out why he would say that. Wasn't the last time his last chance? And the time before that? When was Johnson's first last chance in Vietnam? When was Nixon's first last chance?

The milestones the President mentioned sounded eerily like the last-chance options we have been giving the Iraqi government for a long time.

I was surprised he said $10Billion of Iraqi money would be devoted to a jobs program. Where did they get that $10Billion?

Why does it need to be the last chance, when no matter what any of his experts say, no matter what the American people think, and no matter how little any of this accomplishes, he still does what he wants.

Even sneaking the first 1000 new troops into Iraq basically at the same time as his speech is just a typical big FU to everybody.

Stay the course + 22,000 troops = Stay the course.

There's no new plan here, no objective, no goal. Moving forward would be to train the Iraqi's so they can take over, and get the hell out. These troops aren't training Iraqi's, they're just sticking their necks into a civil war, and increasing the number of targets by 15%.

These people are delusional, McCain, Lieberman, Bush.

I was happy I guess to learn from McCain today that the war was won easily, and we were greeted as liberators after all.

These people aren't well.

-smak-

[JP]

I think George's presented plan would be a fine one, if only reality happened to match what he laid out as the foundation we start off with.

Reality isn't cooperating, however. Malaki can make George all the promises either of them can dream up, but it's highly doubtful he can deliver on most of them. It doesn't matter where reconstruction funds come from, us or the Iraqis, if (as it has for nearly 4 years) the security situation prevents them from being utilized. It doesn't matter if we and the Iraqis can clear an area of bad guys if the forces that are going to hold the area - Iraqi forces - are part of the sectarian violence problem and not the solution to it.

Simply put, the plan depends on our having a functioning and reliable government in Iraq as our ally. Can anyone say we actually have that in them?

And it's questionable whether only 20K additional troops would be enough even if Makali could come through. 50K would be more like it, and that'd be just for Baghdad itself. But we're having to stretch and strain to come up with just 20K.

I hope to be wrong, but I do not see this ending well.

[pgogborn]

80% of Iraq's violence is within 30 miles of Baghdad. Is that because that is the only area with significant religious mixing? I honestly don't know and he wasn't answering mutterings I aimed at the TV
Although a lot of the violence In Baghdad relates to religious mixing and Shias now trying and succeeding in moving Sunnis out of whole neighborhoods, another factor is that in countries such as Iraq (and the UK) very high proportions of the population live in the capital and within, in American terms, a short distance of it.

Also I would not be surprised that in some of the more 'remote' parts of the country sectarian violence and intimidation is less well recorded.

[aindik]

Lost in all the actual foreign policy stuff was yet more evidence that Bush is an FDR liberal on economic issues.
To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs.

Someone needs to teach Bush the broken window fallacy.

And this nice bit of socialism.
Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

[DMHinCO]

aindik, you can rigidly adhere to Libertarian principles or you can recognize that the Iraqis have large numbers of unemployed men who are causing trouble, without the streets even being cleared of trash. The security situation has deteriorated so badly that people can't go to work. How would Libertarian aindik start his private business in Baghdad? You had better start with a private militia to escort employees to work.

Heck, the Rent-A-Drunk locations (or whatever the Iraqis call the day labor hangouts) are bombed occasionally.

Frankly, I think Bush doesn't want to withdraw because so many US companies are making such enormous money. And stabilizing enough to get the oil industry back means US oil services companies will make billions more. For decades.

I'd like to see the Iraqis doing a bunch of the jobs the outside contractors are doing. But if you buy your food from an Iraqi contractor to feed your troops, is that even safe? If you pay Iraqis instead of Blackwater, they end up becoming death squads against their enemies.

I think a far more interesting approach would be to do a de-Baghdadification. Find nearby cities in religiously-homogenous (and secure) areas and create giant infrastructure projects that need tons of Iraqis. Get enough of those going and people leave Baghdad to go work in those cities. Keep those cities religiously homogenous and your security problem dissipates significantly.

