Lounsbury: August 2003 Archives

September 2003 »

August 28, 2003

Iraq & Reconstruction: local views

Another article I believe rather interesting and deeply illustrative of the issues and problems - and why money needs to be poured into the effort.

Beyond Oil, Iraqi Industry Struggles Despite Freedom
Factories Working Far Below Capacity
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, August 28, 2003; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56034-2003Aug27.html

Overall the article paints a picture of the free fall in the Iraqi economy post US invasion.

First, the constant electricity cuts disrupt production, which besides being wasteful of course is hard on machinery and increases costs. I note in my own reporting on CPA-I executive briefing on investing plans in Iraq that they themselves indicate that investors should plan for two years of unstable electrical service and plan for self generation for "the foreseeable future" with all that implies for the economy. Higher costs, etc.

I also draw your collective attention to this key quote: "The employees, some of them 20- to 30-year veterans, have had their wages cut in half by American officials, to $60 per month.

"We have democracy now, but we have no electricity and no salaries," complained Ali Talib, a company engineer, as workers with disgusted looks on their faces gathered around him on the factory floor one recent afternoon. "We lived with Saddam's oppression, and we protected this plant with our lives during the war, but now we are helpless.""

Now, I invite you to reflect on the impact in your own country if a foreign occupier cut your salaries and at the same time, did a worse job than the prior government in keeping basic services running. I submit that public opinion would begin to run, regardless of other politics, strongly against the occupier. Hope remains, but how long?

A further quote: " This year's U.S.-led invasion and its aftermath took a further toll on economic activity. Widespread looting and vandalism added to combat damage. Power plants faltered and pipelines were sabotaged. Unemployment in the heavily centralized economy soared to about 60 percent, while U.S. occupation officials idled large groups of public employees -- such as army soldiers and senior members of Hussein's Baath Party -- although they continued to pay some salaries. "It is difficult to overstate the disastrous condition of the Iraqi economy in the immediate aftermath of the recent war," stated a report published in June by Quest Economics Database, which compiles research from leading banks and financial institutions. "The majority of Iraqis are . . . jobless, penniless and dependent on U.N. food handouts," some of which they sell to buy other necessities such as medicine."

What we have a picture of here is an economy in collapse and an occupation force without a clue (see my prior commentaries) on how to get things running again, and without the means to do so.

A further article from the NYT:
THE OCCUPATION
U.S. Seeking Foreign Investment for Iraq
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/28/international/worldspecial/28INVE.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Not a terribly informative article, if you read my CPA commentaries, but there it is.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

August 27, 2003

Arabic Numerals (standard)

Why, oh why were you abandoned?

Sitting pouring through annual reports, I have to say I hate these goddamned Hindi numbers used in the Machreq. Hate, hate, hate. After so much time, I still hate them. Fucking pain in the ass to read (a two and a three on a 2nd generation photocopy looks the same), fucking pain overall.

The other annoyance issue is the bizarro non-standard translations of English financial terminology. I can usually guess, but fuck, standardize!

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

A round up of analytical articles from MEES-updated

Given several people have said they found my round ups useful, I share with you a series of analytical articles from the highly respected Middle East Economic Survey. I am not in entire agreement with them, but for those of you interested in the key issue of getting the Iraqi economy back on its feet - in my opinion the sole solution to the free fall most Iraqis are experience and thus the sole solution to opposition, these will be interesting.

Iraq: Oil For Reconstruction After Oil For Food
Middle East Economic Survey - 25/08/2003
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=27144

Very good overview by advisor to Qatari hydrocarb minister. While I might quibble, I think the points are effectively made and largely quite correct. Note the figures and note his critiques of the data we have often seen in the general press.

Oil Investment Without Budget Strain: Is The Energy Map Next On The Neo-Conservative Cartography Agenda?
Middle East Economic Survey - 18/08/2003
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=26596#top

Article by Edward Morse, a leading commentator on oil issues. He is here quite critical of the Neo Con thinking on the oil markets and their conceptual framework. I largely agree with the overall thrust.

Political Stability And Iraq's Privatization Strategy
Middle East Economic Survey - 18/08/2003
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=26593#top

Written by an Iraqi economist, I do not necessarily like this article, but I share it for its perspective.

Oil Investment Without Budget Strain: The Iraqi Case
Middle East Economic Survey - 11/08/2003
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=26014#top

An Iraqi analysis of how to put the oil sector back together again. It differs slightly from our Qatari analysis, however again this is important for its information (note again the expenses and amounts of investment needed) as well as perspective.

Further, an older item but one that I believe (a) has not been well reported and (b) I myself missed
Disenchantment With US Iraq Policy
Middle East Economic Survey - 28/07/2003
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=24863

The writer, whose letter was originally published in the Toronto Globe and Mail on 18 July per the article, Isam al-Khafaji was a professor of political economy at the University of Amsterdam explains why he resigned from the US est. Iraqi Reconstruction and Development Council in Baghdad. Again, the main themes are American arrogance combined with incompetence. This should be more widely publicized as I do believe it is not an anti-American screed but a real indictment of the Bush Administration's bankrupt efforts to date.

Not an analysis, but some information that I believe did not get widely disseminated
Oil Sector Looting Costing $95mn/Week, Says USACE-Iraq
Middle East Economic Survey - 04/08/2003
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=25450

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Opinions: Battle of Algiers

I was just pondering this. Would the story of the Algerian situation make an impact on American minds? For someone like myself, already knowing the history (and to be a pointless name dropper, the neice of Ali le Point. Sexy girl I may add. I call Bint Ali.) the film "The Battle of Algiers" was provacative in its presentation, fair and effective.

Yet, I suspect that the Algerian story would be dismissed in the context of French failures and the idiot quasi bigotry of "surrender monkeys." No lesson learned, merely a film... Only Vietnam has resonance...

Am I wrong? Or perhaps I am wrong about the lessons.

On the later I think not. While certain structural differences are found in the Algerian situation, such as the issue of the settlers and probably better communication & understanding capacity on the part of the French military in Algeria, compared with the Americans, I think the similarities outweigh. Further to that, the type of aide that Algeria's Arab neighbors extended while extent and likely to differ from the Iraqi neighbors, was limited.

In essence, what I see is a different but highly evocative situation. The one item the film misses or underplays is the Harki issue, the degree to which a segement (sometimes substantial) of the Algerian population bought into the French occupation/colonization. A highly divided situation, but nationalism is almost always an easier sell than collaboration with foreigners.

