[lbo-talk] Who the US is protecting in Iraq

[Michael Pugliese]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16513
The Occupation
By Max Rodenbeck (writer for The Economist)
> ...Following the initial, catastrophic period of looting, the perplexity 
> deepened. The occupation force was clearly big and powerful, but it 
> seemed more intent on protecting itself than on providing general 
> security. Reports from the provinces were replete with tales of 
> undermanned units, with few or no resources at their disposal other than 
> guns, struggling to field a barrage of demands for aid, many of which 
> they could not understand for lack of translators. And this despite the 
> extraordinary American outlay on maintaining its troops: $1 billion a 
> week, or $25,000 a month per soldier, a sum easily equal to the annual 
> income of ten Iraqi families.

In Baghdad, American civilian administrators were nowhere to be seen. The 
few who had arrived were closeted inside the vast Republican Palace 
compound (where the choice of personnel, many of whom appeared to have been 
selected for ideological reasons, gave the name new meaning).[7] Security 
rules allowed them to leave the premises only in armed convoys. Poor 
cooperation from the military meant that trips were often delayed or 
canceled. Unable to communicate with each other even by telephone, Iraq's 
new rulers made virtually no effort to address the Iraqi public...