Why was Reagan better than Bush?

[Drake Tungsten]

That's your point? Good lawd...

They have only spent 1 out 18 billion dollars they were appropriated to spend.

And? What conclusion am I supposed to be drawing from this lone statistic? I can think of arguments on either side of this, that is either a shocking dereliction of duty or something that was to be expected, so why don't you give me some analysis to try to convince me of your point of view? Simply throwing out factoids doesn't help your case much...

[Ted Striker]

The analysis isn't necessary because it is blindingly obvious. The efforts have been too slow from the start. DUH.

To be expected

A year later???

Democrats and Republicans said the request demonstrates the administration's poor planning for the war and its unrealistic optimism that U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators and that Iraqis could pay for their own reconstruction.

Lugar criticized "the blindly optimistic people" inside and outside the administration. "The lack of planning is apparent," he said.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the panel's top Democrat, said "It's incompetence, from my perspective, looking at this."

Rand Beers, a national security adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, said Tuesday that "belatedly moving money from reconstruction to security is necessary but won't make up for George Bush's massive failure to plan for the peace in Iraq."

Now HERE, is a damn plan, that should have been done from day 1:

Under the State Department's proposal, spending for police, border patrols and other security measures would be boosted by $1.8 billion to a total of $5 billion. There would be 45,000 more police, 16,000 more border patrol guards and 20 additional National Guard battalions.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/178902-6620-127.html

[Drake Tungsten]

School's in session, playa...

Here's a real piece of reporting, Ted, that doesn't make your "blindingly obvious" conclusion seem so self-evident...

State Dept. eyes realignment of Iraq reconstruction funds

The request to shift more than $3 billion highlights the challenges of keeping order and rebuilding the economy.

By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – When Congress approved $18 billion for Iraq reconstruction last November, the idea was to provide the long-neglected infrastructure - the roads, water and sewer services, and health facilities - that would get the country working again and secure it on the path to becoming a democratic showcase. But that was before America's largest foray into democracy-building since the Marshall Plan met up with the Iraqi insurgency.

Now with the rebels' attacks wreaking havoc on security and holding progress on the big-ticket expenditures to a trickle, the US Embassy in Baghdad is calling on Washington to reorient a chunk of the allocation toward addressing the insurgency.


In effect, US officials in Baghdad want more money to create jobs - including in security - that might make Iraq's idle young men too busy to rebel. But the reordering would take money from restoring water, sewer, and electrical services - the lack of which has Iraqis frustrated and in some cases turning on the US presence.


"Security is turning out to be a much larger problem, and you can't spend money on infrastructure if the security isn't there," says Henri Barkey, a former State Department analyst on Iraq who is now at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. "But spending money where you didn't think you'd have to also means you won't be providing what you led people to believe would be coming."


John Negroponte, US ambassador to Iraq, wants Washington to shift more than $3 billion in reconstruction funds to creating more security forces. In addition, the ambassador wants to accelerate jobs programs and focus more on repairing Iraq's oil-production facilities so the country can pump more oil - and earn more money. The proposed revisions are under review by the administration and would be taken to Congress at least for consultation before moving forward, officials say.


Ambassador Negroponte's initiative reflects frustration over the slow pace of spending: As of the end of August, less than $1 billion of the $18.4 billion allocation had been spent. Regular attacks on existing infrastructure and an ongoing insurgency campaign to discourage contractors from taking part in Iraq's reconstruction are two prime culprits.


Some observers - pointing to earlier tensions between a sidelined State Department and an in-charge Pentagon over Iraq's postwar plans - say Negroponte's recommendations also reflect a State Department desire to place its imprimatur on reconstruction. The recommendations could also demonstrate that, when it comes to US-Iraqi relations, new kids are in charge on the block.


But State officials say the proposed revisions are part of a normal reassessment of needs nearly a year after the funds were approved. They would also reflect the situation on the ground as Negroponte has assessed it since arriving earlier this summer. "The important thing to remember is Ambassador Negroponte, when he went to Iraq, made clear that one of his first priorities was to conduct a comprehensive review of construction priorities, of aid priorities," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher last week. "We ... want to spend money on the major priorities, which are improving security, increasing Iraqi employment, and improving quality of life for all Iraqis."


Others say there is more going on here than a mere reassessment of needs. The passing of the reconstruction baton from the Department of Defense to State means a shift to a more traditional nation-building program, says James Dobbins, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corp. in Arlington, Va. Expect emphasis to shift from large infrastructure projects to programs with a quick impact among the population, like jobs creation.


"Iraq's reconstruction was influenced by who was doing it, and with a change in who's in charge we'll see a shift in institutional perspective," says Mr. Dobbins, who has worked with the past four administrations on nation-building projects. "With the State Department running the show, it's back to a more traditional scenario where the big international financing institutions ... come in on the big, long-term infrastructure projects, while the US focuses on other priorities with shorter-term impact."