Discussion should there be any here: http://wc6.worldcrossing.com/webx?50@153.HA0oar7Ci7N.3@.1dddf6bc

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Iraq: On Miscommunication, daily life

THE OCCUPIERS
How and Why Did Iraqi Die? 2 Tales of Anger and Denial
By JOHN TIERNEY
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/international/worldspecial/27CIVI.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=

A sad but illustrative article regarding the problems of an occupation and guerrilla warfare in a land where the soldiers don't understand the civilians and vice versa.

In some ways it matters not who was right here.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Iraq: Bremer - Tens of Billions... & Friedman opens an eye

The WP article:
Bremer: Iraq Effort to Cost Tens of Billions
By Peter Slevin and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 27, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50396-2003Aug26.html

Confirmation of mine and other analyses in re the costs and the naive optimism.

Quoting:
"Iraq will need "several tens of billions" of dollars from abroad in the next year to rebuild its rickety infrastructure and revive its moribund economy, and American taxpayers and foreign governments will be asked to contribute substantial sums, U.S. occupation coordinator L. Paul Bremer said yesterday.

Bremer said Iraqi revenue will not nearly cover the bill for economic needs "almost impossible to exaggerate." Just to meet current electrical demand will cost $2 billion, Bremer said, while a national system to deliver clean water will cost an estimated $16 billion over four years."

Further note the following:
"The figures, which must be added to the $4 billion the Pentagon spends each month on military operations in Iraq, offer the latest evidence that the price of the Iraqi occupation is growing substantially. A State Department official said the Bush administration is preparing to seek a "huge" supplemental spending bill from Congress. Administration sources also said the U.S.-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority is running so low on funds that the White House is considering seeking an emergency infusion next month to cover the organization's bills."

This may explain why they are not aggressively pursuing programs. Running out of money.

What a wonderful fucking program for reconstruction.

By the way, BRemer asks:
"What exactly is it that happens on the ground that makes things better if the U.N. is in charge of reconstruction?" Bremer said. "How does the situation on the ground get better?"

Well, if he would take a close look at the people he has, fucking soldiers with minimal experience running banking operations and the like, what gets better is that the UN has a depth of expertise in people used to working on (a) non American systems (b) in foreign langauges (c) in foreign cultures (d) in reconstruction efforts in an international context.

As such you might get something better than the CPA-I fuck (actually not a bad fellow, I spoke with him later, but over his head) who got up before a bunch of Arab and international financial specialists of various kinds (and me), introduced the "Liberation of Iraq" (thanks mate, but you're not talking to Americans, change your fucking language) and went on to talk about getting the Iraqi securities business to adopt the NASDAQ system and the NASD code - just translate it. Fucking amazing.

I also liked the continued assertion that all is fine, Iraq and Baghdad are not in chaos. Well, that's fucking fine, but you speak to Iraqis and they, who are not surrounded by specialized guards and living a nice compound, think it is in chaos. Paul, wake up and smell the coffee.

[edited 11:20 to add Friedman]
Starting From Scratch
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/opinion/27FRIE.html

I note Friedman, despite his little idiot-boy cheerleader role also makes a sidewise argument for more resources. Anyone who's not a moron or a liar or a politician sees it's necessary

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Women and their discontents

A personal note for a change.

I open my email today to find a note from an old female friend of mine. She emailed me to remind me that she and I, ahem, got together ten years ago this month. I found this a bit odd. I am in touch with her from time to time, and I am moderately aware that she still likes me, but family obs her marry one of her own as it were (Japanese)..... I find it moderately, well, not peculair but perhaps discomforting this continued interest from a married woman. Not a moral issue, I should add, I have few morals myself, although a moderate sense of self preservation does intervene.

Peculiar, I don't know if I should ignore this message. Above as she writes that she'll be somewhere not so far off. A hint one should think. I rather hate it when she does this, normally I simply ignore but perhaps I should say something - although if I know female communications well enough, this will not be terribly productive.

I was going to go on further in regards to another, but I rather think it is tedious.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Iraq: today's coverage & questions to the readers

You know, I am beginning to lose respect for The New York Times. I grew up with it and have always loved it, but really their coverage of Iraq to date is mediocre.

Look at the leads today, NYT goes with Bush's content free (other than the usual painful blather for the red meat crowd and the unthinking parrot-patriots - useful largely in confirming that his Admin. still does not grasp what complete shit their policies are. Typical of the true believer. Funny, one of their intellectual supporters, Cohen, loves to quote Tallyrand.) while The Washington Post goes with Bremer who finally opens up what those of us over here have known for a while, Iraq is going to cost a lot of fucking money.

Aside, I have succeeded with Bambi's blocking operation with my laptop but the NT box seems ralcatricant. I broke down again and read. I find it bizarre that after my long discourses on the cost structure of reconstruction I still see comments where people think that Iraqi oil is going to pay for reconstruction. Amazing. All that effort wasted. I wonder if this effort is wasted.

In any case, for my money the important news is not Bush parroting whatever patriotic Spam his handlers have given him, but rather the reconstruction cost.

Another aside. I feel I should branch out in my news sourcing. If any readers have recommendations for non-East Coast papers online please share. Typically my main online news diet is NYT, WP, FT, BBC, MENAREPORT, al-Hayat, al-Jazeerah. I used to rather like following Le Monde but find their online format virtually unusable and frankly Le Monde has begun to annoy me. Not very strong reporting on Iraq, I must say in my opinion. Open to alternative suggestions.

By the way, does anyone follow the English version of al-Hayat that I recommended long ago?

And I wonder how many ever took my "Batle of Algiers" recomendation. I still feel a guitly sense of superiority over those P-gon fools that they are just discovering the Algerian model.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

August 26, 2003

Debating UN Role

Insofar as one or more commentators have questioned my take on that, I would like to remind of this http://wc6.worldcrossing.com/webx?14@153.GogSa2XaiIc.0@.1dddf4a6 forum.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

On Iraqi Opinon, anectdotal developments

Provoked by a comment today, I thought I might report on a conversation between myself and my attorney yesterday.

My attorney does extensive business with Iraq and multinationals seeking Iraqi business. Good contacts, excellent even. Very pro American guy, was in favor of the invasion before the war, had the opinion that anything would be better than Sadaam. Had, past tense.

After sharing our opinions on the recent conversations with the CPA-I, he spoke to what he's hearing from his Iraqi business clients. Largely people who were at least not pro-Sadaam, and even anti-Sadaam, he tells me he is hearing a deepening frustration, even disgust with the Americans and a real emergence of Sadaam nostalgia.

