I myself have no clue how we'd manage to stay at these levels (or even close) for several more years, but it does have its advocates. Expand the military, of course, but where would the recruits come from, and how would the gap of several years for recruiting and training them be filled?

I thought I'd open a thread where supporters of a prolonged stay can address the practicalities of such an effort.

I don't know if there's a lot of support anywhere for a years long stay, but I've heard Dems saying we should expand the military, maybe that makes this a point of agreement between some Dems and Reps. Of course the hardcore right want them patrolling the border and the Dems want them shining whatever new technology is being build in Dem districts.

Don't look at me, I've been for (re)expanding the military and intelligence services since the fall of the Berlin Wall when we overdid the peace dividend thing. It was obvious that a series of brushfire wars, civil wars and insurgencies would follow the end of the balance between the two superpowers and resulting power vacuum.

And I continue to believe that we won't be the "sole superpower" very long. Unicycles are inherently unstable.

Superpowers aren't always countered by other superpowers, but by alliances. We don't have a lot of natural enemies and pretty much own our own continent. The folks that would have the most to lose to an expansionist US (Canada and Mexico) know full well we have no imperialist aims. The Russians and Chinese should be so lucky.

And such alliances are already forming, such as the Chinese presence in the ME and South America, and the EU's attempt to form a cohesive rival to American economic dominance.

But we're wandering off topic. I was hoping some of the advocates of a prolonged stay would address the means by which such a stay might be accomplished, when even the generals (administration supporters and opponents both) admit to serious doubts about whether such a prolonged stay is even possible.

I don't know of any long-stay big footprint advocates around here, and if any show up it probably won't be on a Monday holiday.

Chavez is getting what he can from the Chinese, but he is only bankrupting his country, not building anything that will threaten us. The EU is a fragile thing even in an economic sense. Militarily they're a joke.

But they are supposed to be our friends.

Well, there's LP and Bart, and the others who insist on pursing the situation to 'victory'. As they say, "whatever it takes".

So I'm inviting them to a discussion of what, exactly, it "takes", and how that might be achieved.

I don't know if they're for a really long stay. Victory isn't always acheived by staying in one place forever. Good luck provoking that discussion.

I think the prolonged stay is a bad option. Much better is a short bloody stay and then let them handle their own problems, especially in the Sunni triangle. Keep some air power and heavy armor around for a while just in case, and make sure the Iraqis know that our heavy firepower is not for making friends or occupying territory, but killing en mass if needed.

OK. Feel free to start a thread on a short bloody stay, and what THAT would take and how it might be accomplished. This is, after all, a solutions-focussed forum. All proposed solutions are up for discussion.

What did you have in mind? Mass executions? Flattening Faluja? (Never mind, we did that already.) Literally "decimating" insurgent villiages? Nuking Bagdad? Public executions?

What exactly do you mean by "short and bloody"? There are, after all, many approaches to short and bloody.

Back to putting words in people's mouths?

No. It was a genuine inquiry into what Brian means by "killing en masse".

It's the AFTER, IF NEEDED, not the short bloody stay. Please read what I wrote in the order I wrote it.

We'd have been better off to move in hard, be ruthless with enemies, and screw the news media and whining over abu ghraib etc. Beat them senseless and threaten more unless they behave.

Weakness is not a virtue in Islam.

So you're proposing we withdraw, and rely on air/naval power and, well, shock and awe?

(I still don't see "after" in there anywhere.)

No, I'm proposing an all out surge, then only heavy support. No occupation niceties.

OK, that's somewhat what I proposed last fall, though with less violence and more manpower.

Conditions have changed, though. We no longer seem to have the wherewithal for an "all out surge". Or even to sustain the present so-called surge for very long.

Were you thinking of pulling our troops from around the world and concentrating them in Iraq, or becoming more, um, (ruthless?) with the troops we have there now?

You can either have targets or be targets. More manpower to stand around waiting for something to go off is a waste of effort and lives. We have enough troops sitting around as tripwires to add another few thousand. The current surge isn't even up to full strength yet.

So, what is it you imagine this surge doing, exactly, Brian? House to house searches? Search and destroy missions a la Vietnam? Mass screening roundups of all military age males? Enforcing severe curfews at gunpoint? Imposing martial law?

C'mon, really, spit it out.

(I'd go for ye very olde parlimentary approach: Round up the entire Parliment and lock them in on iron rations until they come out with a deal, like electing a pope. Didn't one of the English kings do that to Parliment?)

