|
Who wins with military forces forever occupying Iraq?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| I think it's only fair to ask the flip side of the question, don't you? |
|
|
| Lilith |
| Corporate contractors (Energy, construction and mercenary) are the only ones who're winning so far and I see it unlikely to change in the near future. With the amount the US taxpayer is bleeding out daily into Iraq it's fairly much ending up in either the pocket of local officials who need bribes just to talk and the contractors who've only mostly done talking. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
i guess if you use the Korean standard it's the Iraqis who win?
everyone on one side of the DMZ goes "Spock" and everyone on the otherside festers in Islamic/Stalinist rule.
| quote: | Since the 1960s, South Korea has achieved an incredible record of growth and integration into the high-tech modern world economy. Four decades ago, GDP per capita was comparable with levels in the poorer countries of Africa and Asia. In 2004, South Korea joined the trillion dollar club of world economies. Today its GDP per capita is equal to the lesser economies of the EU. This success was achieved by a system of close government/business ties, including directed credit, import restrictions, sponsorship of specific industries, and a strong labor effort. The government promoted the import of raw materials and technology at the expense of consumer goods and encouraged savings and investment over consumption. The Asian financial crisis of 1997-99 exposed longstanding weaknesses in South Korea's development model, including high debt/equity ratios, massive foreign borrowing, and an undisciplined financial sector. GDP plunged by 6.9% in 1998, then recovered by 9.5% in 1999 and 8.5% in 2000. Growth fell back to 3.3% in 2001 because of the slowing global economy, falling exports, and the perception that much-needed corporate and financial reforms had stalled. Led by consumer spending and exports, growth in 2002 was an impressive 7%, despite anemic global growth. Between 2003 and 2006, growth moderated to about 4-5%. A downturn in consumer spending was offset by rapid export growth. Moderate inflation, low unemployment, an export surplus, and fairly equal distribution of income characterize this solid economy.
"it's the corporations...blah blah blah"
|
why were the Iraqis left out of the poll? wait! no one gives a damn, thats right. |
|
|
| star-traveller |
| What kind of question is that? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i guess if you use the Korean standard it's the Iraqis who win?
everyone on one side of the DMZ goes "Spock" and everyone on the otherside festers in Islamic/Stalinist rule.
why were the Iraqis left out of the poll? wait! no one gives a damn, thats right. |
Hmmm, so when the Iraqis stand up, we'll, uhh....keep standing up then?
Or are you predicting that the Iraqis will never be able to stand up for themselves against their arch enemies: uhh, the other Iraqis? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Or are you predicting that the Iraqis will never be able to stand up for themselves against their arch enemies: uhh, the other Iraqis? |
nope. are you? |
|
|
| Krypton |
If security is secured, and US forces stay beyond just securing the country, the contractors are obviously going to win in the end.
I havn't really looked at contractors, though I'de like to know what their role specifically in Iraq is. |
|
|
| Krypton |
So far, according to the PDD consensus, the outcomes are this...
If the US pulls out of Iraq without resolving the insurgency, the Shiite militias will win.
If the US stays in Iraq indefinately, it appears we agree that corporate conglomerates will win.
In the end, the battle is about spreading capitalism, which is kind of imperialist in my opinion. The difference between SOuth Korea and Iraq is that the SOuth Koreans wanted us to help them. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
nope. |
Are you sure? Because with such a comparison to S. Korea, one would easily conclude otherwise.
Not sure where you might gain any prediction I have out of what I've stated in this thread so far. But I think given the result of the past 4 1/3 years with our occupation, the concept of our presence being part of the problem and not the solution is long overdue. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Hmmm, so when the Iraqis stand up, we'll, uhh....keep standing up then?
Or are you predicting that the Iraqis will never be able to stand up for themselves against their arch enemies: uhh, the other Iraqis? |
Ummm yea about that "stand up" thing ...
| quote: |
House Report Faults Pentagon Accounting of Iraqi Forces
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A15
The United States has invested $19 billion to train and equip nearly 350,000 Iraqi soldiers and police since toppling Saddam Hussein, but the ability of those forces to provide security remains in doubt, according to the findings of a bipartisan congressional investigation to be released today.