These are deeply dangerous things. Deeply dangerous. I hear similar things from my rather more limited Iraqi contacts. Indeed the growing sense of disallusionment with the Administration and its Reconstruction on the Cheap efforts are a real blow to an already damaged US prestige.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 03:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Iraq - Bush Admin Fantasy Land

The Washingtonpost continues some yoeman coverage of Iraq (I'm finding FT and WP to be far superiour to the old NYT - perhaps too much Friedmanesque influence in its halls.)

Patience On Iraq Policies Urged
Bush Aides Defend Troop and Aid Levels
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 26, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44757-2003Aug25.html

I believe the most noteworthy item from this piece is the following:
"The complaints from Democrats have been matched by similar criticism from conservatives who supported Bush's handling of the war. A day after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called for at least another division of U.S. troops in Iraq -- that would add 20,000 to the approximately 136,000 there -- two influential conservatives accused the administration today of a "baffling" failure "to commit resources to the rebuilding of Iraq."

"While it is indeed possible that, with a little luck, the United States can muddle through to success in Iraq over the coming months, the danger is that the resources the administration is devoting to Iraq right now are insufficient, and the speed with which they are being deployed is insufficiently urgent," Robert Kagan and William Kristol wrote in the new issue of the Weekly Standard. "These failings, if not corrected soon, could over time lead to disaster."

They concluded that "it is painfully obvious that there are too few American troops operating in Iraq." They said it is the same with financial resources and wrote of "the astonishing lack of American civilians" in Iraq."
[End Quote]

Indeed. I believe I have made this point as a drum beat of late. Above all in regards to the issue of resources, less so military as I can see some argument there, but unarguably and without question there is not enough resources or urgency. E.g. the issue of insurance coverage for entering Iraq. Private sector won't touch it, US agencies, esp. OPIC, should have been ready to go - even if things went well apres guerre - but still nothing has been concluded (in part because their proposal, which I saw thanks to insiders, depended on oil receipts which have not materialized, but also for pure bureacratic reasons, they've not been given PERMISSION to go ahead!). However we're still waiting. At the very least I just saw and have been trying to help on a proposal to securitize certain USG contracts to help get money flowing to local contractors etc. Still, late, late, late.

Now, the Admin reply to criticism borders on the surreal, quoting the article once more:

"Rice, in her remarks, described a vastly different Iraq. Outlining improvements in services to the Iraqis, she counseled patience as the United States embarks on a broad rehabilitation of Iraq and the entire Middle East, an effort she called the "moral mission of our time." She did not directly answer the call for more resources in Iraq, instead making the case to remain in the region. "Transformation in the Middle East will require a commitment of many years," she said. "The transformation of the Middle East is the only guarantee that it will no longer produce ideologies of hatred that lead men to fly airplanes into buildings in New York or Washington."

Rice remained optimistic about the broader Middle East. "Despite the horrific events of recent days, we have seen real progress toward peace for Israelis and Palestinians," she said. Rumsfeld, too, outlined progress in Iraq. "The 100-plus days that have passed since Iraq's liberation have been days of both difficulty, to be sure, but also progress," he said in a session with troops at nearby Lackland Air Force Base after his VFW speech. "And the outcome is not in doubt."

Rumsfeld did not rule out future increases in troop strength. "We will put whatever number of U.S. forces in that country as the combatant commander and the Joint Chiefs of Staff decide is appropriate at any given time," he told reporters. He said Gen. John Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, believes the number of U.S. forces "is appropriate at the present time." He said if Abizaid wanted more troops, "it would happen in a minute."

The defense secretary said Abizaid wants to increase forces from other countries, and Rumsfeld said that is happening. "We do need international support and assistance," he told the soldiers, but made clear that the United States would not relinquish control of the operation to the United Nations. "What is the likelihood of our forces serving under a blue-hatted United Nations leadership? I think that's not going to happen."

Rice and Rumsfeld must be living in some bizarro world that I don't have access to, as what I hear from the CPA-I people is not much improvements (phone service at 50 percent pre war), no real substantive progress. Just dribs - the sort of bullshit spin shit that Sam Stone in the SDMB liked to cite with wide eyed faux naivete as progress (I recall his rich intervention citing to over X number of projects in Afghanistan, as if the number of projects said something).

However a further item.

Readers may recall my pimping of the film, "The Battle of Algiers" as a key document in understanding these kinds of situations. For over two years I think I have done so. Well, in this article:
"Think Strategy, Not Numbers"
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, August 26, 2003; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45136-2003Aug25.html

What do we find:
" Andrews argues that if Iraq is becoming a war of counterinsurgency, the United States must make sensible decisions about strategy and troop levels. Bad news shouldn't stampede America into pulling out. But it shouldn't mean an automatic decision to send more troops to implement a flawed strategy.

Pentagon sources report one hopeful sign that the military is thinking creatively and unconventionally about Iraq. The Pentagon's special operations chiefs have scheduled a showing tomorrow in the Army auditorium of "The Battle of Algiers," a classic film that examines how the French, despite overwhelming military superiority, were defeated by Algerian resistance fighters.

A Pentagon flier announcing the film puts it in eerie perspective: "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. . . . Children shoot soldiers at point blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film." "

Mad Fervor? Well, I guess it seems so to the Pentagon pinheads, but certainly the film depicts how the Algerian (Arab and Berber) population of Algiers turned against the French.

At the very least, those of you who may have followed my long pimping of this film were ahead of the game, you discovered a film and in a larger context a somewhat similar situation that the Pentagon thinkers have just stumbled upon.

Brilliant, well, I suppose I should be happy I am ahead of Pentagon Pinheads in my analytical background.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

DoD, blind fools: Pushing the Iraq-Israel pipeline like morons

Following on comments I made yesterday in comments, this story rather confirms the sheer idiocy of the US Department of Defence and why they need to be removed from the picture.

These fools are driven by blind Israelophilia and a complete insensitivity to the political realities, as well as the commercial and financial realities. Reviving such trade makes sense in a longer term picture where relations are stabilized. Forcing this now, when rumours of Israeli troops in Iraq are rampent, where a huge percentage of the population is paranoid about an Israelo-American grab of the oil wealth, and in a situation of generalized instability and lack of financing for extent operational oil facilities is pure idiocy, madness and incompetence, although plays well to the blind Sharonista-Israelophiles in the DoD.

It strikes me as extraordinarily stupid. First, the pipeline has been abandoned since 1948. Second, a key host country, Jordan, is against the concept. Third, I have read commercial analyses suggesting that building a new modern pipeline is more viable than attempting to rehab this derelict thing. Fourth, politically it is utterly wrong - it sends the wrong message at the wrong time, and is worse for that in that it is not commercially viable. Fifth, without a secure environment, there is no basis for financing the same, and given the political risk (attacks, etc) on top of the excessive cost and financing needs for other operational routes, this is unfinancable.