I'd be booting Iraqis in the ass to take out the bomb makers and petty militias, not doing it ourselves.

If you have any ideas on how to motivate them, I'm all ears.

I've run out of ideas, and concluded that the ACTUAL, not nominal, leadership in Iraq actually wants a civil war, with us playing referee and pawn.

Actual, nominal. We can kill them too.

I have a feeling you're really aching for a defeat and will treat anything short of somebody admitting to a defeat as just another chance to question any plan put forward. There is no magic victory bullet in Iraq or in the war on terror. It's going to be a long slog with trouble along the way, but the alternatives don't look any better to me than Iraq does to you.

So you're seriously proposing we shoot the Iraqi Parliment?

Oh, I think threats can be a little more subtle than that. You seem to want to take everyone else's argument a few steps further than they do to create a strawman. Yes, I propose being somewhat tougher, but not in an unfair way, nor do I propose being hard on everyone, just the people we know are working against us.

Not really, I'm trying to figure out where you really stand and what you really think we ought to do, not play games.

So, what sorts of threats ARE you proposing? Assasinating Sadr or what?

I'd be all for it, but you have to play one faction against another, and look for targets of opportunity. You can't have a public plan designed by politicians or armchair strategists, you have to give the people on the ground some direction, but also some leeway and support when they have opportunities to quickly exploit weaknesses.

You started out saying


Now you seem to be backing away from the "short bloody stay", and getting vaguer and vaguer on whose blood is to be shed.

Doesn't it need to be publically known if it's going to deter the nutcakes over there from all out civil war, in light of the reality that the real leaders are losing control of the led?

A public warning to nutcakes? Why not just surprise them as often as possible? It's not like it won't become public when a bunch of enemies turn up dead or friends turn up rewarded.

The civil war? Actually, that's mostly an American creation. I think historians can argue whether the United States deliberately started it and inflamed it as some half baked version of the 'El Salvador' option, or whether the United States through catastrophic incompetence merely created and maintained all the conditions for civil war and then proceeded to provoke it. But it's definitely 100% American.

As to the merits of a 'long stay' matter of choice. Where there's a will, there's a way, as they say. But we need to sort out what it will take.

For the 'long stay' you'll need at a minimum, equal or greater troop committments than you have now. The trouble is that you can't maintain the troop committments that we've got. So... we need to dramatically expand the army. And not just an extra hundred thousand troops. Rotations means that at any particular time, perhaps 25% of the new troops will be available for duty. So really, we're looking at a few hundred extra thousand troops.

And still, you'd need more. After all Iraq is shortstrapping America on every other military committment anywhere. So you need at least a couple of hundred thousand troops on top of that. Realistically, 400,000 to 500,000 new troops.

No volunteers at that level, particularly in a shooting war, so we'd need a draft.

500,000 new troops have to be fed,booted, uniformed, armed, armoured, outfited, etc. Add on at least 200 billion to the military budget. Currently the US defense establishment, everything included - ie, pentagon, intelligence, coast guard, nuclear, etc., is about 500 to 600 billion. This puts us up to 800 billion.

But to maintain a war footing with those extra troops? Iraq is currently costing 150 billion to 200 billion a year. So let's figure war cost is really, in the long stay, going to average 200 to 300 billion a year *every year.*

And let's not forget about Veterans comp and disability, we're really falling down there. Lots of wounded soldiers, more and more every day. Short and long term disability is expensive. Figure for every dollar spent now, ten dollars for disability, every year, accumulating, year after year, in the long run.

America's already running average deficits of 300 to 400 billion a year, the economy is running out of steam. All this has to be paid for. So let's assume major cuts in just about every civilian program or service. Still run a deficit, but at least it'll be manageable.

All indications are that the insurgency is slowly but continuously escalating, so let's say it averages out at 2000 troop deaths per year. 20,000 killed over ten years. Seriously wounded/long term injuries seem to be ten times that, so 200,000 disabled over ten years. There is no evidence or indication that the insurgency will go away or quit or give up. The Russians were far more ruthless, but the Afghan insurgency outlasted them, and even when the Russians left, the warlords kept on fighting... The Vietnamese also fought the Japanese, French and Americans. So assume an insurgency can have up to 25 years of life in it. In ten years, it will still be going strong.

Iraqi infrastructure is in a full fledged state of collapse. Expect famines to break out in the next few years. Also possible pandemic plagues, a few million more refugees. We're going to probably break a million excess deaths in the next year or two. On a ten year stay, assume that accelerates. Perhaps two to five million dead Iraqi's. But there's 24 million Iraqi's and their birthrate is high, so they can absorb some population suppression.

