Did we meet the Goals set for Iraq/
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 06-19-2004 - 4:03pm |
OCCUPYING IRAQ : Unmet Goals, Unkept Promises
As Handover Nears, U.S. Mistakes Loom Large
Harsh Realities Replaced High Ideals After Many Missed Opportunities
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page A01
First of three articles
BAGHDAD -- The American occupation of Iraq is formally ending this month having failed to fulfill many of its goals and stated promises intended to transform the country into a stable democracy, according to a detailed examination drawing upon interviews with senior U.S. and Iraqi officials and internal documents of the occupation authority.
The ambitious, 15-month undertaking stumbled because of a series of mistakes that began with an inadequate commitment of resources and deepened with a misunderstanding of how politics, religion and society would evolve in occupied Iraq, these participants said.
"We blatantly failed to get it right," said Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution who served as an adviser to the occupation authority. "When you look at the record, it's impossible to escape the conclusion that we squandered an unprecedented opportunity."
Viewed from Baghdad since April 2003, the occupation has evolved from an optimistic partnership between Americans and Iraqis into a relationship riven by frustration and resentment. U.S. reconstruction specialists commonly complain of ungrateful Iraqis. Residents of a tough Baghdad neighborhood that welcomed U.S. forces with cold cans of orange soda last spring now jeer as military vehicles roll past. A few weeks ago, young men from the area danced atop a Humvee disabled by a roadside bomb, eventually torching it.
In many ways, the occupation appears to have transformed the occupier more than the occupied. Iraqis continue to endure blackouts, lengthy gas lines, rampant unemployment and the uncertain political future that began when U.S. tanks rolled into Baghdad. But American officials who once roamed the country to share their sense of mission with Iraqis now face such mortal danger that they are largely confined to compounds surrounded by concrete walls topped with razor wire. Iraqis who want to meet them must show two forms of identification and be searched three times.
The Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. entity that has administered Iraq, cites many successes of its tenure. Nearly 2,500 schools have been repaired, 3 million children have been immunized, $5 million in loans have been distributed to small businesses and 8 million textbooks have been printed, according to the CPA. New banknotes have replaced currency with ousted president Saddam Hussein's picture. Local councils have been formed in every city and province. An interim national government promises to hold general elections next January.
But in many key quantifiable areas, the occupation has fallen far short of its goals.
The Iraqi army is one-third the size U.S. officials promised it would be by now. Seventy percent of police officers have not received training. When violence flared across the country this spring, many soldiers and policemen refused to perform their duties because U.S. forces failed to equip them, designate competent leaders and win trust among the ranks.
About 15,000 Iraqis have been hired to work on projects funded by $18.6 billion in U.S. aid, despite promises to use the money to employ at least 250,000 Iraqis by this month. At of the beginning of June, 80 percent of the aid package, approved by Congress last fall, remained unspent.
Electricity generation remains stuck at around 4,000 megawatts, resulting in less than nine hours of power a day to most Baghdad homes, despite pledges from U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer to increase production to 6,000 megawatts by June 1.
Iraq's emerging political system is also at odds with original U.S. goals. American officials scuttled plans to remain as the occupying power until Iraqis wrote a permanent constitution and held democratic elections. Instead, Bremer will leave the Iraqis with a temporary constitution, something he repeatedly promised not to do, and an interim government headed by a president who was not the Bush administration's preferred choice.
The CPA, which had 3,000 employees at its peak, will dissolve on June 30, the date designated to confer sovereignty to Iraq's interim government. U.S.-led military forces -- 138,000 U.S. troops and 23,000 from other nations -- will remain, free to conduct operations without the approval of the interim government. The management of reconstruction projects and other civilian tasks will be handled by a new U.S. embassy.
Over the course of the occupation, the relationship between the CPA and the military has become increasingly bitter. Soldiers have blamed civilians for not performing enough reconstruction to pacify the country, while civilians have blamed the military for not providing enough security to enable the rebuilding. In the view of several senior officials here, a shortage of U.S. troops allowed the security situation to spiral out of control last year. Attacks on U.S.-led forces and foreign civilians now average more than 40 a day, a threefold increase since January. Assassinations of Iraqi political leaders and debilitating sabotage of the country's oil and electricity infrastructure now occur routinely.
On the eve of its dissolution, the CPA has become a symbol of American failure in the eyes of most Iraqis. In a recent poll sponsored by the U.S. government, 85 percent of respondents said they lacked confidence in the CPA. The criticism is echoed by some Americans working in the occupation. They fault CPA staffers who were fervent backers of the invasion and of the Bush administration, but who lacked reconstruction skills and Middle East experience. Only a handful spoke Arabic.
Within the marble-walled palace of the CPA's headquarters inside Baghdad's protected Green Zone, there is an aching sense of a mission unaccomplished. "Did we really do what we needed to do? What we promised to do?" a senior CPA official said. "Nobody here believes that."