I'll be interested to see if the $10B of Iraqi funds is paid primarily to foreign contractors.

[DMHinCO]

Assuming that the extra 20K troops are able to bring Baghdad under control, what's to stop the insurgency from flaring up elsewhere within the country.
To be optimistic, if the US can stay in Baghdad until the Shia "finish the job" of driving the Sunnis out or six feet under, and the remaining Sunnis retreat to Sunni-dominated enclaves, perhaps we can declare victory and run.

Winner? Iran.

[aindik]

aindik, you can rigidly adhere to Libertarian principles or you can recognize that the Iraqis have large numbers of unemployed men who are causing trouble, without the streets even being cleared of trash. The security situation has deteriorated so badly that people can't go to work. How would Libertarian aindik start his private business in Baghdad? You had better start with a private militia to escort employees to work.

I have no problem with security. That is a legitimate government function. But saying "we believe in freedom" and "freedom is on the march" while cheering on the Iraqi government for make-work projects and continuing to own and operate the oil fields and redistributing the revenues to "all Iraqis" is contradictory to me.

"Freedom is on the march" means "the Iraqi government will pass legislation auctioning off the oil fields to the highest bidders in three months. It will use the proceeds to fund security and other necessary governmental functions." Not "it will own and operate the single biggest business in the country and distribute its revenues amongst all and use some of the money for make-work projects." That may be many things, but freedom it is not.

How would I start my private business? I'd buy a garbage truck and start driving around picking up the garbage that the government can't pick up and charging people for the service. And I'd probably pay some Iraqi to do it for me. (And yeah, I'd expect to be protected by the government from violence and theft.)

Oh, and the broken window fallacy? The Iraqi infrastructure is effed up because WE BLEW IT UP! Now we're "creating jobs" by putting it back together.

I think a far more interesting approach would be to do a de-Baghdadification. Find nearby cities in religiously-homogenous (and secure) areas and create giant infrastructure projects that need tons of Iraqis. Get enough of those going and people leave Baghdad to go work in those cities. Keep those cities religiously homogenous and your security problem dissipates significantly.

You're suggesting enforced segregation? Because that always seemed to work great when we tried it over here.

[pgogborn]

another factor is that in countries such as Iraq (and the UK) very high proportions of the population live in the capital and within, in American terms, a short distance of it.
I have now had a chance to put some figures on it - although population figures for Iraq are probably not particularly accurate.

The total Iraq population is about 26.8 million - of which about 5m live in Baghdad itself and 6.5 million in Baghdad and surrounding urban area >
http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/Iraq.htm

(in comparison out of a total US population of 298m only 8m live in its largest city) >
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

(((all figures are recent published statistics rather than projections as to what 'todays' figure is)))

[DMHinCO]

How would I start my private business? I'd buy a garbage truck and start driving around picking up the garbage that the government can't pick up and charging people for the service. And I'd probably pay some Iraqi to do it for me. (And yeah, I'd expect to be protected by the government from violence and theft.)
And there is the problem. Not only is the government incapable of protecting you from violence and theft, its forces assigned to that task may very well be perpetrating violence and theft.

Forced segregation? Yeah, maybe. It is what I suggested three years ago - make Iraq into 3 countries. One will likely be subsumed into Iran. One will likely form a breakaway republic with Turkey.

What I suggest today? Install a replacement strongman, retreat to the oilfields to get it all going, and leave the rest of the country to go to hell.

And pray for God's forgiveness.

[aindik]

And there is the problem. Not only is the government incapable of protecting you from violence and theft, its forces assigned to that task may very well be perpetrating violence and theft.

And that is the problem on which the government should be concentrating. Not make-work public works projects to "create jobs," and certainly not on running an oil business "for the benefit of all Iraqis."

Forced segregation? Yeah, maybe. It is what I suggested three years ago - make Iraq into 3 countries. One will likely be subsumed into Iran. One will likely form a breakaway republic with Turkey.