The proposal calls for redirecting nearly $1 billion to create additional Iraqi National Guard units and other security forces. But that proposal comes as evidence mounts of money squandered on poorly trained and motivated units: Reports have mounted of Iraqi security forces being overrun by insurgents or standing aside as antigovernment forces have taken over towns.


Lehigh's Mr. Barkey says much of what Negroponte suggests is an attempt to correct what was done wrong earlier. "The mistakes of the occupation are haunting us," he says. He cites the proposal for a jobs program, after months of favoring foreign workers. "The administration may have had very good reasons for doing what it did, but it still created problems."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0908/p02s02-woiq.html

Money quote...

"Security is turning out to be a much larger problem, and you can't spend money on infrastructure if the security isn't there," says Henri Barkey, a former State Department analyst on Iraq who is now at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa.

[Drake Tungsten]

And here's a quote from a year ago...

A study group of independent experts that visited Iraq in late June and early July today told the House Armed Services Committee the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad is in critical need of funds requested in the president's $87 billion fiscal 2004 supplemental spending package.

The team, led by Center for Strategic and International Studies President John Hamre, also concluded that without dramatic improvements in the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the overall effort to rebuild the country would be substantially impeded.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1003/100803cd1.htm

Seems some people expected this...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
And here's a quote from a year ago...

A study group of independent experts that visited Iraq in late June and early July today told the House Armed Services Committee the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad is in critical need of funds requested in the president's $87 billion fiscal 2004 supplemental spending package.

The team, led by Center for Strategic and International Studies President John Hamre, also concluded that without dramatic improvements in the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the overall effort to rebuild the country would be substantially impeded.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1003/100803cd1.htm

Seems some people expected this...

So you post a piece by an independent group the government ignored as proof they knew what was going on?

[Ted Striker]

Re: School's in session, playa...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Here's a real piece of reporting, Ted, that doesn't make your "blindingly obvious" conclusion seem so self-evident...

State Dept. eyes realignment of Iraq reconstruction funds

The request to shift more than $3 billion highlights the challenges of keeping order and rebuilding the economy.

By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – When Congress approved $18 billion for Iraq reconstruction last November, the idea was to provide the long-neglected infrastructure - the roads, water and sewer services, and health facilities - that would get the country working again and secure it on the path to becoming a democratic showcase. But that was before America's largest foray into democracy-building since the Marshall Plan met up with the Iraqi insurgency.

Now with the rebels' attacks wreaking havoc on security and holding progress on the big-ticket expenditures to a trickle, the US Embassy in Baghdad is calling on Washington to reorient a chunk of the allocation toward addressing the insurgency.


In effect, US officials in Baghdad want more money to create jobs - including in security - that might make Iraq's idle young men too busy to rebel. But the reordering would take money from restoring water, sewer, and electrical services - the lack of which has Iraqis frustrated and in some cases turning on the US presence.


"Security is turning out to be a much larger problem, and you can't spend money on infrastructure if the security isn't there," says Henri Barkey, a former State Department analyst on Iraq who is now at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa. "But spending money where you didn't think you'd have to also means you won't be providing what you led people to believe would be coming."


John Negroponte, US ambassador to Iraq, wants Washington to shift more than $3 billion in reconstruction funds to creating more security forces. In addition, the ambassador wants to accelerate jobs programs and focus more on repairing Iraq's oil-production facilities so the country can pump more oil - and earn more money. The proposed revisions are under review by the administration and would be taken to Congress at least for consultation before moving forward, officials say.


Ambassador Negroponte's initiative reflects frustration over the slow pace of spending: As of the end of August, less than $1 billion of the $18.4 billion allocation had been spent. Regular attacks on existing infrastructure and an ongoing insurgency campaign to discourage contractors from taking part in Iraq's reconstruction are two prime culprits.


Some observers - pointing to earlier tensions between a sidelined State Department and an in-charge Pentagon over Iraq's postwar plans - say Negroponte's recommendations also reflect a State Department desire to place its imprimatur on reconstruction. The recommendations could also demonstrate that, when it comes to US-Iraqi relations, new kids are in charge on the block.


But State officials say the proposed revisions are part of a normal reassessment of needs nearly a year after the funds were approved. They would also reflect the situation on the ground as Negroponte has assessed it since arriving earlier this summer. "The important thing to remember is Ambassador Negroponte, when he went to Iraq, made clear that one of his first priorities was to conduct a comprehensive review of construction priorities, of aid priorities," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher last week. "We ... want to spend money on the major priorities, which are improving security, increasing Iraqi employment, and improving quality of life for all Iraqis."


Others say there is more going on here than a mere reassessment of needs. The passing of the reconstruction baton from the Department of Defense to State means a shift to a more traditional nation-building program, says James Dobbins, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corp. in Arlington, Va. Expect emphasis to shift from large infrastructure projects to programs with a quick impact among the population, like jobs creation.


"Iraq's reconstruction was influenced by who was doing it, and with a change in who's in charge we'll see a shift in institutional perspective," says Mr. Dobbins, who has worked with the past four administrations on nation-building projects. "With the State Department running the show, it's back to a more traditional scenario where the big international financing institutions ... come in on the big, long-term infrastructure projects, while the US focuses on other priorities with shorter-term impact."


