Buried in the middle of the story...billions, actually tens of billions, have been used up with little to show for it. Proportionally, FAR more money than was available for any of the other international reconstruction efforts. Yet, the other international efforts had many tougher jobs and showed quick results with their meager resources.
The failures are actually largely due to the radical nature of the Bush Administration's occupation goals and their extremist mind set (even by the mainstream standards):
- Within Iraq large strata of Iraqi society are excluded - or have excluded themselves - from the occupation administration. Because it is not just a passing occupation: it has goals of returning Iraq's politics and society to a pre-1960's configuration. Large social classes see themselves as likely to be disenfranchised. Inevitably this vastly heightens active resistance (which has been reported) and the massive passive resistance (which has not been reported).
- Internationally, the bunker mentality of the ideological extremists of the running things has meant that they will not make use of the people in the international community (or even sometimes in USAID !) who have knowledge and experience on how achieve these things. (Ironically, most of these technocrats would have readily served the occupation).
The public spin: it is all due to "security" which is in good part due to foreign terrorists. But this explanation begs some obvious and crucial questions:
- Why aren't the primary and secondary schools fully functioning?; or the health system? "Security" hasn't blocked them.
- And the water supply has had only a few minor attacks on some above-ground viaducts. Why are the pumping stations still not fully operating? They were all equipped with generators sent just before the war by the Red Cross and the U.N. And a massive stock of spare parts for and supplies for the distribution system was put in place. These were NOT looted. In 1991 the water supply was quickly restored after being directly bombed by far more powerful forces. And it was kept going for 12 years under worse circumstances.
- Even the power supply has only seen some attacks on pylons which can readily be repaired (far more were quickly repaired by the Iraqis themselves, despite sanctions, after they were destroyed in '91). And the big problems seem to be the generating stations and the urban distribution which were not touched by the war and have hardly seen large scale looting. The U.S. officials speak of how the system was "allowed" to fall into disrepair over 12 years (forgetting the sanctions). Yet six months ago the Iraqis could keep it going. Where are those Iraqis today? Why won't they work?
The list goes on and on, although little documented by those international entities that have the responsibility to cry out. The Geneva Conventions prohibit the occupying power from making large scale social changes and require the maintenance of basic human needs.
Clearly the occupation's failures point to deeper social and political problems with U.S. policy than just "security". The failure to tell the story is another deep shame.
Paul
At 10:01 AM 8/28/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Wall Street Journal - August 28, 2003
>
>U.S. to Boost Bechtel's Funding
>To Rebuild Iraqi Electricity Grid
>
>By Neil King Jr. in Washington and Simeon Kerr in Dubai, United Arab Emirates
>
>Faced with escalating costs and continued instability in Iraq, U.S.
>officials in Baghdad have decided to boost Bechtel Group Inc.'s postwar
>reconstruction contract by $350 million, or more than 50%.
>
>The decision to steer additional funds to Bechtel is the latest sign that
>the Bush administration has seriously underestimated the cost and
>complexity of rebuilding Iraq. Although the U.S. plans a dramatic push for
>new reconstruction funds -- part of what one U.S. official said will be a
>$2.75 billion emergency budget request for Iraq next month -- the
>administration remains vague on what the overall project is likely to cost.
>
>The new Bechtel money, which could be turned over within days, is part of
>at least $1 billion the U.S. hopes to pour into Iraqi power generation
>alone over the next year. U.S. officials and Bechtel assessment teams now
>estimate Iraqi reconstruction will cost at least $16 billion and likely
>much more. L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. official in Iraq, has said that
>the costs of rebuilding Iraq and revitalizing its economy could top $100
>billion.
>
>San Francisco-based Bechtel was originally awarded an 18 month, $680
>million contract for Iraqi reconstruction work on airports, water, power,
>schools, roads and government buildings. After business rivals and some
>legislators criticized the limited competition involved in that award,
>Andrew Natsios, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development,
>promised that no additional taxpayer money would go into the Bechtel
>contract beyond the $680 million ceiling.
>
>According to a funding document from the U.S.-led Iraqi provisional
>authority, however, U.S. officials recently decided that Bechtel requires
>the additional $350 million "to maintain momentum in high-priority
>infrastructure projects." Mr. Bremer approved the new projects on Aug. 20,
>according to the document.
>
>Wednesday, an AID spokeswoman said that "security conditions" had
>evidently led Mr. Bremer to lift the limit and give more work to Bechtel.