National boundaries is not equivalent to segregation, unless the national boundaries are coupled with a Berlin Wall or "no Sunni may live here" laws. The borders (with different governments in power in each territory), I don't have a problem with. It's "keep those cities religiously homogenous" that's the problem. In fact, that sentiment might be one of the root problems in the entire Middle East.

[JP]

And that is the problem on which the government should be concentrating. Not make-work public works projects to "create jobs," and certainly not on running an oil business "for the benefit of all Iraqis."You got a chicken/egg problem there. The reason the militias and insurgents have popular support is because the government can do nothing for the people, because the security situation is so bad, because the people support the militias and insurgents instead of the government, because the government can't do anything for the people.

If the government CAN do something for the people, by sharing some oil revenue for example, it could possibly slowly earn some support away from the militias and insurgents.

You have to break the vicious circle somewhere. "It's the government's job to protect me" may be perfectly true, but it doesn't take the situation on the ground into account. You may have to sacrifice ideology purity to deal with that reality.

[pgogborn]

The reason the militias and insurgents have popular support is because the government can do nothing for the people, because the security situation is so bad, because the people support the militias and insurgents instead of the government, because the government can't do anything for the people.
I would like to add a few shades of grey there.

The reason why Sunnis support insurgents is that they see the militias as an arm of the Shia government.

The biggest militia is the Mahdi Army - which is why it is so devastating that people present at the hanging of Saddam taunted him with chants of "Muqtada!" - Muqtada created the Mahdi Army.

I also think it is fair to say that elements of the Mahdi Army militia are part of the Iraqi police force.

[aindik]

You got a chicken/egg problem there. The reason the militias and insurgents have popular support is because the government can do nothing for the people, because the security situation is so bad, because the people support the militias and insurgents instead of the government, because the government can't do anything for the people.

If the government CAN do something for the people, by sharing some oil revenue for example, it could possibly slowly earn some support away from the militias and insurgents.

You have to break the vicious circle somewhere. "It's the government's job to protect me" may be perfectly true, but it doesn't take the situation on the ground into account. You may have to sacrifice ideology purity to deal with that reality.

The reason the militias and insurgents have popular support is because the government is seen as a western puppet, is seen as taking sides in a religious war, and is incapable of keeping the peace. The way to combat that is to concentrate on your core mission as a government - to quell violence and enforce the law evenhandedly. Running the oil business a) wastes public resources (money and people) that could be used for security and law enforcement, and b) keeps up the appearance of corruption.

People will invest in Iraqi infrastructure when the nation is stable enough and property rights are secure. Then, there'll be business that can fund infrastructure improvements (either directly or via taxation). Oh, and privatizing the oil fields can yield a huge immediate pile of cash to fund security and infrastructure projects, plus get the government out of the marketplace.

But Bush doesn't think in terms of privatization. He thinks in terms of government. He thinks public works projects create jobs.

Iraq is still at least partially a member of OPEC. That would be a good thing to get rid of. For everybody involved.

[JP]

I would like to add a few shades of grey there.

The reason why Sunnis support insurgents is that they see the militias as an arm of the Shia government.

The biggest militia is the Mahdi Army - which is why it is so devastating that people present at the hanging of Saddam taunted him with chants of "Muqtada!" - Muqtada created the Mahdi Army.

I also think it is fair to say that elements of the Mahdi Army militia are part of the Iraqi police force.All true, so far as I know. It's another vicious circle. The government depends on Sadr's Shiite militias for muscle because the government lacks sufficient popular support itself, because it cannot provide security, because...

It just goes round and round.

[JP]

The way to combat that is to concentrate on your core mission as a government - to quell violence and enforce the law evenhandedly. That's the vicious cycle, though. The government cannot quell violence because it doesn't control all the uses of force, because the other users of force have popular support, because the government cannot provide the people with security. We're back on the same ride, going round and round.

Running the oil business a) wastes public resources (money and people) that could be used for security and law enforcement, and b) keeps up the appearance of corruption.

