Stefan; Reconstruction of Iraq

Krangthebrain · October 24th, 2003, 05:18 PM

I know you don't like Socialism, so this article is right down
your alley

THE WORLD
Socialist Realism
by Robert Lane Greene

Only at TNR Online
Post date: 10.21.03

The average pundit, politico, and administration official refers to the process now underway in Iraq as "reconstruction," the implication being that the Iraqi economy need only be restored to some version of its prewar self in order for the country to prosper. As Commerce Secretary Don Evans explained it last week:

As I drive through the streets of Baghdad, I see commerce is coming back--I see--I talk to people--I talk to the Iraqi people. ... I have talked to a lot of young entrepreneurs who are excited about the opportunity to now be real entrepreneurs and start new companies, thousands of new companies as a matter of fact have started since the end of the war.

In fact, while the $55 billion the World Bank estimates Iraq needs over the next few years may fix up the country's prewar infrastructure, it's unlikely to have the same effect on its economy--for the simple reason that Iraq never had a modern capitalist economy to begin with. Much has been made of the comparison between aid to postwar Iraq and the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after the Second World War. But the reconstruction of Germany, France, Britain, Italy, and others was, in fact, mainly a reconstruction of physical infrastructure destroyed during the war. That alone more or less returned these economies, previously among the most advanced in the world, to their prewar norms. Iraq, by contrast, has in modern times been a socialist basket-case propped up only by oil, in the middle of a region beset by much the same problem. In a sense, postwar Iraq combines the worst features of postwar Germany with those of post-Soviet Russia.

And, in the end, it's the socialist legacy that may actually prove tougher to overcome. Not only does a former socialist country have to dismantle hugely inefficient state enterprises and recycle their capital and labor into more productive parts of the economy. It must also create the institutions upon which a capitalist market depends--property rights, bankruptcy laws, financial markets, etc.--and instill in its citizens a basic respect for these institutions.

The historical record suggests that neither of these tasks is especially quick or easy. Between 1989 and 1991, the command economies of Eastern Europe were abruptly liberalized, with results ranging from stuttering progress to stagnation to failure and collapse. Hungary is one of the brightest stars of the region. Reasonably affluent before the communist seizure of power, it was hobbled by only a mild form of communism ("goulash communism") for the two decades prior to 1989. These relatively favorable circumstances and a decade of capitalist rebuilding and reform (not to mention big handouts of EU aid) have led to impressive GDP growth: about 4.3 percent per year from 1998 to 2002. Yet, even so, Hungary's GDP per head today is only about $6,500 per year. That's just three-fifths that of Greece, the poorest European country that doesn't suffer from a communist past.

And remember, Hungary is a shining star. Russia's economy is now growing strongly--about 4 percent per year for the past four years, thanks mainly to high oil and gas prices. But the collapse of communism was deeply disruptive to the Russian economy, leading to a massive shrinkage of output--officially 45 percent (though an unknowable proportion of this is attributable to the discovery that Soviet-era statistics were science-fiction). Russia's per capita output today is just $2,400, ranking it alongside developing countries like Brazil.

For its part, Iraq became an essentially socialist country when the Baath party consolidated power in 1968. Except for some agriculture, the only free-market elements of the Iraqi economy were the few sectors (mostly export-related) in which Saddam granted cronies licenses to operate outside the command economy--hardly a promising capitalist nucleus for postwar Iraq. Baathist economics, like its Soviet cousin, poured investment into heavy industry, and with Soviet-style results. Iraqi manufacturing was never the envy of the world, or even of the Middle East: As of 1990, oil still accounted for over 95 percent of Iraq's foreign currency-earning exports.

Iraq begins its life as a free-market economy just half as wealthy as Russia. And it has the added misfortune of being in a bad neighborhood, not just geopolitically but economically. The countries that border Iraq are all either oil-rich statist plutocracies or oil-poor statist satrapies, with the exception of Turkey (not the most inspiring example itself). Unfortunately for Iraq, the presence of productive neighbors is an important factor in economic growth. The eastern European economies have the advantage of abutting rich western countries, which, in addition to forking over aid, provide ready and easily imitated examples of capitalist success, as well as bountiful export markets. On a continent like Africa, by contrast, corruption and political instability frequently travel across borders. Iraq, with few positive examples to look toward, is likely to find itself in the situation of a newly independent African country rather than an Eastern European one.