Of course, this is contingent upon being prepared to allow our own children to live like animals, our elders to die in the gutter. It's assuming that the American economy doesn't melt down. And it's assuming that America doesn't get involved in a war with Turkey over the Kurds, or with Iran and Syria, or Pakistan doesn't blow up, that the North Koreans don't come pouring across the DMZ, that China doesn't take Taiwan.

What's the bottom line? America can stay as long as it wants to. As long as its prepared to pay the price.

Iraq's infrastructure WAS falling apart and there were famines, before we got there. Politically designed ones, made worse by "containment" via sanctions.

stir in a few billion parts DU, sprinkle with blood and oil, serve hot and fresh to an ignorant public.

stand back and watch the fun.

We don't want to. Most of us don't.


Welcome!

Well, that's one of those yes and no things.

Certainly Saddam Hussein was a bad person. And certainly his economic policies, when he wasn't at war with someone or other or under sanctions, would probably have been corrupt and relatively inept - Saddam showed every sign of pursuing the gangster-capitalist pseudo-kleptocrat policies that we see all too much of in uncivilized places like Mexico, Congo, Haiti, the United States, Phillipines, Indonesia, etc.

And certainly under sanctions and regular bombings, Iraq's economy and infrastructure was in bad shape. There's no question that hospitals were short of drugs, water treatment plants couldn't get pumps, the electrical grid was being held together with spit and bailing wire. Child malnutrition and food insecurity was a definite issue.

But on the other hand, it was functioning, and functioning remarkably well under the circumstances. Hussein's regime was generating more electricity and on a more consistent basis than the American occupation, the hospitals were open, there were doctors in the hospital, etc. The oil for food program set up a working infrastructure that kept people from starving.

There's really no comparison, however, with the post Saddam occupation, which has been a disaster on a toboggan. Saddam Hussein was maintaining a functional state. The American occupation... not so much.

Electricity is consistently below the Hussein performance, the grid is in danger of collapsing, malnutrition and food insecurity has doubled and the 'oil for food' infrastructure is deteriorating to the point of collapse, unemployment reaches 50%, inflation is toxic, the economy has shut down, the hospitals are empty of doctors and nurses, and large amounts of key infrastructure were destroyed or looted in the occupation

Look, if you want a comparable example, Iraq under Saddam Hussein is like a teenage girl being molested by her alcoholic father. Iraq under American occupation is like that girl's younger sister being chained up in a cabin for a weekend with Ted Bundy while he goes on a crystal meth jag to take out his working frustrations.

You can't let something fall apart for years and then have it operate better with people actively sabatoging it. Saddam set it up to give electricity to the Sunni minority. Most of the problems you cite are because AQ and Sunnis are blowing up their own infrastructure. The Sunni triangle is crap because of insurgents and outside terrorists. I think people are starting to understand that and tossing the troublemakers out. Without them it would be a rather simple thing to get Baghdad going again.

In the meantime the people who used to be oppressed outside of the Sunni areas are getting electricity, hospitals and a fair share of the countries resources where before they didn't even get clean water.



More like the difference between a father that has two daughters, beats and rapes one, and only rapes the other, and a father that is trying to make things better but gets no help from the family and constantly has abusive boyfriends tearing up the house.

I say shoot the boyfriends and get back to renovation.

Actually no. Most of the infrastructure catastrophe can be traced back to American administration. Take, for instance, the initial stage after the fall of Saddam. Essentially, a week long orgy of looting and destruction in which American troops simply sat back and watched. Every single ministry except the oil ministry was looted and burned. The national museum was looted. Hospitals were looted. The national archives were looted.

Every society depends on records and basic infrastructural resources. The decision to just sit back and masturbate, Don Rumsfeld's 'freedom, well this is freedom, its a messy thing, people run around and stuff...' was a disastrous and fatal misstep. Destroy those records, destroy that built in infrastructure of offices and staff and arrangements, hospitals and facilities, and you've got real handicaps.

The failure to impose and effect basic security was fatal, and the consequences of that never really ended, just as the failure never really ended. Every single effective poll taken of Iraqi's has cited security as a main concern. When people couldn't leave their neighborhoods for fear of being robbed and raped, when law and order broke down completely, when kidnapping turned into a major industry, this degraded a lot of the ability of Iraqi society to regenerate. When 40% of Doctors and nurses have fled the country in fear for their lives because of security, you're basically overseeing a major collapse of the health care infrastructure. Add to that the damage done to the physical plant during the riots and looting, and we can see that health care for Iraqi's in the post saddam era is a shadow, a fraction of what it was.

