Post-War Iraq: Should we help?

[GePap]

Kramerman: why should france, Russia and Germany be kind enough to forgive the debts of a oil rich state when we in the us are unwilling to forgive the debts of deperately poor states?

As for how far oil money would go: the oil for food program was working folks: it cut malnutirtion in Iraq dramatically since it started. BUt I think there are soem misconceptyions about Iraq's oil. First, even if the oil fields are not damaged during the war, it will take billions in investemnts to get them to where they were before the Iran-Iraq war, and then billions more to upgrade and modernize them. For the first few years the Oil fields will probably be taking in more money than putting out...and the first few years are the cirtical ones, in which the basic serives are to be rebuilt. All of this also assumes a peaceful aftermath free from terrorism and internal political problems.
How will the Us remake the Iraqi army? Will we try to defang Iraq permenantly by putting in place some anti-military constitution, or will we arm them with top of the line Us made weapons like the Sha's army?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DanS
Where has it shown that it puts the money where its mouth is, apart from having a war on Iraq

Afghanistan.

I don't know, is it something in the DC water supply?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

How will the Us remake the Iraqi army? Will we try to defang Iraq permenantly by putting in place some anti-military constitution, or will we arm them with top of the line Us made weapons like the Sha's army?

I'm thinking that the new army will be no more than a glorified police force 30-40k strong. They can and should enter into a mutual defense pact with the US to guarantee their security.

Perhaps we will allow one unit to be armored. I suspect the Iraqi army may try to get the best tanks it can. But I doubt we will sell them top of the line M1 A2 tanks. Maybe they could upgrade with newer French tanks. I understand they are quite good.

[Spiffor]

About the first post (gah, I hate beginning posting at page 8 )

France and Britain both call for a UN resolution about postwar Saddam and want the UN to take reconstruction in charge. I am not aware of the US position on this.

Personally, I hope the Bushies will forget their pride and will turn to the UN for the reconstruction. They are likely to do so, because the war would have been expansive enough, and the reconstruction under UN rule whoch prove much less costly to them. I guess they'll manage to make the UN reconstruction plan outstandingly good for US business interests (strong bargaining power, especially if the puppet regime says it would agree with a US only reconstruction).

I am pretty sure the Bushies will botch the reconstruction if they do it alone. First, the UN has a big experience in this, unlike the US : the UN monitored East-Timor democratic transition, which is satisfying so far. It has many reconstruction programs around the world, in which its specialized agencies are working : food, infrastructure, education, human rights etc. The US would be a newbie in this exercize, save for the rusted experience of WW2.

Also, I really fear bigotry from the US. The current admin has shown a dramatic inability to question its decisions, and seems to need spread its values thoughout the world. Should they enter the wrong direction at the beginning of Iraq's reconstruction (which is likely, because its axes would be decided in Washington through an American world-perception), they won't change direction once proven it is wrong.
Also, the US might want to ally with a specific Iraqi faction (or group thereof) for the sake of power stability. This would serve the American goal to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, to avoid paying too much. However, while instituting a faction at power pays in the short term, it can only lead to crises later, sometimes ages later. The UN's perspective, which is to build a stable state preferably democratic, will be much longer and frustrating, but will pay in the long run if it works. But such a process needs to be looking for compromises, something completely alien to Bush's team.
We can also fear clientelism from the US if it is in charge of the reconstruction, giving more spoils to the most pro-US factions. This would deepen the rifts.

Lastly, going to the UN for reconstruction might give the UN the boost it needs so much today. That would also give much more legitimacy to the US on the international level, and begin to repair their damaged reputation, as well as healing the wounds of the transatlantic relationship. It would be about time.

For the sake of the Iraqi people, and for the US interests, I hope the Bushies will go to the UN for reconstruction.
And that they won't mindlessly say "Ah ! Screw the UN and screw France !"

[Drake Tungsten]

And that they won't mindlessly say "Ah ! Screw the UN and screw France !"

I wish we could find a way to let the UN in while keeping France out. It's not going to happen, but it would be the best way...

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by orange
It'll be Marshall Planish. Nations will invest a lot of money and make out like bandits. Will it rebuild Iraq - yes, but make no mistake about who is truly profiting.

Are you saying the marshall plan was bad, or somehow didn't benefit the people of Europe

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

And that they won't mindlessly say "Ah ! Screw the UN and screw France !"

I wish we could find a way to let the UN in while keeping France out. It's not going to happen, but it would be the best way...

Ditto.

[GePap]

The Us and UK are already trying to get some of the 40 billion bucks Iraq has under UN stewardship to pay for the reconstruction. And no, your manic francophbia will lose out, and the French will be there.

As for the Iraqi army issue: I don't think the notion of creating a tiny Iraqi army will pass political muster in Iraq. After all, we are there to "liberate them", and I doubt that future Iraqi governments will want a tiny army, given their neighbors.