What about Iraq's oil? Even assuming that output steadily increases beyond 1990 levels, this is no panacea. Oil wealth can hurt the economy by sucking in foreign capital, driving up the value of the currency, and making other exports (mainly manufacturing and agriculture) uncompetitive. Because of its seductively large revenues, it can also cause a country to neglect development of the rest of its economy--particularly higher-value-added sectors. And, politically, oil is all too often a curse, since it propels a political system toward excessive centralization and its frequent corollary, corruption. The Venezuelan Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonso, one of the founders of OPEC, once famously called the black stuff "the devil's excrement" for the waste it bred in his country. Nearly 30 years later, Venezuela is still a mess. One recent study by the Open Society Institute demonstrated that resource-rich countries actually grew more slowly than resource-poor ones between 1960 and 1990, controlling for initial levels of wealth and other variables. If we want to prevent it from hopelessly distorting the economy, Iraq's oil wealth must be used to slowly diversify the country's economy away from oil.

Hence the need to take Don Evans's optimism with more than a grain of salt. It is far too early to know if the American project in Iraq will be a success. But the one sure way to ensure it isn't is if we fail to realistically assess just how big the task is.

Robert Lane Greene is countries editor at Economist.com.

SirStefan32 · October 25th, 2003, 07:24 AM

Thanks for the article Tom.
It will be very interesting to see how Iraqi economy does. We'll all get a chance to see how capitalism works.

I just hope they really become a good capitalistic representative democracy. It would be so nice to have an ally in the middle east.

Krangthebrain · October 25th, 2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirStefan32
Thanks for the article Tom.
It will be very interesting to see how Iraqi economy does. We'll all get a chance to see how capitalism works.

I just hope they really become a good capitalistic representative democracy. It would be so nice to have an ally in the middle east.

Honestly, I seriously doubt they will become a representative democracy.

If I were a bettin' man, I'd put my money on Iraq becoming an Islamic fundamentalist Theocracy, which would be just as bad as before if not worse.

SirStefan32 · October 25th, 2003, 07:43 AM

I think you are right, that's why I said that I "hope."

People are used to living under dictatorship, they've been conditioned to it.

I do believe, however, that the smell of freedom has a lot of power. When people see that they can worship anybody any way they want, that they can say anything they want, they're not gonna want to give it back. It might be just wishful thinking on my part though.

This is why I want us to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes us to give them that little bit of "smell of freedom."

Krangthebrain · October 25th, 2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirStefan32
I think you are right, that's why I said that I "hope."

People are used to living under dictatorship, they've been conditioned to it.

I do believe, however, that the smell of freedom has a lot of power. When people see that they can worship anybody any way they want, that they can say anything they want, they're not gonna want to give it back. It might be just wishful thinking on my part though.

This is why I want us to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes us to give them that little bit of "smell of freedom."

Yep, I do think it is wishful thinking.

Islam means "submission" to God. The people of the middle east, never went through the enlightenment, so cultural they are in the dark ages.

They (most Iraqis) believe that everyone should live by the law of God, written in the Koran, not by a legal system independent of religion.

Krangthebrain · October 25th, 2003, 08:03 AM

(CBS) The Shiites -- the Muslim sect that makes up the majority of Iraq -- have been, for the most part, in favor of the U.S.-led invasion. But there are signs that may be changing.

Five American soldiers were killed recently in a gun battle with an armed Shiite mob, and there have been several bombings in the last two weeks that U.S. forces say may have been carried out by Shiites.

Correspondent Bob Simon conducted the first television interview with the young Shiite cleric Sayed Muqtada al-Sadr, who is believed to be behind so much of the trouble.