These people are morons -- well let me be more fair, they are ignorant fools who do not understand either the region or business or economics or financing to boot.

US Pushes for Revival of Iraq-Israel Pipeline.
http://www.menareport.com/story/TheNews.php3?sid=257040&lang=e&dir=mena
August 25, 2003
US pushes for revival of Iraq-Israel oil pipeline
The US Department of Defense sent a telegram to the Israel Ministry of Foreign affairs last week, proposing the re-opening of the oil pipeline between Iraq and Israeli oil refineries in Haifa.

The new oil channel would restore the pipeline that ran for hundreds of kilometers between Kirkuk in Iraq and the Haifa Port before the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. After the end of the British mandate, Iraq stopped the flow of oil to Israel and the pipeline, only eight inches in diameter, was abandoned.

In the telegram, the Department of Defense requested a detailed reconstruction plan from Israeli officials. According to Globes, Israel�s Minister of National Infrastructures Joseph Paritzky is in favor of the project, however consent from the Jordanian government is necessary before plans can move foreword seeing as the pipeline would run through the Kingdom�s territory.

The Jordanian government is against the plan, calling it unrealistic in view of the fact that the cost of repairs will be high and that a long period would be required to re-construct the pipeline, which is now filled with sand.

The new link would take oil from the northern area of Kirkuk and transport it via Mosul to Jordan and then to Israel. According to Israel�s National Infrastructure Ministry, the cost of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost approximately $400,000 per kilometer. Paritzky plans to discuss the pipeline project with the US Secretary of Energy during a possible visit to Washington in September."

Posted by The Lounsbury at 10:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

August 25, 2003

Blair: Sexing up Iraq

The Financial Times reports damning evidence in regards to the sexing up of Iraq claims.

Blair sought changes to dossier
By Jean Eaglesham, Political Correspondent
24 August 2003
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479270139&p=1012571727088

"Tony Blair recommended that a claim Saddam Hussein could produce an "improvised nuclear device" within a few months be reinstated in the Iraq dossier, just days before its publication, evidence revealed this weekend.
Advertisement

The prime minister's request was rebuffed by John Scarlett, the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, because "no intelligence" supported the claim.

The evidence of Mr Blair's intervention is damaging for the government, which has consistently denied claims it "sexed up" the dossier. Failure to strengthen the case was not for lack of trying on Downing Street's part, confidential government e-mail and memos published this weekend suggest. Strictly speaking, the memo supports the government's insistence that it did not override JIC advice."

and

"The documents shed new light on why Mr Blair ignored advice from Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, to make it clear the government had no evidence Iraq posed a threat. Mr Campbell's reply to Mr Powell did not deny his assertion. The head of communications suggested the dossier did not need to spell out the absence of a threat because it was designed to make the argument for war, rather than set out the case for and against.

"Re the 'imminent threat' point, that is why TB's foreword sets out 'the case I am making'," an e-mail from Mr Campbell to Mr Scarlett and Mr Powell said."

My dear GB readers, perhaps you can tell me the evolution of sentiment on this. I admit I would feel no small pleasure in seeing Blair go down.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Ritter on Iraq Nuc.-Bact.-Chem prog review

Ritter has a fine little opinion piece in the NYT regarding the review of the Iraqi NBC weapons programs. It includes yet more disturbing claims of the inattention and poor organization for occupation.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Weapons Cache We'll Never See
By SCOTT RITTER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/25/opinion/25RITT.html?pagewanted=all&position=

To quote the article:

"Some 1,500 American investigators are scouring the Iraqi countryside for evidence of weapons of mass destruction that has so far eluded them. ...

It is a daunting task. And according to many Iraqi scientists and officials I have spoken to, it is not being done very well.

A logical starting place for such a mission is in the Jadariya district of downtown Baghdad, adjacent to the campus of Baghdad University: the complex that housed the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate. ...

As such, the directorate was the repository for every Iraqi government record relating to its weapons programs, as well as to the activities at dozens of industrial sites in Iraq that were "dual-use" � used to manufacture permitted items but capable of being modified to manufacture proscribed material.

For 12 years the Iraqis collected and collated this data. If we inspectors had a question about a contract signed between country A and Iraqi factory B, the directorate could produce it at short notice. The 12,500 page "full, final and complete declaration" provided by Iraq to the United Nations in the fall of 2002 was compiled using this archive. And the directorate's holdings went well beyond paperwork: every interview conducted by the United Nations inspectors with Iraqi scientists throughout the 1990's was videotaped and available for review.

....

And it seems that after the coalition troops moved into Baghdad, the records were all there for the taking. ....

Yet these eyewitnesses have provided me with a troubling tale. On April 8, they say, the buildings were occupied by soldiers from the Army's Third Infantry Division. For two weeks, the Iraqi scientists and administrators showed up for work but, according to several I have spoken to, no one from the coalition interviewed them or tried to take control of the archive.

Rather, these staff members have told me, after occupying the facility for two weeks, the American soldiers simply withdrew. Soon after, looters entered the facility and ransacked it. Overnight, every computer was stolen, disks and video records were destroyed, and the carefully organized documents were ripped from their binders and either burned or scattered about. According to the former brigadier general, who went back to the building after the mob had gone, some Iraqi scientists did their best to recover and reconstitute what they could, but for the vast majority of the archive the damage was irreversible.

....

Why was this allowed to happen? I am as puzzled as the Iraqis. Given the high priority the Bush administration placed on discovering evidence of weapons of mass destruction, it seems only logical that seizing the directorate archive would have been a top priority for the coalition forces � at least as important as the Iraqi Oil Ministry or the National Museum. And it seems highly unlikely that coalition leaders didn't know what the archive contained. I was one of many international inspectors who led investigations of the facility � and the data we produced was used by the American government as part of its case that Saddam Hussein was hiding prohibited programs."

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

August 24, 2003

Last Thought, coming home alive

I thought about this, and I think it is shareable.

One of the CPA officials and I went to the same school. Didn't know each other, he graduated well ahead of me.

We rapped on personal matters after the meeting. Frankly, I don't know about his competence, or his preparation. He's a reservatist called up and presently serving military/CPA functions. Obviously with the econ/business background, he was put into the position of working on the banking sector.

No matter, rather rapping about Iraq, he told me that is was hard doing this kind of work and having dead or injured colleagues. Further, he hopes he's still alive when his expected rotation comes around in December. See his family again.

I made a bit of a faux pas, perhaps deliberately but I felt bad afterwards. I said that based on my knowledge, etc., I expected a Beirut event with CPA before then. I have to say I feel a bit badly for the look on his face, but he just moved the conversation on. He expects it too.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 07:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Further Iraq Recon Reflections

One of the most disturbing things in the McCain article, was the poll mentioned at the end.

