[lbo-talk] Re: money for Bechtel/the story NOT told

Paul paul_ at igc.org
Fri Aug 29 13:05:40 PDT 2003



>Doug writes
>Yup, you've got a point. But so many things that should have been
>accomplished haven't been. Why did they look the other way when the
>"looting" was going on last April? Why haven't they guarded water mains
>and oil pipelines more effectively? Why was Saddam able to get the
>electricity running after GW I while the U.S. forces can't? There may be
>good answers that don't include intentional chaos-mongering, but I can't
>think of any.

Again, I see these as mostly illustrating the ideological extremism of the Bush people's vision:

- The sabotage of the water mains and oil pipelines (which are NOT the main cause of failure in these sectors) speaks to the U.S. policy towards the profession ex-military at the lower levels. They were ALL (regardless of rank or role) cut off without pay or severance. A new military is supposed to be recruited but these people will be ineligible. Most are also ineligible for any public sector job. And most of their relatives from a similar lower class background anticipate a similar future prospects given the new economic direction. All of these policies are part of an ideological vision that would have been unthinkable from the U.S. just 10 years ago (after all brutal right-wing nationalistic military types were not exactly shunned by the U.S. when it looked for supporters).

It will be hard to stop the sabotage without compromises on the wider issues (but I don't think the sabotage is so critical). The saboteurs are 20 to 30 years old, have excellent military training, access to lots of explosives and a well established network and right now have no future....

- The far bigger problems with oil, electricity and water seem to relate to the passive resistance by the Iraqi technicians, technocrats and administrators who ran these sectors. These are sophisticated well educated types who, unlike the lower class military types, felt their advances came from their own skills and not from Bathist policy. This sort of resistance by middle class types is fairly unheard of in any previous occupations. Even a moderate occupation policy would have brought them on board. But they have been told that their jobs are soon to be abolished and the sectors they saw built will be sold to foreigners. In Russia this was done only through massive insider "buy-outs". And their relatives who own\run firms in commerce and industry have just been told (officially, this week) that these sectors will be opened to foreign business. Probably this will mean Arabs from the region will own and run these middle size firms (no Iraqi will have the capital to compete).

And, of course, the UN and ICRC technicians that backed up the Iraqis ensuring spare parts and coordination have been largely cut off - again just to achieve ideological\political purposes since they would have readily served.

- The looting I see as more of an "event". But here too ideological fervor played its role: remember the Cromwellian need to sell the "New Model" Army and keep the numbers of troops down. Most people with experience pointed out that the numbers might be sufficient for a conquest but not an occupation.

The Bush Administration had choices in how to approach the occupation and alternatives were voiced by the State Dept and AID. By choosing the hardest ideological line they reveal a lot about themselves and about their original motives for the war.

As a said a few weeks ago: as the election period begins I would think ambitions will be trimmed back and policies softened. And many of their obstacles can be overcome, even at this stage.

Paul



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list