DeBaathification ruptured much of the remaining social infrastructural fabric. Turfing out all the Baathists also turfed out much of the professional class, teachers, doctors, engineers, accountants, managers. That's a deliberate American decision and utterly disastrous.

Ideology and incompetence had immensely corrosive effects. The handling of the economy for instance was nightmarish. Shutting down and choking state owned industries and businesses, caused massive unemployment and social and political disruption that rippled through the society. Meanwhile, 'zero tariff' free import systems washed the economy down in cheap low quality imported goods with almost no exports, the result was the wholesale destruction by dumping of indigenous economic activity.

At the same time we had idiocy like a project to revise Iraq's prescription drug lists, instead of getting drugs in, an anti-smoking campaign instead of getting hospitals functioning.

The electrical system and the water and sewer systems depended on machineries and systems obtained from Europe or Russia. Instead of investing in lots of spare parts for these systems, renovations, upgrades, and staged replacement, instead plans were drawn up to massively rip out these systems root and branch and replace them with incredibly expensive, high end, American systems. No thought was given to the interregnum between tearing out old systems and before new systems came on line. The result, believe it or not, was accelerated destruction of infrastructure on just about every level. These insane plans were only interrupted by their own accumulating confusion. The quest to restructure Iraq's electrical grid from the ground up fell apart literally under its own weight. But in the meantime, the existing electrical grid was systematically damaged, and continued to be underfunded and undermaintained.

I recognize your point about 'well, used to be Baghdad had all the electricity because Saddam was hoarding it, but now it's shared'. I've heard it before. But I have to tell you it's nonsense for two reasons.

1) There is substantially less electricity period, than there was before. With or without the insurgency, the American occupation has never been able to get electrical production consistently up to Saddam's levels, and frequently its performance if far less. Indeed, the current figures are exagerations, since they incorporate the output of private and local electrical generators. Real electricity production is probably netting somewhere around 2/3rds Saddam's output, and less than half the countries genuine needs. Even with the exaggerated figures supplied by the Occupation, it's still pathetic.

2) Of course Baghdad had to consume a disproportionate share of electricity. Look at a population map. Baghdad and environs had the largest population density, the most modernized infrastructure. Take a simple thing, elevators. Most of the buildings with elevators were in Baghdad, Baghdad had more elevators than anywhere else in Iraq. You need electricity to run all those elevators. By its nature, Baghdad required immense quantities of electricity to maintain an immense water treatment and pumping infrastructure, sewer infrastructure. Hell, street lights. Most Iraqi towns didn't necessarily need streetlights, Baghdad needed them all over. Industry, infrastructure, hospitals all of this stuff, all of the electricity consuming infrastructure that Iraq needed, that was disproportionately concentrated in Baghdad. That's just the way it works. New York consumes far more electricity than Alabama, that's the nature of urban infrastructure. You cut down the electricity, the urban areas suffer far far more than the rural. People die. The notion that we were doing any favours whatsoever by re-allocating electricity from Hospitals in Baghdad to Camel stalls in Bug Fu'qa, in Shiadata province may appeal to some idiots sense of balance, but trust me, it is murderously, fatally, lethally wrongheaded. And of course, there's a cascading effect, because the infrastructure nexi are in Baghdad, start starving that stuff of power, and inevitably all kinds of decay sets in.

I don't understand your reference to Al Quaeda. Sure, they're flavour of the week, but the American Armed forces estimate that Al Quaeda represent less than 3% of the Sunni insurgency, and none of the Shiite militancy. Foreigh fighters in Iraq are an infinitesimal fraction. It's just not significant, and truthfully, never was, even when they were going by 'Monotheism and Holy War.'

As for your notion that the insurgency targets infrastructure in order to degrade the occupation. Well, duh! That's their job. That's what they do. America's job? To stop them. Something that they apparently can't do any better than they've done anything else.... which is to say, back asswards, idiotically, incompetently, and with an utter lack of success. Jesus H. Christ, it's like someone cloned thousands of editions of the three stooges, loaded them up on every psychoactive drug we could find, and sent them off to run a country. A legion of geniuses bent on destruction could not have screwed things up more thoroughly.