>The additional $350 million will come from what's left of a $2.5 billion
>Iraq reconstruction fund Congress approved early this year.
>
>U.S. officials also said they are willing to consider sharing
>responsibility for security with a United Nations-backed multinational
>force as long as it was under American command (See related story).
>
>Possibly within weeks, the Bush administration plans to put out for bids a
>new contract for follow-on work in Iraq that could be valued at well over
>$2 billion, according to administration and congressional sources. The
>contract would focus mainly on power and water work. Congress has
>pressured the administration to open any additional Iraq work to
>competition and not simply to stick with the same contractors.
>
>Michael Kidder, a Bechtel spokesman, said there have been "informal
>discussions" in Baghdad on the need for new funding but added that "we
>have not received any formal notification of additional work in Iraq."
>
>As with other contractors in Iraq, Bechtel's work has been delayed and
>made more expensive by rampant sabotage. In the spring, Bechtel teams
>found that dozens of power towers were down across Iraq, some the result
>of past wars and others the work of looters and saboteurs. An assessment
>in recent weeks, however, found that over 120 power towers are now down
>across the country. "It's a big problem," said one Bechtel official.
>
>Partly because of such sabotage, U.S. officials in Iraq have been forced
>to revise several times their forecast for restoring electricity to prewar
>levels. Earlier this summer, Mr. Bremer promised to do so by the end of
>July. The provisional authority now says Iraqi power generation won't
>reach 4,400 megawatts until the end of September -- and that's still short
>of Iraq's prewar generation of about 5,000 megawatts.
>
>In a desperate attempt to improve the power situation, the provisional
>authority is negotiating deals to import power from Turkey and possibly
>even longstanding U.S. antagonists Syria and Iran. The authority is
>currently finalizing a two-year contract with privately owned Turkish
>power company Karadeniz for the provision of 50 megawatts of electricity,
>which will eventually rise to 75 megawatts, a senior authority official said.
>
>Iraqi Electricity Commission officials have also opened talks with Syria
>and Jordan, and plan to start negotiating soon with Iran, the official
>said. Iraqi authorities might barter crude oil for the cash value of any
>power contracts signed, though it isn't certain that suppliers will agree
>to such terms.
>
>"We're keen to explore options of importing power to help solve the
>current imbalance in electricity supply-demand," said Charles Heatley, a
>spokesman for the coalition authority in Baghdad.
>
>Iranian officials said they would have no problem with selling electricity
>to Iraq. "Although we don't recognize the Iraqi government, that doesn't
>mean there wouldn't be talks between the two countries," said Hossein
>Afarideh, chairman of the Iranian Parliament's energy commission. Iran is
>already discussing the possibility of supplying liquefied natural gas and
>gasoline to Iraq, said Hojat Ghanimi Fard, executive director with the
>National Iranian Oil Co.
>
>In Washington, the scramble for new reconstruction money comes as
>available funds are drying up quickly. Since late spring, the U.S.-led
>administration in Baghdad has spent most of $2.1 billion in seized Iraqi
>assets, much of which went to pay Iraqi government salaries and to fund
>smaller reconstruction projects handled by the U.S. military.
>
>To replenish the coffers there, the Treasury Department plans within a
>week to send a last installment of $420 million in Iraqi assets that were
>previously frozen in U.S. banks. The U.S. is also working to get access to
>more than $2 billion in Iraqi assets found in other countries.
>
>The administration is sure to face criticism in Congress and elsewhere as
>it moves to expand Bechtel's workload in Iraq. Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe
>of Arizona, who heads the appropriations subcommittee that overseas
>foreign aid, said he agreed with the need to lift the contract ceiling in
>this case. "But we've made it abundantly clear to the administration that
>any new money must be competitively bid," he said.
>
>Congress is meanwhile bracing for what's expected to be a multibillion
>dollar request to fill a gaping hole in Iraq's 2004 budget. Iraq's
>sputtering oil revenues, estimated to be less than $10 billion next year,
>might cover only half of the country's overall needs, some U.S. officials
>estimate. The administration hopes that other countries will step up with
>significant offers at an October donors conference in Spain.
>
>Mr. Bremer told the Washington Post Tuesday that meeting Iraq's
>infrastructure and other needs next year would require "several tens of
>billions" of dollars from abroad.
>
>But others are skeptical that the U.S. will receive substantial help. "I
>think the administration is dreaming on that one," said Mr. Kolbe. The
>U.S. is now spending about $4 billion a month just to keep 140,000 U.S.
>troops in Iraq.
>___________________________________