Advance information about the new "Iraq Strategy" being prepared for release this week suggests that the President will propose more troop deployment by the US and Iraq plus a commitment of approximately $1 Billion dollars for reconstruction projects. There are many pertinent questions to be raised and answered regarding such a strategy. Hopefully, Congress will ask these questions and demand answers before taking any further steps to authorize action or to fund Bush "new" escapade. Let's just address a few of the more obvious questions:
A. More Troops?
Did the development of this "new" strategy have the benefit of internal debate and thorough analysis of its weaknesses as well as its potential strengths? Last week, Bush has dismissed dissenting Generals who have questionewisdomwisdon or objected to the proposed deployment of more US troops.
Does the "promise" by the Iraqi Prime Minister to deploy up to five Iraqi Security Forces brigades have any credibility? More than three years of "training" effort by US forces has yielded, at most, only one fully capable Iraqi brigade. Evidence of desertion rates suggests that we have been most effective in training local militia forces that are now engaged in the sectarian strife, attacks and atrocities on Sunni civilians and the civil war combat. Even if deployed, would such forces create any greater stability or security, given the lack of trust they engender among Iraqi civilians?
Why would additional US troops create greater suppression of the civil war violence at this time when such "surges" in the past have failed? Gen. Casey, Gen. Powell and other knowledgeable military experts have concluded that such deployments at this time would be ineffective and potentially counterproductive.
B. Reconstruction Funding
Why would expenditure of $1Billion in additional reconstruction not be wasteful at this time? Although the Administration has endeavored mightily to prevent public release of the information, substantial evidence establishes that millions of dollars have been totally wasted in prior "reconstruction" efforts because no competent, reliable or secure means to administer the reconstruction efforts existed. The situation now is less stable and less secure.
Why should the administration be trusted to handle the proposed reconstruction? The Bush Administration previously sent marginally qualified political representatives to Iraq to handle reconstruction. This resulted in bags of cash being tossed off the back of trucks without any accounting and millions of dollars transferred to foreign accounts by corrupt Iraqi politicians and US contractors. More than a year has passed since Hurricane Katrina. The Bush Administration has been unable to administer substantial reconstruction authorization of less than $1Billion in an area that is stable and welcoming. The Bush administration has not proven itself capable of mobilizing and executing a reconstruction program on a substantially smaller scale in a non-hostile environment.
Why should the US taxpayers support the cost of reconstruction at a time when there is no real central government in Iraq and Iraq has the resources in petroleum reserves to fund its own needs? It is true that the US invasion destroyed much of the infrastructure, but repair of the damage from the constant bombing of roads and buildings need not be placed on the US taxpayer's tab.
To the extent that expertise is needed, the US or other civilian contractors could provide such assistance when the Iraqi people decide to create enough internal stability to make such construction feasible. Such efforts should not be controlled by the same failed Bush policies that led to no-bid and exclusive contracts to GOP cronies.
The presence of US troops provides a distraction and easy target for sectarian militia and other factions. With the American occupation force available as a common “enemy” the local Iraqi populace is not required to squarely confront the implications of sheltering those factions when they obstruct the rehabilitation and reconstruction of basic services in the cities and towns.
These are just the most basic practical questions that need to be addressed and have nothing to do with partisan politics. These and similar questions need to be addressed in order to provide even the most basic accountability. Bush wishes to invest more American lives and more financial resources in an adventure that to date has been an abysmal failure. The American people deserve some clear and direct answers before any such investment is even considered.
No comments:
Post a Comment