Ket me quote from the article

"McCain, who is leading a bipartisan House and Senate delegation throughout the Middle East, said Friday that he estimates the United States needs to add $13 billion to $15 billion for reconstruction alone, "as quick as we can spend it."

He said the failure to restore basic services more widely could lead to more violence.

"When it's 125 degrees and people don't have electricity and water, they get very unhappy," he said. "Time is not on our side."

A Newsweek poll released yesterday found that 60 percent of respondents thought the United States was spending too much in Iraq and should scale back, and that 69 percent were concerned the United States would be bogged down for many years in Iraq without making much progress.

The telephone poll of 1,011 adults was conducted Thursday and Friday, after Tuesday's bombing of the U.N. offices, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Spending too much?!?! People think the US is spening too much? Oh this bodes well for a well done reconstruction effort.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Friedman -becoming more and more contemptible

His column today is an exercise is stupidity.

This guy claims to know something about the region? What the fuck kind of moron claims the Islamists etc. do not believe "their own propaganda" about the war, i.e. it is about oil, and claims that they "know" it is about ideas. What a moronic self deluded fucking idiot.

First, it's a false dilemma - the war was and is about both, and most Arabs I know deeply and sincerely believe it is about oil. Two levels to that, the less informed see it as a grab for Iraqi oil, pure theft. The better informed see it for what it is, a power play deeply related to the oil markets as a security and power issue - as well as neo Con obsessions with the OPEC angle. Freidman is a self deluded fool if he thinks this is not the case - of course he's on this little ideas kick and has deluded himself that this bullshit effort can work.

Second, while indeed there is an ideas component in this, the reality is that in the near term this is about power, pure and simple. And Israel.

Good fucking lord, one can clearly see the similarities between Freidman think and Neo Con think. Same roots, just the neo Cons went into the Right end of the spectrum whereas Freidman remains Center - Left. Highly center in the end.

Delusions.

Incredible, this guy is truly a fucking idiot.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Israel

The Sharon government has really got the bit between its teeth.

First, the dangerous accusations against Syria in re the Baghdad bombing - clearly agitprop.

Second, the assisination of one of the few moderates in Hamas who had argued for the truce - not only does it blow up the truce, it also undermines the moderates. Brilliant move, if you're a Sharonista looking to inch closer and closer to blowing up the peace process and work towards ethnic cleansing.

Third, provocative moves in regards to Iraq. I will hold comment for now, but Israelis are shoving their noses in where it is highly unadvisable.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Circus-III

A take away, to use that ugly business phrase, from this weeks meetings.

(a) The Reconstruction effort as presently constructed is doomed. The people running this are either clowns, too inexperienced or capable people thrown into the quicksand, which the ideologues in the Adminstration refuse to acknowledge as such. Nor are they going to get better. I can report that the CPA-I asked the deputy chair of the Jordanian Securities Commission to join them (nice little old man Mr. Abdeljaber) and he refused, as they can't provide him with security. Mr. Abdeljaber worked in Iraq and has real Iraq experience, but these characters are offering bullshit salaries and no fucking security.

Oh yes on the UN bombing, I heard from the horses mouth (i.e. from an American military official) that the US military had not provided full security to the UN as quite simply they don't like the UN presence. This asshole then told me that he expected the UN would have to stop being so arrogant.

Good fucking lord, what a fucking circus. The UN too arrogant, these fucking DOD clowns not only don't know what the fuck they are doing, they don't even know that they are the fucking problem.

(b) Perhaps more resources may come. See
McCain: More Troops for Iraq
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 24, 2003; Page A17
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37101-2003Aug23.html

McCain is quoted as saying that he will start a campaign for more resources for Iraq after having toured the country.

Quoting:
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said after visiting Baghdad last week that President Bush needs to level with the public about the need for more U.S. troops as well as dramatically more spending to make postwar Iraq peaceful enough for democracy to unfold.
Click here!

McCain said that, when he returns from the Middle East, he plans to mount a heavy campaign on the issue in meetings with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other White House officials and during hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee."

Will this get anywhere?

I hope it will, this sitution is getting grimer and grimer and frankly I am becoming concerned for security spill over. After speaking with some sources here, we all had the sensation that it may only be a matter of time before Iraqi insecurity and the generally poor border controls opens the door for major terror action against "American friendly regimes" in the neighborhood.

One need only a construction truck and explosives hidden inside the material. Boom boom.

I rather expect a Beirut style attack on CPA-I within the quarter.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Fissures emerging -Circus II

Fighting erupts in Kurdish city
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3176965.stm

Turcomens and Kurds, with US intervention killing Turcomens. Nice, more of panicked soldiers firing into crowds. Also see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37367-2003Aug23.html which contains some very distrubing statements by the Turcomens. WE may be on the edge of some real problems in the North.

Further,
Foreign Islamic Militants Add To Coalition Worries in Iraq
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 24, 2003; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37052-2003Aug23.html

" Syrian spokesmen have reacted angrily to the latest accusations, including a charge by Israeli officials that the truck used to bomb the U.N. compound in Baghdad could have come from Syria. "These are ridiculous and preposterous allegations," said Imad Moustapha, deputy Syrian ambassador to the United States. "We are in favor of a more powerful role for the U.N. in Iraq, so why would we do anything to jeopardize that goal?"

Some American terrorism experts fault the Bush administration for failing to provide basic security in Iraq after the Hussein government was overthrown.

"There is some degree of negligence on all sides," said Jon B. Alterman, director of the Middle Eastern Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "We should have paid much more attention to border security from the start. When the Iraqi regime fell, the borders became insecure. The ability of American troops to identify non-Iraqi Arabs wandering the country was not nearly as great as that of Saddam's government." "

Indeed. Pandora's box is open.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Iraq: Bring on the Clowns - CPA as circus.

Clowns.

Yes, Clowns are in charge of reconstructing Iraq. I can�t believe the crap I just heard.

First, on conditions, the security analyst helpfully noted that there are two separate sets of security risks in Iraq. Political violence and criminal violence. If you are working for CPA-I or are seen to be associated with them, you have both, however if you are not so associated you are likely only to have to worry about criminal violence. This reduces your risk, however he warned that due to security conditions, businessmen should travel with appropriately armed security details, who have been duly registered. Also individual travel is advised against.

He also helpfully noted that CPA-I forces are subject to roughly 30 attacks per day, but that criminality had stabilized with the exception of Highway One to Amman. He added that they are churning out 500 police officers a week from their police academies, and that police will be more appropriately armed, as well as better paid.