But first, you'll hear from Hussein Khomeini, one of America's biggest fans among the Shiites. He is the eldest grandson of the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, who despised the Americans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Freedom is the essential element and foundation of our religion, and the United States of America stands for freedom,” says Hussein Khomeini, heir to the Khomeini name.

His grandfather, the late-Ayatollah Khomeini, once called America “the Great Satan.” So why has his grandson now come forward to speak to Americans?

“Because those who promote this radical form of Islam have strayed from true Islam, and they’ve have created the foundations of prejudice and religious blindness,” says Khomeini, who decided this summer to leave his home in Iran and flee to Iraq.

He hopes more moderate Shiites here will take charge under the U.S.-led occupation. “It’s certainly made the Iraqi people happy,” says Khomeini, on the American invasion of Iraq. “The destruction of this regime was one of the great blessings of our time, and we hope that God would be grateful to those who made it happen.”

But those who made it happen – namely, the Americans – have had a rough time with the Shiites in the past few decades.

There was the Iranian hostage crisis under the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, in which 52 Americans were held for more than a year. And over the next decade, Shiite militants carried out suicide attacks against American targets throughout the Middle East – at one point, killing 241 American servicemen stationed in Beirut.

However, Khomeini says that even the ayatollah would be disappointed with what has become of Muslim fundamentalism today: “This religion-dominated, theocratic government in Iran has acted very harshly, has gone beyond the worst extremism. And from the point of view of Islam, we reject this form of theocracy.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Najaf, around 100 miles south of Baghdad, is a sort of "Vatican City" to Shiite Muslims, and has been for a thousand years.

Most of the senior Shiite clerics in Iraq say they agree with Khomeini's view on the separation of mosque and state. But on the streets, it’s a different story. Liquor stores have been attacked, and more and more women are wearing the veil.

That's in no small part because of a Shiite cleric named Muqtada al-Sadr, whose lineage is as impressive as Khomeini's. His father was the late Ayatollah Sadr, grand Ayatollah of Iraq, and his picture is plastered everywhere here alongside that of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Now, Sadr tells Simon that while Saddam, who murdered his father four years ago, may be a snake, so is America: “The little serpent has left, and the great serpent has come.”

“Just because we’re rid of Saddam and the evil Batthists doesn’t mean that the occupation is a good thing,” says Sadr. “Our salvation from Saddam was only with the grace of God.”

But if getting rid of Saddam was a favor of God, why was it that God waited until the Americans came in to do the job?

“All praises to Allah! He works in mysterious ways,” says Sadr.
It's that sort of radical sentiment that has caught many Americans here off guard.

Lt. Col. Chris Conlin's Marines have been in charge of Najaf since the occupation began.

“His opportunity to demonstrate free speech is because of my Marines being here,” says Conlin, responding to Sadr’s comments.

And Sadr’s followers made their opinions known this past summer, when rumor spread that Marines in Najaf had arrested their leader. Thousands of angry Shiites marched on the base.

“That was actually a protest that was organized by Sadr under the false accusation that we had arrested him. And we hadn’t,” says Conlin. “So he bussed in people from Baghdad and Falujah and Mosul and Tikrit and fomented an angry crowd, and tried, I think, to do a little bit of intimidation tactics. And, so we did, too. We’re better at it.”

Conlin’s troops stood down the angry mob with bayonets – there was no bloodshed, no bullets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An American soldier is killed nearly every day in Iraq, but very little of the violence has come from the Shiites. However, that could all change, according to clerics who say many Iraqi Shiites are just waiting for a fatwa - a religious edict - to take up arms.

“I cannot issue a fatwa - I don’t have the religious authority. I don’t know what’s inside the religious authority’s heart, only God knows,” says Sadr. “He might issue a fatwa for Jihad, or he may not issue a fatwa for Jihad.”

But would he approve of a fatwa issued against the Americans?

“I have to obey this order whatever it might be,” says Sadr. “When the president of America decides to invade a country, shouldn’t people follow his orders? It is the same for us.”

“I think he has some people that are trying to create an Islamic extremist government, very similar to what Iran has,” says Conlin, who doesn’t think they have a chance. “They already went through one dictator. They don't need another one.”