You know what the best part is? It's the bovine incomprehension. It's the way people get that confused faraway look in their eyes and squint 'Duhhhhh itssss brooooooke.' With no comprehension of the processes or the responsibility for it. Crazy stuff, man.

I thought America's job was to run and hide. It seems you approve of the insurgency. Enough to play semantic games. They're all Muslim radicals, and the longer they live the more trouble they'll be in more places. They degrade their own country more than our military occupation.

All the while you will ignore them and blame us. Are you from the US, or abroad? Not that you have to answer, but it's good to know where noobies come from.

I mostly post from work and will be leaving soon, but I hope to see you around going forward. New blood is always appreciated.

Some ignore the facts like basic life in Iraq was better off under Saddam than US... even with our sanctions.

Well, life is simple. There's two ways to win a fight. One is to talk a lot of trash and strut around and wave your arms, do some karate kicks in the air to let everyone know you're a badass, then when the real fight starts, you rush in with your eyes closed flailing around hoping you hit something and trying not to get hit. That's you.

And you know what? I respect that completely. You have a style, you have an approach, it's colourful, it's exciting, it's working for you man, and I'm completely on side with you. You just keep doing that. Seriously.

It's also the American style in Iraq. Let's face it. Those stupid insurgents keep messing with IED's and car bombs and poopy. But when it comes to organizing a photo op, they're just not in the same league. What do they have for audiovisuals? Flash cards? Pathetic. Our press conferences leave theirs in the dust. We have them completely outpointed on media and message, it ain't even close. Martial McLuhan would be proud of America. These Iraqi clowns, they don't even know the first thing about branding. Who are we fighting? Baathist remnants, bitter enders, jihadis, al quaeda, they don't even know, that's how lousy their brand is, we brand them, we change their name every week, just cause we can. We're running semantic rings around those dumb thugs, we're winning the 21st century information war, bet your ass. All they're doing is winning a crude 19th century version of war just by killing our soldier. Hah. Seriously.

I'm curious though, how's that working out for you?

Now me, I'm different. I'm different. I'm old school. I don't have all that book learning and all those radio talking points and all that patriotic determination that you got. What I do is I keep my mouth shut and I watch and I listen, I know my strengths and weaknesses, and I mark all my enemies down. Then when it's time to fight, I keep my eyes open, and I resign to getting a few hits, and I make sure every punch I throw lands somewhere, and when it lands I make sure it hurts. And where it hurts, I make it hurt more. And when he goes down, well I just take my time and f*ck him up good.

You're probably laughing, and I'll laugh write along with you. Who fights like that anymore? Who'd I learn off of? Dinosaurs? Who does that in the 21st century? Who the hell is that gonna impress? No hot chick is going to be going home with a guy that dull. I'm so out of touch, I don't even have tattoos. I'm so lame, that I'm not wearing a designer label anywhere, I barely know what a swoosh is, but I don't get it.

But you know, I'm limited, I'm dull, I got no flash, I admit it. So when I look at Iraq, I pay attention to dull things like how the war is actually going, and how many people are really dying, and how many refugees, and what the statistics on the electrical power. I can't seem to live in the bumper sticker, I'm tied to history, so I can't help but remember what happened yesterday, and last week, and last month, and last year and how it all relates together. I'm not like you, I can't pick and choose facts like you do with comic books or the songs on your MP3 player. I have to look at all the facts.

When I look at Iraq, I look at it old style. The style which involves keeping your eyes open and paying attention and remembering what goes on. And in the old style, America's doing worse than losing. Up to me, I'd want America to win. The way I see it, America's losing big time and in shameful ways, and f*cking up everything it touches. So, obviously, I'm concerned. I don't approve of the insurgency. But I don't approve of mealy mouthed showboats putting on their TV shows about how they're winning the war. I sure as poopy don't ignore them. But I don't ignore screw ups either, cause screw ups cost.

You want to know where I come from? Hell boy, I come from this place called REALITY.

You wouldn't like it. It's old fashioned, not a popular place these days. It's unforgiving. And implacable. And trash talk don't count for nothing there. And there's no reset button to try again. And you don't win by mouthing off.

Now, don't get the impression I don't respect you. I respect you and your point of view totally. You're a modern guy and I'm completely right with that. Normally, I don't get all philosophical like this. Normally, I'm mostly direct and facts and brutality. But you know, I'm respecting you. I'm showing you that I understand completely where you come from and what you are, and I'm tolerant and respectful.

So I know we're going to get along just fine you and me. Unless, of course... well you know.