Nice, it only took three months for them to realize this.

Electrical issues continue, he reported with capacity 40 percent or more below demand. Transmission infrastructure is in a poor state and will likely be several years before replacement can occur. Advised that any investments in the �foreseeable future� will require own generation capacity as public transmission network not likely to be stabilized for several years.

Reported telephone service remains around 50 percent of pre war but will soon be back up to 100 percent. Heard this before. Soon.

Fuels are scarce again but that is being rectified. The 40-50 car lines for fuel are an �aberration� and they expect to be down to 10-15 car lines in a week or so.

Diesel remains scarce.

Helpfully repeated the mantra about risk and payoffs. Sounds less and less convincing as time goes on.

Second, from the fellow charged with getting the initial intake of the Iraqi banks done, he reported that, well they did not know how many banks there were going in and have had to ride around finding the branches and the like. �We had no idea where the banks were, we rode around in a humvee� looking for them.

We did once again get confirmation that things remain in shitty condition, that the looting and subsequent robbery and often arson of bank branches has substantially impaired records, and that US Treasury is having a hard time �getting their arms around this.�

The banking status report has been delayed again, now we are assured that they will have a working audit of the system done end of next month. I presume that this will not stick.

One of the best, most stunning comments, was in regards to the private branches. The CPA-I rep blithely noted that because of security concerns most of the branches remain closed, and that the CPA would not provide security. However, they did provide them with working cell phones in case they were robbed. CPA-I is pressuring, according to this same brilliant fellow these banks to take on the security risk and to pay for appropriate security measures, although guards still need to be registered with the CPA-I. It does not help, I have heard, by the way that registration of arms is not easy due to inefficiencies in the CPA-I staff.

However, there were only three bank robberies last week, in Baghdad, two of which were aborted. Comforting that.

Bill Block, the US Treasury economist charged with the unenviable task of speaking about efforts to date then described his understanding of the banking system.

It was mostly unenlightening. Banks remain impaired and not truly functional. Banking system completely lacks reliable data, progress has been made but still unknowns. Typically getting a system back together after total collapse takes 5-7 years, but �they know they don�t have that long.�

New Currency due 15 October with a three month transitional period, but he could not address questions as to the status of the currency right now, what would be the backing of the currency etc. Argued new currency needed since essentially at present only one denomination is in effective circulation.

Open questions regarding how to recapitalize the system and value assets. Presently still working on a regulatory structure.

The Trade Bank tender is said to be about to announced soon � aside word on the street is that only American banks are in the real running on this � which upon opening should be helpful in helping Iraq import capital machinery. Made telling booboo in speaking, referred to positive effects on the oil sector and spoke exclusively to that � then backtracked and talked about SMEs. Painfully clear that their concern is not really SMEs.

He was unable to respond to my lawyer�s pointed questions regarding the governing law for the Bank. Dodged the question unartfully. Repeated the mantra about Iraqis deciding � although he had earlier slipped up and responded to a question regarding allowances for Foreign Banks by stating �they� would not allow exclusion of foreign banks.

Advanced truly stunning estimate on Iraqi foreign debt, in the range of $300 billion.

Noted that regime record keeping was very, very poor and it was difficult to get at good top level figures, have found they have to do a bottom up, bit by bit analysis.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 05:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Nice round up of Arab commentary

THE REGION
Commentators in Arab World Call Attack a Catastrophe
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/international/worldspecial/21ARAB.html

Well done summary.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

On the Bierut model

Although I am not in full agreement Baer's comments in

Where Do They Go From Here?
We Pulled Out of Beirut. We Can't Abandon Iraq

By Robert Baer
Sunday, August 24, 2003; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30829-2003Aug22.html

are of no small interest.

Baer, as some may note, recently wrote a book on the Saudis. I rather did not find his overall thesis convincing, however the fellow is on firm ground in looking at these issues as ex-CIA and a regional specialist of sorts. The comments are to a "Beirut template" - and notes the worrying similarities between the fractured Lebanese situation and Iraq.

[edited to add link 10:47]
Also see this discussion with Baer online http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27439-2003Aug21.html
I rather agree with most of his comments. Highly advise reading this.

[edited to add excerpts 10:10]

If I may add the following illustrative excerpts:
"The truck was packed with enough explosives (more than a thousand pounds of military munitions) to blast through a 12-foot wall. Although the FBI says the bomb itself wasn't particularly sophisticated, I know from experience how difficult it is to string explosives together and make all or most of them detonate at the same time. And remember: This was the second successful bombing in just 13 days. Combine this well-coordinated attack with the Aug. 7 car bombing of the Jordanian embassy, which killed 17, and it is starting to look as if we are up against a lot more than the "remnants" of Saddam Hussein's regime.

One bomb is an outrage. Two bombs are a campaign. Anybody who was dealing with the Middle East in the early '80s can tell you exactly when things began to change: April 18, 1983, the day a suicide bomber drove a beat-up GMC pickup truck through the front door of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and detonated it. The blast killed 63, including 17 Americans.

I was working for the CIA in the Middle East at the time. As best we were able to figure out, the target of the attack was Ambassador Philip Habib, the president's special representative to the Middle East. Habib, who was trying to help negotiate a truce between Lebanon and Israel, was not in the embassy when the bomb went off. But the bombing had a larger goal than killing Habib: As we later realized, it was the opening shot in a well-coordinated and well-financed effort that eventually drove the United States out of Lebanon. After the second suicide bombing at the barracks, President Ronald Reagan ordered the Marines "re-deployed" off shore.

....

Those of us who lived through the Lebanon horror can't help wondering whether Beirut 1983 is a template for what's happening in Iraq. While Iraq isn't Lebanon, there are enough similarities that we should be worried. Starting with the obvious, unaccounted for weapons and explosives abound in Iraq, as they did in Lebanon. Secondly, neither Lebanon then nor Baghdad now has a functioning government. At the start of the Lebanese civil war in 1975, that country's government collapsed. By 1983, there was no army or police to protect our embassy, let alone an effective internal intelligence service to warn us of possible attacks.

Iraq today is probably worse off than Lebanon was in 1983. There is not even the skeleton of an army or a police force. Members of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council now claim they warned us of a bombing, possibly aimed at the United Nations. But don't forget the council includes some of the same people who were telling us that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, deployed and ready for his orders. The only intelligence in Iraq that we can count on is our own.

Both Iraq and Lebanon are fractured societies, deeply divided by ethnic and religious differences. Foreigners have tended to get caught up in these conflicts, inevitably paying a price in blood. In 1983, Lebanon's Christian Maronites, who once ruled Lebanon, were fighting for their survival, while Lebanese Muslims were fighting to take their place. Because the Muslims thought the United States was propping up the Maronites, we became the Muslims' target."