Iraqi Shiites tried once before to get rid of their dictator. It was during the first Gulf War when the first President Bush sent a clear message to the Shiites: “And that is for the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.”

But when the Iraqi Shiites listened and revolted, the American air cover they expected never came. And the U.S. let Saddam use his helicopter gunships to crush the rebellion. Thousands of Shiites were killed, and their mass graves are only now being unearthed.

“It’s important to understand that ultimately they blame Saddam for it because Saddam was the one that came in and killed their people,” says Conlin. “The Americans didn't come in when they thought we were gonna come in … They reminded us of it.”

Sadr reminds his followers every chance he gets, and he says the first Bush Administration feared that if the ’91 uprising had worked to unseat Saddam, Iraq would look a lot like Iran - a Shiite theocracy, which is his dream and America’s nightmare.

“The Americans were never interested in what was best for the Shiites. In fact, America wouldn’t let a Shiite government exist here, except under its occupation, my friend, because of that fear,” says Sadr. “It is America who is afraid of the Shiites, not the Shiites who are afraid of America.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that Saddam is gone, it is only the Americans who are standing between the Shiites and control of the country. And this may be why Shiites are fighting amongst themselves about how “thankful” they really are to the Americans.

Shiite militants may have been behind a car bombing at the Najaf mosque just a week after 60 Minutes II visited there, which targeted and killed a revered ayatollah who supported the U.S. invasion. And back in April, the Ayatollah al-Khoei, who was also friendly toward America, returned from exile in England, only to be hacked to death by a Shiite mob days later.

One of the suspects: Muqtada al-Sadr.

“I condemned this during my Friday sermon, but … I did say we may have acted in a way that lead to this incident, unfortunately,” says Sadr.

Two of his guards were arrested for involvement in the murder. “Just because the majority of Shiites follow me doesn’t mean I’m responsible for every one of their actions,” adds Sadr.

The majority of Shiites in Iraq don’t actually follow him, but there certainly are parts in Iraq where his word is gospel. A Baghdad slum that used to be called Saddam City is a good example of how much has changed in Iraq in the last few months. Once Saddam fell, the 2-3 million Shiites who live here renamed the place Sadr City, after Sadr’s revered and radical father.

Just three days after one of Sadr’s clerics was arrested, a car bomb went off at the Sadr City police station, killing 10 people. That same day, U.S. forces say they were ambushed by an armed mob of Shiites. Two American soldiers were killed, and there were several Shiite casualties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even one of America’s biggest Shiite fans admits thid may be only the beginning.

“Look, the enemies of freedom will not let freedom, liberty and democracy be established in Iraq. You’re going to see that their hostilities will become more intensive every day,” says Khomeini.

Is he suggesting, perhaps, that the American people have to get used to the idea that a lot of Americans are going to get killed in Iraq?

"Well, didn’t America suffer casualties in World War I and World War II? It suffered many, many more casualties in those wars,” says Khomeini. “And the result and the legacy of this war in Iraq … that will be even more important.”

Coalition officials have told 60 Minutes II they now think Sadr's followers may have been behind the bombing of the Baghdad hotel last week, in which six Iraqis were killed and 36 injured. U.S. officials acknowledge, however, that arresting Sadr could lead, in their understated words, to "huge unrest."

SirStefan32 · October 29th, 2003, 10:34 AM

I don't know about this- I mean, from what I am hearing from my many friends in Iraq is that the Iraqi people don't want them to leave. There are radical groups that hate them, but a large majority of people in Iraq really love our troops.

Also, I am not opposed to them being a muslim nation. I have no problem with that. I just want them to not kill others, not support the terrorists, and leave the United States alone.

Krangthebrain · October 29th, 2003, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirStefan32
I don't know about this- I mean, from what I am hearing from my many friends in Iraq is that the Iraqi people don't want them to leave. There are radical groups that hate them, but a large majority of people in Iraq really love our troops.

Also, I am not opposed to them being a muslim nation. I have no problem with that. I just want them to not kill others, not support the terrorists, and leave the United States alone.