People will invest in Iraqi infrastructure when the nation is stable enough and property rights are secure. Then, there'll be business that can fund infrastructure improvements (either directly or via taxation). Oh, and privatizing the oil fields can yield a huge immediate pile of cash to fund security and infrastructure projects, plus get the government out of the marketplace. If one problem with the current government is perceived corruption (which isn't just perceived but is very real) where do you imagine the people will think (no doubt correctly) the windfall from privatization will wind up? Helping the country, or enriching some private coffers?

Okay, so to get it so they can privatize the oil industry we first have to restore public confidence in their government. Which the public now lacks because their government cannot protect them, because...

I think I've been on this ride before.

[aindik]

That's the vicious cycle, though. The government cannot quell violence because it doesn't control all the uses of force, because the other users of force have popular support, because the government cannot provide the people with security. We're back on the same ride, going round and round.

If one problem with the current government is perceived corruption (which isn't just perceived but is very real) where do you imagine the people will think (no doubt correctly) the windfall from privatization will wind up? Helping the country, or enriching some private coffers?

Okay, so to get it so they can privatize the oil industry we first have to restore public confidence in their government. Which the public now lacks because their government cannot protect them, because...

I think I've been on this ride before.

The problem stems from an inability on the part of the government to provide security. Seems to me that, to combat the second problem the government merely needs to show capability of ridding the nation of violence. It doesn't have to be popular, yet. It simply has to be able to back up its threats to do harm to the violent. Once it does that, the people who don't really support the militias, and only do so out of fear, will be able to stop doing that.

Privatization needs to be sold to the people as a way to unmingle the oil business and the political process. Certain people in Iraq are concerned with the political process only because of what the government is going to do with the oil industry. They don't want "the other guy" running the oil business forever. Once the oil industry is out of the hands of the government, who controls the government becomes less important. And, different people can bid on different territories and each get their piece of the oil business if they can outbid everyone else (including Exxon and Lukoil and Citgo the other companies from other countries).

The oil privatization should obviously be an open process. A real, highest bidder, unbiased by religious or national affiliation auction. It needs to be presented as such to the Iraqi people. And the proceeds need to be allocated transparently to the treasury, perhaps with a reduction in expected future contributions to the treasure (we call them taxes) by Iraqis. (IOW, let the foreigners fund our government). The people who want to control the oil business, instead of shooting guns in an attempt to control the government, can simply bid in the auction. They can put their money where their mouths are.

An oil auction is also a signal to the rest of the world that Iraq is open for business.

But, for a President who is supposed to believe in the power of free markets to create peace, he doesn't mention one word about privatization. He doesn't use his position of influence to advocate for it (perhaps because he's too afraid of the public perception of this war as an oil grab, even though privatization is the right thing to do).

That's because he doesn't believe in the power of free markets to create peace. He, like FDR before him, believes in the power of democratic government to create peace and prosperity.

[smak]

This just so puts an icing on this rancid cake of an escalation.

Remember Afghanistan Mr President? The real war on terror?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.afghanistan07jan07,0,3288686.story?page=1&coll=bal-attack-headlines

"Radical Islamist Taliban forces, shattered and ejected from Afghanistan by the U.S. military five years ago, are poised for a major offensive against U.S. troops and undermanned NATO forces, prompting American commanders here to issue an urgent appeal for a new Marine Corps battalion to reinforce the American positions"

I guess if you're going to ignore the commanders in Iraq about more troops, you might as well do the same in Afhganistan.

-smak-

[JP]

The problem stems from an inability on the part of the government to provide security. Seems to me that, to combat the second problem the government merely needs to show capability of ridding the nation of violence.Which cannot happen because some of the same forces committing the violence are also propping up the government. Malaki can make all the noises he wants about cracking down on the militias, but he can't. Without Sadr's forces on his side, his government would collapse.

It's not the fault of libertarianism that it can't untie this Gordian Knot, of course. This knot is well and truly tied up after nearly 4 years of incompetence, inattention, delusion and graft.