Those of you who have followed my commentary will I hope have some clicks.

I note that Baer also discounts the Chalabi "intelligence" - but worse I note his oblique raising of the issue of 'side taking' and enemies. In Lebanon it was the Maronite (E. Catholics) community, in Iraq it may be the Kurds and the Shiites. Or just the Kurds. In both cases ignorance of the interplay in fractured societies, worse in Iraq for its added tribal divisions that are more profound than Lebanon and you get a nasty little brew.

Unfortunately, people like myself warned of this witches brew before the war, my "Pandora's Box" but the war crowd in their full blooming idiocy paid no attention. Now I see from the SDMB that the "fly paper" theory has been invented to justify the emerging mess.

Convenient, intellectually bankrupt ahistorical tripe, but convenient.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Off to see the Wizard

I'll try to share some obs later, have a meeting with the CPA folks on financial issues to learn more about their current thinking. I hope it doesn't send me deep into despair. I suspect it will be a bunch of khayali bullshit, but perhaps realism is setting in... not that I think so, but.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

August 21, 2003

Late man arrives

Fucker, finally. I get cranky waiting. See if I introduce him to any more divorcees. Ciao ciao then.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Requests-Meeting Market Demand.

Okay Business Center.

Waiting for my chico to come down from the dope Four Seasons room so we can go out and get fucked and rap about financial systems. REally, I'm going to get drunk and talk about financial systems. Super, eh?

Now, requests. I'm still wondering if this LJ is really of interest and use. While the venting is a fine little thing, I am attached to utilitarianism. Tell me, those of you who read this piece of shit rambling crap, what the hell is actually interesting to read. When I get back from this weekend I shall see how to respond to the market.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 08:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

My Dear Neighbors

Back to killing each other. Bastards. I want to take both the fucking Israelis with the ninnyhammered eye for an eye, always you first negotiating policy and the Palestinians with their equally ninnyhammered mix of prostrate whinging, bitching and blind reaction and throw them into the sea.

Turks. That's the answer. The Turks. And their cuisine is better too.

In other matters, I had the most annoying business lunch. In the typical Arab manner it took an hour to get to the fucking point, which was ... these nincompoops after what, four months? Yes, Four months, still have not revised their proposal based on my very clear comments, but they want to talk to me again, about the same fucking idea. What the fuck do these morons think, I am just going to lose my mind in four months and suddenly decide to give them a few million in seed money, forgetting about all my requests for clarity, actual planning, some partner who has, god forbid, actually worked in the field before, some sign that you're not the incompetent idiots I begin to take you for.

Fuck. What the fuck do people take me for? Then they go fucking whinging to my director when I express precisely my irritation with them wasting my fucking time. "Oh our doors always have to be open...."

Sure they fucking have to be open, but not to idjits you happen to be related to you motherfucking chimp.

There, I feel better. Pity the concept is a nice one. Just needs, well, some actual planning.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Some Further Thoughts on Last Night's CPA mtgs.

I have really begun to find the smarmy "well you're missing opportunitities" schtick that some CPA-I folks have to be tiresome.

Discussed when we might open an office in Iraq, in Baghdad, which of course depends on the security situation, or as I put it, when not quite so many bombs are going off. These smarmy fucks went into the line about missing opportunities. I was happy then to launch into an assualt, polite as it was, on the lack of preparation (e.g. no insurance, little idea as to proper title, etc. etc.).

This idiocy about missed opportunities was salable in May and even June, but not now.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Business and otherwise.

Very well then, another set of dinners with much liquid and discussions of Iraq.

CPA sent some higher quality people this time. I was happy about that, but again lots of talk but no sign of tatbeeq, very arab that.

I did like the discussion I had with them on securitizing CPA-I contracts to help inject liquidity in new companies with high risk profiles and little access to capital, however given local market I don't know that this is going to be doable.

I can report that the off the record conversations were frank and useful. None of the public "all is going well" bullshit. Frankness is very useful in tackling real problems. Khayali bullshit is for suckers back in the States to post on fucking message boards like fucking whankers. The problem is we need real resources.

Not enough wine though. Had to supplement.

As an aside, later after the fine festivities I meet some local amigos etc.

A question then. First, I should say I know very well the following was a kind of demarche. Nonetheless I have heard this.

Chickie says to the table "Suits are so sexy, they're yummy." Only one stiff is wearing a suit at the table so it's a bit clear, however I do think there is something here of a general question.

Then for the women, what is the attraction of the suit, obviously Italian of course, but leaving aside that, the good suit, well tailored. Is it indeed "yummy" as the chickie said, "like a mini skirt for men"? I have my theory in regards to money and the like.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

IMF & World Bank pull out

Expected, but another blow to efforts.

IMF and World Bank are pulling out of Iraq due to the security issue and inability of US forces (as well as unwillingness) to protect non-CPA-I actors. This makes the "Donors Conference" planned for October in Baghdad something of a highly unlikely event.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 12:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

August 20, 2003

FT: Obs on the Baghdad events

FT once again has a fine series of articles I highly recommend reading.

First, of particular interest is the following:

"Blast shatters coalition hopes over reconstruction"
By Peter Spiegel
19 August 2003
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479144429&p=1012571727088

The article has some incisive analysis of the continuous mistaken analysis by the Occupation that they're 'just about to turn the corner' on the security situation, as well as some fine notes on the dynamic of insurgencies. In particular the futility of the posturing in regards to "most of the population just wants..." - that's almost always true of any insurgency (including the American Revolution). Getting lost in romantic clap trap about freedom and the population just wanting normalcy and being happy about X loses sight of the game.

"People who have been briefed on the rebuilding efforts said there continued to be a lack of coherent planning in Iraq - and in Washington - between the military campaign and reconstruction efforts led by Mr Bremer."

Of course I have been saying this all along, glad to see this reported in the press as well. At least you know someone else besides myself thinks so.

Now this is important:
"Several defence experts said on Tuesday there was little the US could do militarily beyond its current strategies - digging up intelligence and hunting down Ba'athist and Islamist opposition figures. Instead, it must step up efforts to hand over political and security responsibilities to Iraqis. "What's important going forward to ensure success is an orchestrated campaign that combines a military campaign with a political game plan to turn over power over to an Iraqi government that is seen as legitimate," said Daniel Christman, a retired army general who helped plan the first Gulf war. "We get too hung up trying to handle these guerrilla attacks. The economic piece has just got to be energised."

I obviously agree.