But none of us "really" know how the majority of Iraqis feel about us.

I am opposed to the them being a "Muslim nation". That means they are a theocracy, which in Muslim terms means that they are ruled by Islamic fundamentalists opposed to the west.

SirStefan32 · October 29th, 2003, 10:47 AM

Well, the first part of yor post is Clintonesque, I mean, we can fight over the definition of those words forever. I think that our guys over there are more familiar then you or I, or anybody else here. I can't find anybody who knows better, so I am going by what they say. But essentially, I guess, we really DON"T know EXACTLY how they feel.

As far as Iraq being a muslim nation, what can we do? Force our representative democracy on them? If they don't want it, they don't want it. If we force it upon them, we are no better than Saddam Hussein.

My hope is that we will be able to convince people that freedom of religion, free market, and everything else which is "free," are really good things. How to do it is a question I can't answer.

I think the key is getting the Kurds, Shiates, and other groups to co- exist and get along, not kill each other, etc, would be a very good start.

Krangthebrain · October 29th, 2003, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirStefan32
Well, the first part of yor post is Clintonesque, I mean, we can fight over the definition of those words forever. I think that our guys over there are more familiar then you or I, or anybody else here. I can't find anybody who knows better, so I am going by what they say. But essentially, I guess, we really DON"T know EXACTLY how they feel.

As far as Iraq being a muslim nation, what can we do? Force our representative democracy on them? If they don't want it, they don't want it. If we force it upon them, we are no better than Saddam Hussein.

My hope is that we will be able to convince people that freedom of religion, free market, and everything else which is "free," are really good things. How to do it is a question I can't answer.

I think the key is getting the Kurds, Shiates, and other groups to co- exist and get along, not kill each other, etc, would be a very good start.

Reading this post, just demonstrates how difficult this will be.

Nice liberal comment from you (or what could be perceived as liberal):

"As far as Iraq being a muslim nation, what can we do? Force our representative democracy on them? If they don't want it, they don't want it. If we force it upon them, we are no better than Saddam Hussein."

Many Republicans in practice disagree with this notion. That's why we fought in Vietnam and why Nixon assasinated the president of Chile (or was it Peru? or Argentina?).

We can not force our government on others. We have to show them our values in the way we deal with them, and that means better foreign policy.

SirStefan32 · October 29th, 2003, 11:03 AM

We agree on that Tom, as I said many times, contrary to the popular belief around here, I am not a conventional Republican.

Those who claim that we can force things on people are fools. We can destroy the terrorists, I don't have a problem with that, but the key is making sure we don't create new ones after we defeat them.

Yes, it's going to be very difficult, and that's why I am so outraged with the Democrats right now- pull out od Iraq, get the United Nations to step in- that's all crap.

We need to forget about political parties for a while, this issue is much bigger than that, and I think we could be a lot more productive and sucessful if we all stood together and worked hard to find the best possible solution. Hopefully, this will change once the election is over.

I don't know man, I am just glad that I don't have to make the decisions our administration is going to have to make in the coming months and years.

Krangthebrain · October 29th, 2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SirStefan32
We agree on that Tom, as I said many times, contrary to the popular belief around here, I am not a conventional Republican.

Those who claim that we can force things on people are fools. We can destroy the terrorists, I don't have a problem with that, but the key is making sure we don't create new ones after we defeat them.

Yes, it's going to be very difficult, and that's why I am so outraged with the Democrats right now- pull out od Iraq, get the United Nations to step in- that's all crap.

We need to forget about political parties for a while, this issue is much bigger than that, and I think we could be a lot more productive and sucessful if we all stood together and worked hard to find the best possible solution. Hopefully, this will change once the election is over.

I don't know man, I am just glad that I don't have to make the decisions our administration is going to have to make in the coming months and years.

I totally agree, though I would like to see more U.N. involvement, especially from more Liberal Arab countries like Jordan.

And I'm in total agreeance: We need to kill every terrorist wretch on the planet. Even Chechens. The greatest example on how to win a battle against a stronger opponent, is Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Both used peace and nonviolence to win their battles.