This account is drawn from interviews with a score of current and former CPA officials, several of them senior, other U.S. government officials and Iraqis who work with the CPA. Most spoke on the condition they not be identified by name because of rules barring people working for the CPA from speaking to journalists without approval from CPA public affairs officials.
In an interview last week, Bremer maintained that "Iraq has been fundamentally changed for the better" by the occupation. The CPA, he said, has put Iraq on a path toward a democratic government and an open economy after more than three decades of a brutal socialist dictatorship. Among his biggest accomplishments, he said, were the lowering of Iraq's tax rate, the liberalization of foreign-investment laws and the reduction of import duties.
Bremer acknowledged he was not able to make all the changes to Iraq's political system and economy he had envisioned , including the privatization of state-run industries. He lamented missing his goal for electricity production and the effects of the violence. In perhaps the most candid self-criticism of his tenure, he said the CPA erred in the training of Iraqi security forces by "placing too much emphasis on numbers" instead of the quality of recruits.
"When I step back, there's a lot left to be done," he said.
Full article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54294-2004Jun19_5.html

I can't foresee the "plan" materializing. It's an up hill battle.
>" "There was this grand idea that we were going to turn Iraq into a model nation, a model democracy, with an ideal constitution and an ideal economy and an ideal military," said a State Department official who spent several months working for the CPA. "It was just naive." "<
Allawi: Oil sabotage has cost Iraqis $1 billion.
Environmental hit 'hard to evaluate,' interim prime minister says.
>" "The amount of losses which affected Iraq on the farmers and on the water and on the water pollution -- they are all issues which make the citizen face great danger and threatens the livelihood of the farmers and makes them face a wide spectrum of difficulties," "<
Quote from.......... http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/19/iraq.oil/index.html
Prior to invading Iraq the history of the British in Iraq should have been studied.
British Relations with Iraq. (It's 8 pages but a quick read)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_01.shtml
It was naive, but the administrations learning curve must be flat. Their intent was to take control of Iraq, like it was a blank canvas, and develop an imaginary state. They ignored the advice of the experts, trusting only the most loyal--this was stupid, not naive. Almost as if they had inherited the Nixon disease--paranoia. Could it be that they knew they were doing something the nation wouldn't support--so they had to do it on the sly.
<<"We hope that with time the force will improve and the protection measures will improve, and what is more important is that cooperation of the citizens to protect their oil wealth," Ghadbhan said>>
HOPE. That's what were leaving the Iraqi's with. I have no doubt that after June 30 the leaders of Iraq and the US military will be working at odds with each other. Oil is only a small portion of the problem. Electricity can only be one for several hours a day. The power plant that was suppose to be a shining accomplishment is a complete failure.
Seurity is a big problem. Here's a statement from the full article;
"The Americans misunderstood us," Kadhim said. "We will fight for Iraq. We will not fight for them." Surprise, Surprise. This country is falling apart as we watch. Shame on us.
Also while this was suppose to be a reconstruction project to benefit the Iraqis, "But the sad reality is that this program won't have a lot of impact in it for the Iraqis. The primary beneficiaries will be American companies."
Why did the administration believe that it could control the Iraqis like children. Particularly, we thought they would be so grateful they would accept our idea of governance, with no imput from the citizens. I can't blieve that the administration refused to recognize they would want a government of their choosing. When they ran into opposition, they took slow deliberate steps hoping to appease the opposition. Well they weren't fooled. "We were supposed to leave them with a permanent constitution," a senior CPA official said. "Then we decided to leave them with a temporary constitution. Now we're leaving them with a temporary constitution that the majority dislikes."
Further, we are still bombing them.
"BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 19 — The American military on Saturday carried out a rare airstrike in a poor residential neighborhood in the volatile city of Falluja, firing missiles that killed at least 17 people, said residents and a doctor. An American general said the target of the assault was a terrorist safe house.
A warplane fired two missiles that reduced to rubble four homes in the Jubail district, residents said. People spent the morning and afternoon pulling bodies and body parts from the debris. They said women and children were among the dead.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a spokesman for the occupation forces, said the strike was aimed at a safe house for fighters linked to the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom American officials accuse of being responsible for many of the spectacular suicide car bombs that have devastated Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/international/middleeast/20IRAQ.html
Is this a demonstration by Bush that he is still hunting terrorists in Iraq. Is this image building that he is a tough warrior hunting for evil terrorists? Of course there were no terrorists found. What must these people think? Aren't we suppose to be creating a stable nation, from which we can withdraw?
In case you can't tell, I am venting my frustrations. This is the story that needs to get out--the stupid mistakes this arrogant administration has made.
I have seen this before, but how could we expect this administration to do their homework.
We have been excusing their mistakes, as if experts weren't yelling that they were pursuing an illusion that would fail. The Congress has allowed Bush to run amok, and allowed the public to remain uninformed while people suffered. I can't help but think if the offered expert advise had been taken we would be in a better place. Oh dear, I will be off on a rant again.