Fair warning: I will make it hurt, and sadly, I will enjoy making it hurt, and you won't be able to stop me.

But of course, that won't happen.

It's funny that the average people aren't looking to bring back a Sunni strongman to starve the south, gas the north, and treat the middle like a whorehouse for his boys.




Somehow the lefties that normally cry for the oppressed are suddenly whining because the oppressor got their cumuppence and the oppressed are getting clean water, hospitals and electricity like the Sunnis in Baghadad used to have under Saddam. They're going to have to take some responsibility for their own destruction. Most of the museum came back. Too bad the rest of Baghdad didn't take as much care of their own stuff as the museum curator.

Arturo, you've mistaken me. I'm not a lefty. I'm just practical, and kind of vicious in a fun way. Call me a lefty again and it could become unpleasant.

So, you seem like a big expert. Can you give me the statistics on potable clean water available in Iraq now? Feel free to divide it between Baghdad and other regions. I figure that you've got those figures right to hand. How do they compare with the pre-occupation statistics for potable water?

And that hospitals stuff is pretty good. I'm impressed by that. How many hospitals are there in Iraq? How many hospitals were there under Saddam? I know the hospitals in Fallujah are out of commission.

According to the Iraq Index, done by noted war supporter Michael Hanlon for the Brookings Institute, at page 46, there were 34,000 physicians in Iraq before the invasion in 2003. There are an estimated 17,000 who have fled. 2,000 murdered. 250 kidnapped. That leaves 13,750. Perhaps 4000 have been graduated and are sticking around. So up to 17,000 or 18,000, give or take.

So... From 34,000 physicians to 17,000 physicians. That's about a 50% drop. I'd say that's pretty substantial, wouldn't you?

I'd guess that the 20% of physicians in Kurdistan have probably stayed put, that's the safest place in Iraq. So the real drop in the rest of Iraq is a lot bigger. The drop is more like 60% or 70%. I'm thrilled at all these new hospitals that are being built.... (exactly where and how many?) in Iraq. But since maybe 70% of the doctors are gone... what are they staffing these hospitals with? Hmmm. What about drugs, drugs coming in? Hospital equipment?

Now, Arturo ol pal, I'm not saying you're talking out of your ass. But it occurs to me that maybe you've won one too many debate just by calling someone a lefty and you've gotten perhaps a bit relaxed and not energetic.

I'm feeling a bit dubious about that hospital claim you're making. I'm thinking its not standing up to close examination, and that perhaps you didn't quite think it through. So maybe after you come back with your potable water stats, you could come back and take a boo.

And no, its the occupier that takes responsibility for providing security. That's the way it works. You take over a country, you own it. You keep it peaceful. You can't do that, well, the locals pick up guns sooner or later, and they shoot at you.

I've spent more than a bit of time debating stats, but not usually late at night. First of all stats lie. Especially the kind of stats despots post to make their own states look better. Cuban healthcare, Soviet weaponry, Chinese pet food. Numbers alone don't tell the story.

Second of all there's the matter of what the alternatives were. Sanctions were killing at LEAST 5000 people a month. Lift sanctions and chances are we are back to Saddam causing mischief. Despite his supposed secular leanings it's pretty obvious he was trying to take advantage of the new radicalism in Islam. I've seen a lot of complaining about what we did in Iraq, but not a lot of viable alternatives that didn't have their own substantial risks.




Not for me. I've been around long enough not to get too upset over anything but a slow day.

Money talks, cowdoody walks. You write a check, you better be able to cash it. Stake a claim, better be able to defend it. Come out swinging, better back it up.

What you're telling me is that you got nothing. Good enough, I'm cool with that. I guess we both know where you stand. Or don't stand.

You don't get to dictate your own favored stat as the benchmark. There's a difference between A fact, and THE fact.If the world revolved around potable water in Iraq you'd have a point, but it doesn't.

Memory flash for you Art. You're the guy who raised up potable water in Iraq. You're the guy who talked potable water and hospitals. Turns out you were talking through your hat. Sorry if I embarrassed you. Next time, maybe as a friendly hint, talk about stuff you know about.

If you lay a card on the table, you better be ready to turn it up. I challenged, you folded. You had nothing. We both know it. Anything I put on the table, I'm ready to back up. That's just me. You're different, that's fine, I respect that. But don't go pretending. No hard feelings.

Hmmmmm . . . curiouser and curiouser!