[aindik]

Which cannot happen because some of the same forces committing the violence are also propping up the government. Malaki can make all the noises he wants about cracking down on the militias, but he can't. Without Sadr's forces on his side, his government would collapse.

It's not the fault of libertarianism that it can't untie this Gordian Knot, of course. This knot is well and truly tied up after nearly 4 years of incompetence, inattention, delusion and graft.

Well, the President seems to think that socialism and FDR New Deal-ism are going to help untie the knot. That doesn't surprise me, but it annoys me because of what the Republican Party used to be until it nominated him 7 years ago.

[Turtleboy]

I like Andrew Sullivan's comment that this is "just enough troops to lose."

It is. A "surge" would be 50,000 troops. It would be a 100,000 troops. It would take a draft and a massive influx, and probably couldn't be done.

20,000? Meh. Just get out.

[JP]

Well, the President seems to think that socialism and FDR New Deal-ism are going to help untie the knot. It's at least one end you can try to get hold of, that the people are unhappy because the government can't do anything for them. It can't give them security right away, so it's going to try cash bribes to get people to "buy in" to supporting it, and possibly have something to lose if it's overthrown.

I don't give it much chance of success, but it's at least admitting to reality instead of steadfastly holding on to fantasy and demanding that reality come to YOU, as our administration's pursuit of the war has done these last 4 years.

That doesn't surprise me, but it annoys me because of what the Republican Party used to be until it nominated him 7 years ago.I'd agree they've come down quite a number of pegs since George became their candidate, but I don't think the times before him were any golden era of small-government fiscally responsible conservatism in the Republican Party either. Reagan and Bush v1.0 raised taxes, after all, and Reagan nearly tripled the national debt he'd complained so much about while running against Jimmy Carter.

[aindik]

It's at least one end you can try to get hold of, that the people are unhappy because the government can't do anything for them. It can't give them security right away, so it's going to try cash bribes to get people to "buy in" to supporting it, and possibly have something to lose if it's overthrown.

I don't give it much chance of success, but it's at least admitting to reality instead of steadfastly holding on to fantasy and demanding that reality come to YOU, as our administration's pursuit of the war has done these last 4 years.

I'd agree they've come down quite a number of pegs since George became their candidate, but I don't think the times before him were any golden era of small-government fiscally responsible conservatism in the Republican Party either. Reagan and Bush v1.0 raised taxes, after all, and Reagan nearly tripled the national debt he'd complained so much about while running against Jimmy Carter.

This is less about "fiscal" policy (i.e. how, and to what extent, to fund the government) than it is about "economic" policy more generally. The government deciding to own the chief industry in the nation isn't a "fiscal" issue in the traditional sense.

Reagan's biggest foreign policy issue was the war on communism. Not only the war on Soviets, but the war on communism as an immoral ideology.

As communism goes, the government owning and running the oil business in the country is pretty damn close. Calls to share the wealth of the government industry more equally is closer yet.

I doubt Reagan would be hailing as progress these socialist policies of a foreign government.

Reagan and Republicans through to 1994 also used to mock "make work" projects and the claim that they "create jobs" as the folly they are. Remember the Clinton crime bill and the "midnight basketball" programs?

Bush (and Delay in a domestic context last year regarding the transportation pork-fest) now join in the chorus.

[JP]

I like Andrew Sullivan's comment that this is "just enough troops to lose." I like what GOP Senator and Vietnam vet Chuck Hagel said - "this represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam".

Harry Reid had to top him, of course, and call it the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our nation.

I like the sniping now coming from the conservapundits - "You George-haters wanted more troops in 2003, 2004, 2005, but you don't want more troops now? You wanted more troops when George didn't and don't want them when he does!"

But there's a difference, obviously, between wanting a lot more troops THEN when it could possibly have made a difference BEFORE it all went to hell in Iraq, and wanting a few more troops now AFTER it's all gone to hell, and all they can possibly hope to accomplish is putting off the "last helicopter out of the green zone" picture a few years down the road to the next poor sap's administration.