I also draw attention to this fine article which includes a dissection of the CPA-I Recon efforts - and the khayali bullshit nature of expectations. For those wanting ammunition in re reconstruction arguments, this is a rich article.
Iraq's ruptured pipeline to peace
By Michael Knights
19 August 2003
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059479145174&p=1012571727088

I note:
"Iraqis were not the only ones to have unrealistic expectations about the country's economic recovery. Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, suggested that Iraqi oil production could be quickly increased to 3m barrels per day by December 2003. Production is currently just over 1m b/d and is unlikely to rise any time soon because of war damage, looting, and technical problems. The Coalition Provisional Authority has been forced to revise its oil production forecasts with dizzying regularity and at some cost to the credibility of the organisation."

Indeed. Of course, as many know from reading Admin Mouthpieces all is going well in Iraq.

However, the most daming part of the article is the continued lack of realism in CPA-I planning. One can, by the way, download their budget in Excel format from the CPA-I website. Something of a joke, but there it is.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 11:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Iraq: Moving Forward

Where to go now?

Very clearly there is a new game in town, and earlier than anticipated. The more I look at this, the more I am convinced this is al-Qaeda style Islamic militantism. The Jordan Embassy and this attack make a great deal of sense in that context, are puzzling in the Baath context as I mentioned before. Baath want to return to the old State game, massacring UN folks is not part of the recipse for that - whereas the al-Qaeda type factions look to a messianic transformation of the world order, and hate the UN as infidel. Who precisely makes up this new group? Foreigners, Iraqis? Unimportant in the end, the organization was always a conglomeration of Sunni Salafiste groups, and the diffusion of 'terror expertise' is an accomplished fact.

Now in Iraq we have a perfect recipe for more of such. The country is awash in weapons, caches dating back to the 1980s, explosives are easy to obtain (construction work, in addition to paramilitaries etc.) and no effective law and order or controls over the country.

It is perfect for the Sunni Arab international Salafi movement to take whacks at the apostates and infidels. Perfect.

A few thoughts. First, internationalization is probably not going to happen now. I reject the arguments against it, I do indeed believe it could very well be helpful. More troops and resources remain key, and further giving the occupation a multinational face helps deny the pretension it is American colonialism. The people who will attack multinational forces will attack regardless, but those who resent American colonialism first and foremost may be split off rather than making common cause.

However, as clearly the Bush Administration will use this as an excuse not to do so. However, they will likely not get the commitments from other nations in this context. In short, this will remain a largely American game. An American game, however, that is stumbling ever more badly.

Very clearly internationalization being excluded by the simple minded and the ideologues, there remains a need for massive injection of resources. Unfortunately this has all been said before. The problem, however, is that injection has just become massively harded. Now it is clear that no civilian site is safe.

That means one of two things. Operating in Iraq must be done in heavily defended compounds or you take your chances.

Now imagine recruiting for such efforts.

Not going to be easy. Nor is significant private capital going to come in with decent odds that any large scale project will be a target. Further, continued sabotage makes a reliance on Iraqi oil receipts to fund early stages idiotic and fantastical. There needs to be some substantial funding rushed through ASAP to kick start efforts.

I predict, however, the sole response from this hare brained myopic administration will be in stepping up aggressive and alienating security sweeps.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Reaction to the bombing

Well first it is a stunning blow to reconstruction efforts that Vieira de Mello is dead. By all accounts he was an ideal man for the situation. A truly stunning blow.

The real question is what reaction from Washington.

It appears the reaction is to "seek the 'evil doers'" - get the "bad guys." All well and fine, the people behind the attack on the UN deserve the appelation, but the real issue is the failing reconstruction efforts.

I read Friedman's column this morning, with gritted teeth as usual. Phrases like "oding the sense of partnership between U.S. forces and the Iraqi people" are ridiculous. Friedman and his little fantasy world brought on by speaking with people like Hazem Melhas and the like. Parternship my ass.

However, there were, as usual unfortunately which leads me to read him, some kernals of interest. The note regarding crossing the bridge and the serjeant refering to the area outside the Baghdad CPA-I compound as the 'enemy' side of the bridge is telling.

Friedman's pretension that all that that is needed is more American feet on the ground is ridiculous. Of course, he thought this whole affaire was a good idea, so there you go.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 09:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

August 19, 2003

Straw, Disingenous Liar

Watching Straw's comments just now in regards to the truck bomb I am taken aback by the idiocy of justification of the invasion by tying it to the truck bombing.

The invasion was done to "free" the Iraqi people from just these sorts of people? What bizarro world logic is operating there?

Posted by The Lounsbury at 06:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

Baghad, Further on the explosion

It appears that a car bomb partially destroyed the Hotel housing the UN HQ. This appears to be an exceedingly serious incident.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

al-Jazeerah: Enormous Explosion in area of UN HQ

al-Jazeerah reports an enormous explosion in the area of the UN HQ and "numerous dead and wounded."

Bloody hell. Presuming this is not an accident,I was wrong in my earlier estimations, I had predicted this sort of thing for the Spring of 2004.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 04:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003

On Killing Ms 24 & Single

The title refers to a woman in the office, not a bad young lass who introduced herself to me, on my arrival, in just that manner. (Hi! I'm R., I'm 24 and single. Something along those lines. I confess I was confused, attractive enough girl, but she's local.)

Now, I believe I wish to bash her head in with a large object.

Or a small object, so long as it it harder than her head.

This dear little chicky is not a bad person, if a bit immature, and has her talents. One of them is moderately annoying me.

Through some utterly misplaced and uncharacteristic desire to help/mentor her, early on I offered to help her with her work. Nothing terribly difficult that she does, but her English needs help. It's not bad, but it has its weak points, and she remains painfully unaware of financial vocabulary.

However, this is not the problem. The problem is that she has taken to barging into my office with questions, which she launches into without explanation or context. I know this is from eagerness, and I do my best to disguise my irritation -- which to be frank I don't think she would notice regardless. Further, she has .... a big voice and tends to prattle on endlessly in her particularly Lebanese inflected manner which I have come to hate. Well, not hate, it just begins to get on my nerves since (a) her voice is penetrating (b) she tends to talk in this Arabic version of Valley Girl when she gets excited (c) she gets excited a lot (d) she has taken to refering to me with "cute" nicknames which I find irritating.

Now, I haven't really said anything about this since relatively recently learning that I was considered a bit 'not part of the team'in interactions (meaning too blunt), so I am trying to take down the mean quotient a bit.

Still, her bloody prattling on is arousing homocidal urges. And to think the Fiance was jealous - on the other hand perhaps knowledge that I border on homocidal would be equally problematic.

Posted by The Lounsbury at 01:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Filed Under: Jan-Dec 2003