It's not a matter of sheer numbers, it's a matter of HOW the water, hospitals and electricity were provided to the people. You're trying to declare victory on terms you're making up. Saddam took good care of some people, and left others to die.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features...cture_1-29.html

Getting water to cities and farmers Water infrastructure development has achieved mixed results. Although some successful water and sanitation projects have been completed, potable (drinkable) water is relatively scarce and less than 10 percent of Iraqi homes are serviced by sewage systems, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "The U.S. effort has focused initially on building potable water capacity, since clean drinking water is the primary factor in reducing primary waterborne diseases like cholera and typhoid," said Lt. Col. Joseph Fraundorfer, deputy chief of water for the Corps.

Much like the other sectors, the state of water resources is much worse in the south than in the north.

Years of improper environmental management, including a massive draining of marshlands in southern Iraq by Saddam's government and the construction of dams in southern Turkey, which cut the Euphrates River water supply almost in half, have rendered water undrinkable without treatment in many parts of the south.

"The water is so dirty when it gets down to Basra [from the north] that they didn't even drink the municipally supplied water," said Jane Gleason who works with USAID's Agriculture Reconstruction and Development Program for Iraq.

That was the case until late 2004, when USAID and Bechtel Corp. finished rehabilitating Basra's 14 water treatment plants, the canal system, and the main water reservoir, providing fresh water to a city accustomed to salty, unusable water.

Gleason's team fixed irrigation systems and provide fresh water to farmers in the region by September 2006.

"We reckon [our project] affected about half a million people," she said.

Small-scale projects like Gleason's agricultural and irrigation system are likely the model for future water, transportation and electricity infrastructure development in Iraq.

"Small and medium-sized potable water rehabilitation projects executed by direct contracting to repair and rehabilitate neglected facilities using Iraqi labor have been the most successful," said Fraundorfer.

Well, you don't get to declare the ways that everyone else is going to achieve 'victory in debate with you' AS YOU PLEASE and AFTER THE FACT. (ex post ad hoc ing appears your preferred m.o. and forte)

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display....ataruk0.2868463

To encourage an issue based election rather than a personality based campaign, USAID granted the Civic Coalition for Free Elections, a non-partisan Iraqi movement of 76 civic organizations, funds and supplies to print over one million pamphlets that detail party platforms and electoral systems.

USAID also helped the IECI develop TV advertisements that encourage Iraqis to vote.

USAID's $5.1 billion program in Iraq has worked to improve infrastructure, education, economic opportunity, and government efficiency and accountability.

USAID's infrastructure projects have added over 1,000 megawatts to Iraq's power grid. On-going projects will total over 1,700 megawatts by the end of 2006 with the capacity to supply power to approximately 7 million Iraqis.

By the end of this month, USAID will add 260 MW to the national grid by commissioning the V-94 gas turbine generator in Kirkuk.

USAID has increased potable water supply for over 8 million Iraqis, and sewage treatment for an additional 8.7 million.

In the area of education, USAID trained 32,000 teachers during the 2003 school year, and is on track to complete training for another 32,000 teachers by the end of the month.

Over 100,000 teachers will be trained in physics, chemistry, biology, English or pedagogy by the end of school year 2006.

USAID has adopted a strategic approach to transform its 2006-2008 programs away from centering on rebuilding infrastructure and delivery of essential services, to a program that will foster sustainable capacity development at the national and local levels.

Brigadier General William H. McCoy, Jr., Commanding General, Gulf Region Division, US Army Corps of Engineers.

We are working hand in hand - in Partnership - with the Iraqis to develop Infrastructure projects across Iraq. In fact, I am very happy to report that we recently surpassed the 2,000th project completion and the 3,000 project start. This is great news.

Iraqis are first and foremost in the planning and implementation of reconstruction efforts because it's their future and they have both the responsibility and the capability to make it work.

We are aggressively assisting the Iraqi government with their own reconstruction projects, too. In fact, just last week we signed a Project Partnership Agreement with the Minister of Electricity that empowers the MoE to quickly implement important electricity sector projects. Together, we are making great progress with infrastructure reconstruction.

It will take time and considerable resources to rebuild Iraq after years of neglect under Saddam's rule. Despite 25 years of neglect and a costly insurgency, Iraq's infrastructure is bouncing back and reconstruction projects are having a real impact in the lives of the Iraqi people.