George's remaining followers can then get on with the serious business of trying to re-write history so that Iraq was going well and was so totally winnable until the media ruined everything (or until the Dems took power in Congress, or until the Iraqis just irrationally refused to stand up, pick an excuse or mix and match).

It is. A "surge" would be 50,000 troops. It would be a 100,000 troops. It would take a draft and a massive influx, and probably couldn't be done.No way we can do it with just 20K additional, and we just don't have any more combat-ready divisions - a lot of their equipment is already in Iraq to replace losses there, and it's hard to train troops up to combat-ready without equipment. A draft gives us more non-ready manpower but no more equipment. If we instituted a draft and spent money like water starting right now, we might be able to provide enough manpower - in a couple of years.

[JP]

Reagan and Republicans through to 1994 also used to mock "make work" projects and the claim that they "create jobs" as the folly they are.Two leading lights of conservatism, one from the 1994 glory days (Gingrich) and one hoping to contend in 2008 (Giuliani) weigh in on this jobs-creation thing in the WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009514
The week before Christmas, the Pentagon asked Congress to approve a supplemental $100 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the estimated $500 billion spent to date. The administration should direct a small percent of that amount to create an Iraqi Citizen Job Corps, along the lines of FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression. The Job Corps can operate under the supervision of our military and with its protection. The Army Corps of Engineers might be particularly helpful in directing this effort. It will place our military in a constructive relationship with the Iraqis--both literally and figuratively.

[DMHinCO]

aindik,

I sympathize with your position. I agree that there is not a shred of evidence that "freedom is on the march." I agree that the President has no economic or fiscal priorities for the Iraqi future. I agree that it COULD make sense to put the oil into private ownership.

But even the most optimistic Libertarian can't say it won't look to the majority of Iraqis and the majority of the world like a short-term sellout. It will look like Iraq's prized asset was sold for quick cash to benefit one small group of Iraqi leaders who, during their likely brief period of power, managed to arrange a sweetheart deal.

And what if the highest bidder is Iran? Venezuela. Or their private corporations they set up just for this deal? The situation would be worse, not better.

I don't think that political problem can be overcome. If it can, it won't be for at least another year. We have to see if Maliki is still in business by Christmas. My magic 8-ball says "Sources Say No."

[aindik]

Two leading lights of conservatism, one from the 1994 glory days (Gingrich) and one hoping to contend in 2008 (Giuliani) weigh in on this jobs-creation thing in the WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009514

Oy vey. Where to begin.

The administration should direct a small percent of that amount to create an Iraqi Citizen Job Corps, along the lines of FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression.

Well, at least they admit their inspiration. Remember when Republicans were against the New Deal?

Today, Iraq has almost 200 state-owned factories that have been abandoned by the governing authorities since the outbreak of war in 2003.

A conservative of the recent past would have decried state-owned factories as a communist relic and called for their immediate sale. But not now. Now we must run them.

at least 10 of these facilities could be re-opened almost immediately, putting more than 10,000 Iraqis to work within weeks. This should be done without delay--and it is only the beginning.

The wages that these thousands of gainfully employed workers receive will be used to purchase goods and services that will employ other Iraqis. Those goods and services must be produced by still other Iraqis. These are the first steps in creating the requisite conditions of a stable functioning economy and the best hope of displacing retribution and violence with hope and opportunity.

What did Nixon say? We are all Keynesians now? There was a time after he said that when it wasn't true. Now, it's back. In all it's pump-priming trickle-up central-planning glory.

What will these factories actually produce? Will it be anything anyone actually wants to buy? Who will decide? And, of course, in the event they get it right and produce a product that people want, there's not even a mention of the possibility of international trade and gains from that, or imports, which might be much cheaper than re-opening Iraqi factories. The economy must be by Iraqis and for Iraqis. That sounds eerily familiar. It sounds like Lou Dobbs. It sounds like Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez.