As a result, President Bush's pledge to have U.S. troops "stand down" as Iraqi forces "stand up" remains unfulfilled. Instead, U.S. troop numbers and operations have escalated in recent months, and the overall level of violence has not decreased.
Despite the substantial number of Iraqi security forces and their increasing willingness to fight -- demonstrated by rising numbers of casualties -- their progress toward taking full responsibility for the nation's security remains mixed, according to a report on the investigation by the oversight panel of the House Armed Services Committee. U.S. commanders now predict that it will take years and tens of thousands more Iraqi soldiers and police to achieve that goal.
The Pentagon "cannot report in detail how many of the 346,500 Iraqi military and police personnel that the coalition trained are operational today," according to the 250-page report. Details of the document were provided to The Washington Post by congressional staff members.
"We have no idea what our $19 billion has gotten us," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, noting that the United States investment represents $55,000 per Iraqi recruit.
"The DOD can't tell us how well the Iraqis perform their missions or even plan them," he said in an interview. "The police are in particularly bad shape, although they are critical to counterinsurgency."
The lack of transparency is especially worrisome, the report said, because of the possibility that Iraqi forces trained and equipped by the United States have joined the insurgency or sectarian militias.
"This report details the complete lack of understanding of who we have trained and what happens to them after we train them," Meehan said. "Many of the forces we have trained are unaccounted for, and others are on the rolls but haven't been vetted," he said, adding that forces "could actually be fighting against us."
The subcommittee's report found "strong evidence" that some Iraqi forces trained by the U.S.-led military coalition are involved in sectarian violence and other illegal activities. In addition, the Pentagon "cannot account for whether coalition-issued weapons have been stolen or turned against U.S. forces," the report said.
The $19 billion in appropriations -- about $5 billion each fiscal year since 2004 -- has primarily gone toward recruiting, training and equipping Iraqi security forces but also includes funding for building training centers, managing logistics and creating an Iraqi leadership structure in the ministries of defense and the interior.
The report criticized as "premature and ill-advised" the U.S. decision to transfer responsibility for vetting the Iraqi police to the national government early this year, after only a year of focused effort in generating police forces, saying that police remain ineffective and their organization is "riddled with corruption and sectarian influence." Tens of thousands of police have been hired outside of the U.S.-led training program, it said.
Regarding the Iraqi army, the report found that the Pentagon lacks clear measures of the number of soldiers on the job and their ability to conduct operations, particularly away from their home bases.
The Iraqi ministries of defense and the interior are incapable of "accounting for, supporting, or fully controlling their forces in the field," or even executing their own budgets, the investigation found. In addition, the ministries lack critical intelligence and logistics systems that would help in planning independent operations.
U.S. military advisory teams placed with Iraqi security forces were formed on an ad hoc basis and were not fully qualified for their mission in 2004 and 2005, it found. U.S. military police units were not deployed to advise the Iraqi police until 2005, and they did not begin to receive training specific to the mission until March 2007, it said. The report recommends that the Pentagon create incentives to attract the most qualified personnel for the teams.
The report includes 60 findings and 40 recommendations, many of which call for Congress to pass legislation this year mandating that the Pentagon track and provide to lawmakers a wide range of measures intended to better gauge the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces.
Since May, for example, Congress has gained access to the U.S. military's progress reports on Iraqi units, known as "transition readiness assessments." But the investigation found that the assessments still focus on the number of forces trained and equipped rather than on how well they conduct operations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7062602093.html
|
$19 billion of our money and there's to show for it and no accountability. Yay for republican fiscal responsibility. The sad part is that nobody is surprised by any of this anymore. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Ummm yea about that "stand up" thing ...
$19 billion of our money and there's to show for it and no accountability. Yay for republican fiscal responsibility. The sad part is that nobody is surprised by any of this anymore. |
Actually, two Republicans have highlighted the split in the party over the war. Republicans want progress too, and we have not seen it. As a young Republican, I have lost all respect for the current administration. |
|
|
|
|