We believe that security and reconstruction are intertwined. We are seeing a framework for stabilization and prosperity in areas where reconstruction activities have taken place. Millions of Iraqis defy the insurgents by putting their lives on the line every day to go to work building a new nation. They are Iraq's heroes and will defeat the insurgency's plans to stop progress in Iraq. Security allows Iraqis to be free and prosper.

We are partnering with the Iraqi government in virtually every essential infrastructure area. In the transportation area, roads to bridges to rail stations to airports and sea ports are being built and rehabilitated. In critical needs areas, scores of hospitals are being rehabilitated. Schools have been restored and built - we are nearing the completion of 800 school rehabilitation projects. And the list goes on to include important projects in: public works and water; electricity; facilities and transportation; and oil.

There are three projects which typify the positive impact reconstruction are having on the lives of the Iraqi people:

-- Across Iraq, we are augmenting capacity to provide clean water to about 2.75 million Iraqis. The Erbil Ifraz Water Supply Project provides potable water to a local population of over 650,000 people which is over two thirds of the population of Erbil. The project will upgrade local potable water facilities to present world standards which should help address health concerns associated with adequately available drinking water. A clean water source is extremely important factor in reducing high infant mortality rates.

-- We are increasing sewage capacity for 4.5 million Iraqis. We have a combination of sewage rehabilitation projects impacting over 1.2 million residents of Sadr City. Some are complete and others will be finished in spring 2006. Our efforts are rehabilitating Sadr City's antiquated sewage infrastructure but also involve constructing essential new sewage pump stations.

-- Roughly half of the current electric power output is the result of U.S. projects. The completion of the power generation plant is adding 250MW to the national grid which will provide over 1 million Iraqis with additional electricity. This plant should be completed by the end of December.

It is important to note that we are transitioning toward Iraqi control of reconstruction. We are increasing ways to improve construction thru direct contracting. This is an area we are moving quickly with the help and partnership of the Iraqi government.

Since the beginning of the IRRF reconstruction program 44 percent of our projects have been and are being accomplished by Iraqis. However, today more and more projects are being constructed by the Iraqis. Of the remaining 1.2 billion in IRRF funds over 75 percent of these projects will be direct contracts with Iraqis.

Despite 25 years of neglect and a costly insurgency, Iraq's infrastructure is bouncing back and reconstruction projects are having a real impact in the lives of the Iraqi people.




The only victory will be when I pull the plug on the whole thing. Until then it's an ongoing battle.

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sep2...a091307tj1.html

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BAGHDAD, Sept. 13, 2007 — The Nasiriyah Water Treatment Plant in Dhi Qar Province was turned over to the government of Iraq in an official signing ceremony, Sept. 12.

"It's a fitting symbol of accomplishment and friendship between Iraqis and Americans."
Ambassador Charles Reis
U.S. Department of State

The ceremony, which took place at the Gulf Region Division headquarters in the International Zone, was attended by approximately 100 people - including Minister Riyadh of the Ministry of Municipalities and Public Works and Maj. Gen. James Snyder, deputy director of the Iraq Transition and Assistance Office.

The $277-million project provides potable water to five major cities in Nasiriyah province - approximately 550,000 residents - and employs a staff of more than 120.

"The Nasiriyah Water Treatment Plant culminates three years of partnership and hard work by each of our governments," said Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, commanding general of the Gulf Region Division. "The facility makes a positive impact in terms of fresh water and a boost to the economy."

The project is the largest water project undertaken in Iraq and is a capable of pumping out more than 10,000 cubic meters of water an hour.

"It's a fitting symbol of accomplishment and friendship between Iraqis and Americans," said Ambassador Charles Reis from the U.S. Department of State. "That partnership will continue over the next few months as the Ministry learns the operations of the plant."

Concurrently, a similar ceremony took place at the plant itself as the Gulf Region South district handed over operations to the Ministry and the Governorate Council. Last week, the plant's completion was marked by opening the city connections and allowing the water to flow into the distribution network.

The U.S. government currently has completed 662 of 886 planned water projects. Of those completed projects, 508 are water treatment and sewage projects.

Geeez. Just nuke it from space and be done with the argument. Then the naysayers can be right about the condition of the infrastructure and the war supporters can say we won.

"It?" You do mean them, right speedy? Or are you really that inhuman?

-------------------------


Funny, you'd think that with all that nice clean water


Iraqis in Baghdad hold up bottles of brown, muddy water at a demonstration calling for better quality drinking water (19 August 2007)

there wouldn't be a problem with say.... cholera?

Oh wait, there is.




Gee, there seems to be some kind of disconnect, here.