Contractors cutting and running...

[RuntheDamnBall]

A pretty salient commentary this time from Krugman/NYT:

November 3, 2006

Op-Ed Columnist

As Bechtel Goes

 

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Bechtel, the giant engineering company, is leaving Iraq. Its mission —

to rebuild power, water and sewage plants — wasn't accomplished:

Baghdad received less than six hours a day of electricity last month,

and much of Iraq's population lives with untreated sewage and without

clean water. But Bechtel, having received $2.3 billion of taxpayers'

money and having lost the lives of 52 employees, has come to the end

of its last government contract.

 

As Bechtel goes, so goes the whole reconstruction effort. Whatever our

leaders may say about their determination to stay the course complete

the mission, when it comes to rebuilding Iraq they've already cut and

run. The $21 billion allocated for reconstruction over the last three

years has been spent, much of it on security rather than its intended

purpose, and there's no more money in the pipeline.

 

The failure of reconstruction in Iraq raises three questions. First,

how much did that failure contribute to the overall failure of the

war? Second, how was it that America, the great can-do nation, in this

case couldn't and didn't? Finally, if we've given up on rebuilding

Iraq, what are our troops dying for?

 

There's no definitive way to answer the first question. You can make a

good case that the invasion of Iraq was doomed no matter what, because

we never had enough military manpower to provide security. But the

lack of electricity and clean water did a lot to dissipate any initial

good will the Iraqis may have felt toward the occupation. And Iraqis

are well aware that the billions squandered by American contractors

included a lot of Iraqi oil revenue as well as U.S. taxpayers'

dollars.

 

Consider the symbolism of Iraq's new police academy, which Stuart

Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, has

called "the most essential civil security project in the country." It

was built at a cost of $75 million by Parsons Corporation, which

received a total of about $1 billion for Iraq reconstruction projects.

But the academy was so badly built that feces and urine leak from the

ceilings in the student barracks.

 

Think about it. We want the Iraqis to stand up so we can stand down.

But if they do stand up, we'll dump excrement on their heads.

 

As for how this could have happened, that's easy: major contractors

believed, correctly, that their political connections insulated them

from accountability. Halliburton and other companies with huge Iraq

contracts were basically in the same position as Donald Rumsfeld: they

were so closely identified with President Bush and, especially, Vice

President Cheney that firing or even disciplining them would have been

seen as an admission of personal failure on the part of top elected

officials.

 

As a result, the administration and its allies in Congress fought

accountability all the way. Administration officials have made

repeated backdoor efforts to close the office of Mr. Bowen, whose job

is to oversee the use of reconstruction money. Just this past May,

with the failed reconstruction already winding down, the White House

arranged for the last $1.5 billion of reconstruction money to be

placed outside Mr. Bowen's jurisdiction. And now, finally, Congress

has passed a bill whose provisions include the complete elimination of

his agency next October.

 

The bottom line is that those charged with rebuilding Iraq had no

incentive to do the job right, so they didn't.

 

You can see, by the way, why a Democratic takeover of the House, if it

happens next week, would be such a pivotal event: suddenly, committee

chairmen with subpoena power would be in a position to investigate

where all the Iraq money went.

 

But that's all in the past. What about the future?

 

Back in June, after a photo-op trip to Iraq, Mr. Bush said something I

agree with. "You can measure progress in megawatts of electricity

delivered," he declared. "You can measure progress in terms of oil

sold on the market on behalf of the Iraqi people." But what those

measures actually show is the absence of progress. By any material

measure, Iraqis are worse off than they were under Saddam.

 

And we're not planning to do anything about it: the U.S.-led

reconstruction effort in Iraq is basically over. I don't know whether

the administration is afraid to ask U.S. voters for more money, or

simply considers the situation hopeless. Either way, the United States

has accepted defeat on reconstruction.

 

Yet Americans are still fighting and dying in Iraq. For what?

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

A pretty salient commentary this time from Krugman/NYT:

823683[/snapback]

 

 

You lost me at Krugman. He is as far left as you can get and I would bet is jumping for joy at any negative news out of Iraq. Yet another "American" who takes great joy in any percieved failure of America. He and the rest of the Times were probably sitting around waiting with anticipation for the 100th, 500th, etc. death so they could use it to slam the President. But hey, keep elevating those who wish our country harm.

[RuntheDamnBall]

You lost me at Krugman.  He is as far left as you can get and I would bet is jumping for joy at any negative news out of Iraq.  Yet another "American" who takes great joy in any percieved failure of America.  He and the rest of the Times were probably sitting around waiting with anticipation for the 100th, 500th, etc. death so they could use it to slam the President.  But hey, keep elevating those who wish our country harm.

823702[/snapback]

Would you have read the damn article if I had removed the name and given a better response than this?

 

I'm not elevating Krugman. I'm posting his point in the hopes of receiving some more intelligent responses than yours. Guess my hopes were too high.

 

What does it say that contractors -- who are getting paid ample amounts of money to get Iraq going, who are being given the jobs without competition, and who are for all intents and purposes arms of the administration -- are leaving without finishing the job, after all the money they are spending (wasting?). The failure to build an infrastructure that works there rates high among the reasons we're in the shitstorm we're in right now. And you want to dismiss it because you don't like the messenger?

 

How many more people need to go on the ignore list around here?

[Johnny Coli]

You lost me at Krugman.  He is as far left as you can get and I would bet is jumping for joy at any negative news out of Iraq.  Yet another "American" who takes great joy in any percieved failure of America.  He and the rest of the Times were probably sitting around waiting with anticipation for the 100th, 500th, etc. death so they could use it to slam the President.  But hey, keep elevating those who wish our country harm.