The proposal calls for redirecting nearly $1 billion to create additional Iraqi National Guard units and other security forces. But that proposal comes as evidence mounts of money squandered on poorly trained and motivated units: Reports have mounted of Iraqi security forces being overrun by insurgents or standing aside as antigovernment forces have taken over towns.


Lehigh's Mr. Barkey says much of what Negroponte suggests is an attempt to correct what was done wrong earlier. "The mistakes of the occupation are haunting us," he says. He cites the proposal for a jobs program, after months of favoring foreign workers. "The administration may have had very good reasons for doing what it did, but it still created problems."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0908/p02s02-woiq.html

Money quote...

"Security is turning out to be a much larger problem, and you can't spend money on infrastructure if the security isn't there," says Henri Barkey, a former State Department analyst on Iraq who is now at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa.

The Christian Science Monitor?

And by the way Lugar was blasting them on this move since he told them about the security situation from the start. Also, from your article:

"The mistakes of the occupation are haunting us," he says.

Maybe I should quote the Guardian in my next rebuttal.

[Drake Tungsten]

So you post a piece by an independent group the government ignored as proof they knew what was going on?

No, I posted that piece to show that, to some people, the problems the US has had in disbursing the $18 billion in reconstruction was to be expected, a possibility you scoffed at.

And what's wrong with the Christian Science Monitor?

[Ted Striker]

How hard is it to hire secuirty? They should have done it a long time ago! That's the first step, everything after that is meaningless. Face it, they are late to the game.

The Christian Science Monitor will never speak badly about a Republican administration. They are so far to the right they are about to fall off the edge. It's like quoting Pat Robertson.

[Ramo]

Actually, CSM's a generally leftist (and quite good) paper.

Anyways, they're just reporting Admin BS. What is interesting is that the Iraqis' oil revenues were spent by us, while we kept the reconstruction aid (which we have authority to disburse). Maximizing nepotism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yeah, Mondale was a Northern liberal who said he would raise taxes as the economy was just coming out of a recession. Kerry is a Northern liberal who said he would raise taxes as the economy is coming out of a long "recession." Does that make Kerry incompetent?

Kerry is also saying he would lower taxes on those in the middle and lower brackets. His raising taxes would only apply to the top percentage. Mondales was an across the board tax hike, affecting the middle class as much as the rich.

Imran, if you want to argue along these lines, at least get your facts right. Mondale proposed exactly the same thing as does Kerry.

"Yet, when I watched Mondale's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in San Francisco, it almost seemed (with one important exception) that he was trying to sound like a Republican. Apparently sensing that the public was in a conservative mood and fed up with big government, he talked abut old-fashioned values and improving the efficiency of government, and promised the people he wanted to do some of the very same things we were already doing - but he made it sound as if he had to do it to cure an economic crisis. Mondale reverted to type once, when he pledged to raise taxes on rich to reduce the deficit - after being introduced by a millionaire, Senator Edward Kennedy, who had assailed me as a friend of the rich. Mondale tried to make it sound as if he had undergone a metamorphosis. But I knew that the first thing he'd do as president was revert totally to form and join with Congress in enacting huge tax increases that would abort the recovery and destroy everything we'd spent four years trying to build."

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/reelect.html

[Drake Tungsten]

How hard is it to hire secuirty? They should have done it a long time ago!

You think they can just hire security to stop the insurgency? They need to defeat the insurgency, but hiring security isn't going to do it. It's a long term, military and political process.

The Christian Science Monitor will never speak badly about a Republican administration. They are so far to the right they are about to fall off the edge.

That's news to me...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
It proves that Franks doesn't agree with Bush and even his plans weren't the greatest.

It proves Bush's "plan" for postwar Iraq doesn't exist, as Lugar said, it's just a generalization. It shows that he and Rumsfeld completely ignored the advice of the experts and tried to do it on the cheap.

Ted, it appears that Bush and Rumsfeld agreed with Franks. As what happened to the Iraqi army, it apparently completely disintegrated. There was nothing left to command, to pay.

What they did try was to form new units as quickly as possible. But, as we saw, these units were a complete waste of time. They would not fight, and often joined the enemy.

As to the "additional troops" that Franks wanted ... just where the f... were we going to get them? Kerry can talk all he wants about legions of French and German troops. But, as we all know from anyone who has actually consider the matter for a second, not even those countries have the troops. They aren't even fulfilling their commitments in Afghanistan.

Get real.

[Ramo]

Eh? The Iraqi army didn't completely disintegrate. Hell, you realize that there were actual demonstrations by the Iraqi Army demanding that they be paid, don't you?

[Ned]

Ramo, Agreed. But the Shi'ites and Kurds successfully argued that they needed to disband Saddam's army. If they hadn't there might have been a civil war sooner rather than later because the Shi'ites and Kurds would have revolted right away.

[Ramo]

Chalabi isn't the same thing as the Iraqi Shia.