The first steps in creating a stable functioning economy in Iraq is to use American tax dollars to fund the opening of an Iraqi state-owned factory? Sheesh.

We must try to achieve constructive and compassionate goals through conservative means--jump starting civic improvement and the individual work ethic in Iraq, without creating permanent subsidies. The goal is to get more Iraqis working, especially young males, who are most susceptible to the terrorist and warlord recruiters.

Why must they work? Can't they play basketball at midnight instead?

And, lest there be any doubt about who should run the factories:
One word of caution: The program should be overseen by the U.S. military, not private contractors, to avoid unnecessary delays in deployment or accusations of cronyism in the bidding process.

I miss Phil Gramm and Dick Armey. They (much moreso than Gingrich) would have seen through this socialist mess.

[aindik]

aindik,

I sympathize with your position. I agree that there is not a shred of evidence that "freedom is on the march." I agree that the President has no economic or fiscal priorities for the Iraqi future. I agree that it COULD make sense to put the oil into private ownership.

But even the most optimistic Libertarian can't say it won't look to the majority of Iraqis and the majority of the world like a short-term sellout. It will look like Iraq's prized asset was sold for quick cash to benefit one small group of Iraqi leaders who, during their likely brief period of power, managed to arrange a sweetheart deal.

A President who truly believed in markets, and that markets and trade, moreso than democracy, bring peace, would be making the case. He would be broaching it with Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi people. He would be broaching it with the American people. He would be attempting to drum up public support.

Instead, he touts the great accomplishments of the Iraqi government as a) spreading the wealth more evenly from a state-owned enterprise, and b) a make-work jobs program.

And what if the highest bidder is Iran? Venezuela. Or their private corporations they set up just for this deal? The situation would be worse, not better.

Part of me says that we can exclude any company owned by any government. But another part of me says let 'em buy it. They have to get the money from somewhere. Governments only get money by extracting it from their citizens. If they do that, then the negative effect on their economy by taxing their citizens to buy the oil business will hurt them. Like it did with the Soviets, whose military expansion bankrupted the country.

I don't think that political problem can be overcome. If it can, it won't be for at least another year. We have to see if Maliki is still in business by Christmas. My magic 8-ball says "Sources Say No."

If the Iraqi people can't be convinced, then so be it. But someone who believed it was the right thing to do to foster peace and prosperity would at least be trying to influence public opinion.

[smak]

No way we can do it with just 20K additional, and we just don't have any more combat-ready divisions - a lot of their equipment is already in Iraq to replace losses there, and it's hard to train troops up to combat-ready without equipment. A draft gives us more non-ready manpower but no more equipment. If we instituted a draft and spent money like water starting right now, we might be able to provide enough manpower - in a couple of years.

What do you mean we don't have the troops. We have plenty of troops in Afhganistan, just twiddling their thumbs and watching TV in their air conditioned barracks (tip to National Review Online). Let's just send them over to Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/01/08/commanders_seek_more_forces_in_afghanistan/

"A US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq."

We of course finished the job in Afhganistan long long ago, and nothing could possibly go wrong there in the near future, so moving the troops to Iraq is a no brainer.

And when I say no brainer, I mean no brainer :D

-smak-

[JP]

Touching on something aindik and I discussed earlier, here's a portion of an article in the Washington Post that mentions post-war privatization (the article itself is on the administration's attempts to try now what people had been suggesting in 2003 regarding state factories and de-baathification):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301372_pf.html
Idle Factories, Idle Workers

Before Carney left Iraq in June 2003, he tried one last time to persuade Bremer to rethink his refusal to repair more than a handful of state-owned factories. Iraq's government-run businesses employed more than 100,000 people before the U.S. invasion. To Carney, it was a no-brainer: Fixing the factories would allow thousands of Iraqis to get back to work, not only allowing them to provide for their families, but also keeping them occupied. He knew from his time in other post-conflict societies that the idle and unemployed are the best recruits for insurgencies.