823702[/snapback]

Let's make something crystal clear here. The failure in Iraq lies entirely with Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. This was what they were gunning for from day one, and their arrogance and failure to explore any other course of action but their own put us in this mess that we're in.

 

Let's make something else crystal freaking clear. Pointing out that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld failed miserably is not something any of us are dancing for joy over. Whether you like it or not, those of us who have critisized this administration for it's blunders love this country just as much, if not more than you do. Following an idiot blindly into a mess, consequences be damned, is not how I would measure patriotism or love of country. Watching our kids get killed for an imbecile's arrogance is not how I would catagorize supporting our troops.

 

The only one elevating those doing harm to this country are the ones who have them hoisted far upon their shoulders.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Would you have read the damn article if I had removed the name and given a better response than this?

 

I'm not elevating Krugman.  I'm posting his point in the hopes of receiving some more intelligent responses than yours.  Guess my hopes were too high.

 

What does it say that contractors -- who are getting paid ample amounts of money to get Iraq going, who are being given the jobs without competition, and who are for all intents and purposes arms of the administration -- are leaving without finishing the job, after all the money they are spending (wasting?).  The failure to build an infrastructure that works there rates high among the reasons we're in the shitstorm we're in right now.  And you want to dismiss it because you don't like the messenger?

 

How many more people need to go on the ignore list around here?

823711[/snapback]

 

 

Oh no! someone who gets their news from the opinion page of the Times is going to ignore me. My life has no meaning any more!

[Chilly]

Would you have read the damn article if I had removed the name and given a better response than this?

823711[/snapback]

 

No, he wouldn't have.

[yall]

Oh no! someone who gets their news from the opinion page of the Times is going to ignore me.  My life has no meaning any more!

823727[/snapback]

 

You are aware that a traditional conservative doesn't really like wasteful spending right?

 

The war, right or wrong, can be logically seperated from the fleecing of our tax dollars with bad government contracts. But you already knew that, right?

[RuntheDamnBall]

You are aware that a traditional conservative doesn't really like wasteful spending right?

 

The war, right or wrong, can be logically seperated from the fleecing of our tax dollars with bad government contracts. But you already knew that, right?

823781[/snapback]

Especially if the terms, or failing that, the goals of those contracts are not being met, and this has a direct bearing on our strategy and ability to do anything good there.

 

This is not about getting news from the Op-Ed page, as much as anyone might like it to be. It is about a failure of approach and a failure of execution, whatever the goal at hand was supposed to be or was made out to be.

[kegtapr]

Let's make something crystal clear here.  The failure in Iraq lies entirely with Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney.  This was what they were gunning for from day one, and their arrogance and failure to explore any other course of action but their own put us in this mess that we're in.

 

823723[/snapback]

 

Hi, Mr. Kerry.

[Johnny Coli]

Hi, Mr. Kerry.

823851[/snapback]

If pointing out the people responsible for this huge strategic failure lumps me in with John Kerry, so be it. But it changes nothing.

[kegtapr]

If pointing out the people responsible for this huge strategic failure lumps me in with John Kerry, so be it.  But it changes nothing.

823891[/snapback]

 

Nah, just sounds like that could have been copied and pasted from his "apology" a couple days ago.

[Johnny Coli]

Nah, just sounds like that could have been copied and pasted from his "apology" a couple days ago.

823902[/snapback]

My response was in reference to Chcknwing's post suggesting that liberals want to see "America fail." I think a very clear distiction should be made when we have this discussion. If Iraq is ultimately deemed to be a failure, and I believe it will be, America is not to blame. The responsibility lies entirely with Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. That was my point.

[chicot]

My response was in reference to Chcknwing's post suggesting that liberals want to see "America fail."  I think a very clear distiction should be made when we have this discussion.  If Iraq is ultimately deemed to be a failure, and I believe it will be, America is not to blame.  The responsibility lies entirely with Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney.  That was my point.

823905[/snapback]

 

I don't know that you can really make that distinction. The policy of a country's government can't really be divorced from that country, especially in a democracy, and Bush et al weren't just elected, they were re-elected even with Iraq becoming a fiasco. If America's government is to blame then surely America is to blame.

[MattyT]

If Iraq is ultimately deemed to be a failure, and I believe it will be, America is not to blame. 

823905[/snapback]

America has to shoulder some of the blame....after all, they re-elected the guy who put us there. Not that the alternative was all that attractive.

[Orton's Arm]

You lost me at Krugman.  He is as far left as you can get and I would bet is jumping for joy at any negative news out of Iraq.  Yet another "American" who takes great joy in any percieved failure of America.  He and the rest of the Times were probably sitting around waiting with anticipation for the 100th, 500th, etc. death so they could use it to slam the President.  But hey, keep elevating those who wish our country harm.

823702[/snapback]

I agree completely WRT Krugman. That said, even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. In this case, Krugman's article is probably more or less true.

 

And I say that not out of trust for Krugman, but out of distrust for a president who has abandoned nearly every single value Calvin Coolidge held dear. This isn't your grandfather's Republican Party, and that's a bad thing.

[jarthur31]

You lost me at Krugman.  He is as far left as you can get and I would bet is jumping for joy at any negative news out of Iraq.  Yet another "American" who takes great joy in any percieved failure of America.  He and the rest of the Times were probably sitting around waiting with anticipation for the 100th, 500th, etc. death so they could use it to slam the President.  But hey, keep elevating those who wish our country harm.

823702[/snapback]

 

If we had more troops in place after Baghdad fell, I think things would've gone alot differently. It's the people who made these mistakes should be held accountable for the lives lost there.

 

Try to understand that I was in favor of the invasion and I still believe we are trying to do the right thing in spreading democracy there. One cannot argue that we didn't plan accordingly and we had time to rectify matters at the beginning too.

 

When you hear Republican generals say certain things, you suspect that they are not lying.