Terrorist use violence, and violence doesn't win other the hearts of the common folk. The Tupamaros, a terrorist group in Uruguay (?) fought against their corrupt government using acts of urban terror. Politically, they were possibly right, but the public of Uruguay rejected their acts of violence, and instead elected officials that took a more authoritarian approach. Needless to say, the Tupamaros were wiped out.

SirStefan32 · November 10th, 2003, 11:42 AM

Interesting optimistic view:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ts/brookes.htm

FORWARD FREEDOM

By PETER BROOKES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint

November 10, 2003 -- "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."- Winston Churchill to the House of Commons, Nov. 11, 1947
WINNIE was right. And a bulldoggish smile surely would have crept across his jowled face upon hearing President Bush's visionary words last Thursday, when he proclaimed that enough is enough - the Middle East exception to freedom must end. The region's governments, from Cairo to Tehran, must be persuaded, indeed pressured, to alter their counterproductive political courses away from despotism and toward democracy.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe - because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty," Bush said.

The president boldly proposed a "forward strategy of freedom" for the Middle East: A new U.S. policy of persistent, pushy pluralism that would become the Middle East's agent of change and a harbinger of peace and prosperity for the region's people.

This great endeavor has started in Iraq, but it should not - must not - end there. Our security, and that of the free world, depends upon it.

Years of gross political and economic injustice, ignored by many in the name of Persian Gulf stability and Middle Eastern oil, led to the horrors of 9/11. Unless these inequities end, the War on Terror is fated to be a permanent fixture of the international political landscape.

For without the growth of freedom and liberty in the Middle East, there isn't a prayer for ending terrorism. Despite great oil and gas wealth, prosperity will elude the Middle East's common man. Unemployment will continue to soar and per-capita income plummet.

Radical, chauvinistic Muslim clerics will continue to hijack one of the world's great religions - abetting frustration, preaching hatred and fomenting violence in their own countries and abroad. At their hands, terrorist foot soldiers will continue to multiply - and so will the number of their victims.

Absent Mideast governments accountable to their people, terrorists will find a welcome mat in Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Money will flow unabated from Middle Eastern "charities," supporting animosity and terror around the globe.

Weapons of mass destruction will spread from state to state, ultimately falling into the grips of terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. The seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain just that - insoluble.

And America will remain in the cross hairs.

Some will argue that democracy and Islam are incompatible, that the U.S. quest for liberty in the Middle East is a fool's errand. Nonsense. Half the world's Muslims already live under democratic rule. In fact, the world's most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, is secular, tolerant and democratic.

This is the same misguided mindset that said that democracy wouldn't work in post-World War II Japan or Germany - now proudly two of the world's most successful free societies.

Note to skeptics: Democracy is not an Eastern or Western value, it is a universal value. It is the right of all people - Muslim or otherwise.

Democracy in the Middle East is not only good for America - it is good for the world. Democratizing Iraq is a necessary down payment in winning the War on Terror and improving the prospects of global peace and security. The $87.5 billion price tag for this effort is a bargain.

The president is right: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Indeed, it may be the watershed event in this century.

The eyes of the Middle East are on Iraq. If we succeed in transforming the cradle of civilization, a tidal wave of freedom will wash over the Middle East. Once exposed to democratic ideals, the region will never be the same. The people of the Middle East will come to be better off. And so will we.

Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow for National Security Affairs.

justAndy · November 11th, 2003, 07:19 AM

if the Iraqis can change their worship to the REAL god of this world - money - they will be like us and thus not a threat. As long as a lot of them buy into that religious fundamentalism crap (actual religion unimportant) - there will be problems...

Krangthebrain · November 11th, 2003, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by andikrist
if the Iraqis can change their worship to the REAL god of this world - money - they will be like us and thus not a threat. As long as a lot of them buy into that religious fundamentalism crap (actual religion unimportant) - there will be problems...

Stefan; Reconstruction of Iraq

Another good 60 Minutes II episode...

actually -

Re: actually -