But Bremer and his chief economic adviser, Peter McPherson, didn't want to pour money into inefficient state-run firms. They believed private investors would buy Iraq's government factories and set up new businesses to employ the populace. So they refused to give Carney money to reopen the plants.

The day before he left, Carney sent a note to McPherson titled "Fatal Flaws in Budget Policy towards State-Owned Enterprises." He argued that the CPA was violating the Geneva Conventions by undermining "assets of the Iraqi people." He also accused McPherson of drawing up policy "without adequate Iraqi participation."

"Instead of transparency, with major concerned Iraqi Ministries and academics engaged," he wrote, "the policy seems to be the thinking of a small group in the Coalition Provisional Authority."

"We need to rethink this," he wrote in closing.

Petraeus also opposed the immediate privatization of state-run firms. "What happens when you have privatization is . . . you end up with a hell of a lot less workers in the short term," he told an interviewer in 2004. "If you want to increase unemployment en route to greater employment and greater productivity and greater a lot of other things, that's great, but you've got to survive in the short term."

For almost three years, the policy didn't change. Although the Iraqi government reopened a small fraction of its 148 factories and began operating them at a diminished capacity, the efforts to sell them to private investors were unsuccessful.
I think this is an example of what can happen when you put ideology ahead of immediate reality, as Bremer and McPherson did for the CPA. Rather than the immediate benefit of having 100K Iraqis back at work, they demanded that privatization of state-run facilities come first.

[aindik]

Touching on something aindik and I discussed earlier, here's a portion of an article in the Washington Post that mentions post-war privatization (the article itself is on the administration's attempts to try now what people had been suggesting in 2003 regarding state factories and de-baathification):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301372_pf.html

I think this is an example of what can happen when you put ideology ahead of immediate reality, as Bremer and McPherson did for the CPA. Rather than the immediate benefit of having 100K Iraqis back at work, they demanded that privatization of state-run facilities come first.

100k Iraqis back at work doing what? Making what? Who decides?

If you want to occupy 100k Iraqis, why put them to work? Why not just spend the money to open Iraqi movie theaters and open them for free (showing western fare). It would be much cheaper and the Iraqis would enjoy it more.

Iraqis should only work when someone wants to spend their money to buy their labor. That will happen when signals are sent to investors that private property rights are secure in Iraq.

[JP]

100k Iraqis back at work doing what? Making what? Who decides?Making what they made before the invasion, and "who decides" not being material - they'd open the factories that were open before the invasion. Presumably those made something of use, but they could be making useless widgets and we could still reap the benefit.

While it would unquestionably be best if they made something of definite utility and profitability, the primary initial goal was NOT to be turning a profit. It was to get Iraqis back to work, restore some normalcy as quickly as possible, create the fewest number of upheavals for the Iraqi public as possible to accomplish our stated goals (securing WMD to prevent terrorists from obtaining same, ousting Saddam, and installing a democratic government).

This is what I meant about letting adherence to ideology get in the way of reality on the ground. Waiting for buyers for the state-run factories instead of getting them running was putting ideology ahead of reality, and that turned out to be a mistake. It was also hardly democratic - Bremer and the CPA simply decreed it, there was little if any Iraqi input. Shouldn't it have been THEM making the decision on what to do about state-run factories, and not us imposing it on them?

If you want to occupy 100k Iraqis, why put them to work? Why not just spend the money to open Iraqi movie theaters and open them for free (showing western fare). It would be much cheaper and the Iraqis would enjoy it more. It wouldn't give them the same feeling of usefulness or engender feelings of ownership ("buy-in", I think you folks call it?) in Iraqi society that having a paying job does. This is standard-issue psychology.

Iraqis should only work when someone wants to spend their money to buy their labor. How's that working out so far?

That will happen when signals are sent to investors that private property rights are secure in Iraq.Which are signals that are not going to be sent anytime soon because the security situation is so dire, in no small part due to so many Iraqis not supporting the government, due in no small part to how many were made unemployed and left with little hope after we toppled the former regime.