Iraq could have been "won" with shovels & concrete..no need for guns

[SoCalDem]

Once Saddam was "gone", we had a moment in time where we could have truly "won" the war.

Instead of tanks and soldiers wandering around subduing locals , we could have had these same soldiers plastering signs all over town..

WANTED

workers to rebuild your country

all men 15-50

report to

xxx street

at xxxx PM

you will be paid

$500 US a month

They would have had lines miles long.


These men could have been used to unload the bags of concrete, shovels, rakes, lumber etc. They would have , could have been the "willing workers" who would rebuild their own country.. A guy who's well-paid and tired from a hard day's work is not likely to be building bombs in his spare time..


A country that has been in existence for thousands of years and even under Saddam graduated engineers, architects and other professionals could have certainly fielded crews of professionals to do the work. Once Saddam was gone, the overwhelming urge to rebuild would have overtaken the few zealots who wanted to do harm.

The military would still have been necessary for a while, but the locals would have seen early-on that the US was truly there to help them.

We blew it ...in Spades..doubled..

[FlemingsGhost]

1. Rebuilding was never the objective. Iraqis knew it from the get-go.

So, they armed and organized themselves.

Smart folks.

[KoKo]

10. And so ....What WAS the Objective? that's the question.... n/t

[Karenina]

13. TOTAL DESTRUCTION

The Reconstructionists call it "creative destruction."

[spindrifter]

2. You are right--

if we hadn't had such greedy intentions, we could have started rebuilding the infrastructure using Iraqis for every possible job--including running the show--since among the Iraqis are many very well-trained professionals. But we had no plan for rebuilding because it would have been beneath * and his croneys to appear in work clothes instead of fake military costumes to announce that the power grid was working and the roads were repaved.

[karlrschneider]

3. How dare you propose a sensible agenda!

You've probably annoyed somebody. :evilgrin:

[NanceGreggs]

4. If only YOU had been in charge!

You are SO RIGHT, IMHO.

I said it at the beginning (as you probably did), we should have assumed the role of the gallant knight who, after slaying the evil dragon, kneels before the people and says, "Tell me what needs to be done, and I will be at your service."

The night I saw the newscasts of the pillaging of the Baghdad Museum, completely stopable but left unstopped, I knew it was the beginning of the end. That sent a very clear message to the Iraqi people: "We have no respect for your culture, your history, your language or your religious beliefs. Therefore, we will not intervene as these things are destroyed."

The rest, as they say, is history -- and it's a very sad history that's being written by this administration. It could have been a moment of incredible hope, cooperation, and the beginnings of an era of mutual respect and cooperation between our people and theirs.

It is now a history written in blood - theirs and ours - and will continue down that road forever ...

[sandnsea]

6. Afghanistan too

We haven't exactly been the white knight there either. Damned stupid Republicans. The success of their businesses are dependent on government tax breaks and subsidies, and knowing what investment cycle to get into. If it doesn't work out, corporate bankruptcy because their entire economic philosophy is based on Gouging Other People. And they stupidly think they've got business sense, and the rest of us suffer because they clearly don't.

[sandnsea]

5. Bottom up economies

You're right of course, bottom up economies work better. But the reason they didn't do it is the same reason they won't do it here. The free market has to work, doncha know. Give all the money to the corporation and let it "trickle down". No matter how many times it fails, (see CNMI, Samoa, Philippines, UNITED STATES), they keep doing the same insane thing over and over again.

[agincourt]

7. Bush just wanted an impoverished vassal state,

that would make money for his cronies. A real president, not a rat-shit political operator, would have done exactly what you said. But degenerates like this administration would never do good deeds like that.

[oscar111]

8. Jobs for All .. needed here too, and would likewise end discontent here

www.njfac.org is the site for the idea, with Clinton's S of Labor.. Reich.. and Galbraith and two nobelists etc on advisory board.

We have a 14 million job shortage. We need another WPA, share the work plan, etc. Of course jobs must pay a living wage, not the wages now seen where employees are still homeless.

[KoKo]

9. Great Post....it wasn't "WHY" we went in there, though.........it was

the battle between the Euro and the Dollar...they are so deceiving us. :-(
--------------------------------------


http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

Published on Tuesday, August 9, 2005 by Media Monitors Network
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

By William Clark

“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table.”
– President George W. Bush, February 2005



Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian “petroeuro” system for oil trade.

Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein.<1><2>

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency (i.e. “petroeuro”).<3> However, subsequent geopolitical events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency.<4>

Indeed, my original pre-war hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times article dated June 5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars – not euros.
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html

[oblivious]

11. And it could have been paid for with the 16 billion the UN was holding.

It was Iraq's money from oil sales being held IN TRUST by the UN.

But the UN gave it to the US, who promptly lost track of it.

No one in the US or UN has had to answer for this theft.

They're all fucking carpetbaggers and thieves.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Conquerers have strong thumbs..weak fingers.

Destroying is so much more "patriotic" and "strong" than building.

[Taxloss]

14. Nice idea, but there's a big risk in it.

One of the most popular targets for suicide bombers is queues of people waiting to "collaborate" with the occupiers - police and army recruiting centres, that sort of thing. These volunteers - and I think there would be a lot of them, the economy is a mess over there and the figures on unemployment are scary - but they would be putting themselves at very serious risk.

Another danger would be saboteurs entering the workforce. Sabotage of the infrastructure isalready a problem.

I thought that the best way of getting Iraqis involved in reconstruction would be to sell bonds to help defray the cost. Individually, these cost very little in order to be within the reach of most Iraqis, but they would confer ownership of a portion of the state element of an enterprise, say an oil refinery or whatever. When the opeation was up and running again, the government would get the oil revenues and the bonds could be redeemed for the greater value of the enterprise or kept as an investment in the country's future. People would be given a very real sense of ownership of their country's wealth and have an interest in protecting it.

Sadly, the intention of the coalition seems to be to flog off those assets ASAP to the usual cowboys and gangsters, so that plans even less practical than yours. What a mess.

[SoCalDem]

15. At the point I reccommended, we wer NOT yet occupiers..

Now it's too late.. we have killed too many grandmas & babies..:(

and the money for these reparations could have been explained as Iraq's 18B that was found and released from the UN ..

all but the stupidest people would have seen that this was their ONE best chance to get their country working again

[Taxloss]

19. I'm afraid that magic moment was a media myth.

The media may have been salivating over the liberation, but the insurgency was simply organising. Arms dumps had already been emptied. The insurgency was guaranteed to arise from the moment the first soldier crossed the border. Rumsfeld's braindead "strategy" of disbanding the Iraqi army simply aided it along. Bremer's disastrous administration was another big help. But it was inevitable. As I recall, the first trouble in Fallujah was just days after the fall of Baghdad when US troops fired on protestors. (They were complaining about the army's occupation of a school.)

[SoCalDem]

21. Possibly, but word of mouth would have traveled pretty fast

about the $500 a month jobs, and the insurgents might have had a difficult time getting as organized as they are now.

[XOKCowboy]

23. I think that if there had been a true reconstruction

program immediately after finding Saddam such as the one described in the OP, it would have lessened the insurgency. The Iraqi people would have seen that we were there to help and would have had less sympathy toward and be fighting back against the insurgency.

Of course it's all speculation because it's very clear that we didn't go to Iraq to help the Iraqis. They're not a stupid people and they know we're invaders and occupiers only interested in sacking their country. Hence the growing insurgency.

[SoCalDem]

24. Imagine a typical Iraqi family with a 50 yr old dad and 3 sons

in their 20's. That family would have gone from begging Uncle Saddam for everything to earning $2K a month in US$.. Would they jeopardize that income to join an insurgency that would end their jobs??

[XOKCowboy]

25. Not to mention....

the satisfaction of helping restoring power, clean water, schools, food distribution and agriculture, etc to his own ravaged country.

[annabanana]

16. but..but... the OIL

wont' SOMEbody think of the poor oil! All wasted on the iraqi people and none for us>>

[SoCalDem]

17. Here's the kicker.. We probably would have gotten first dibs

on any and all oil if we have been benevolent and fair to the Iraqi people. They WOULD have seen us as saviours..But instead we decided to try and steal it fromthem:(

[annabanana]

18. but then the little shit couldn't have been a "war prezznit"

. . .what a huge massive clusterf*k.

[XOKCowboy]

22. This actually could have made Rummy's statement come true

The Iraqi's might actually have been welcoming us with flowers and we'd be seen as liberators and not occupiers.

[XOKCowboy]

20. What about Halliburton?

How unAmerican of you to want to use Iraqis to rebuild Iraq! Those Iraqi's don't make political contributions or hire lobbyists. Why should THEY have any say how we divide their country?

Seriously yes this is exactly what should have been done and many people have said the same thing. It only makes sense but this regime aren't worried about the Iraqis. Just about themselves and their cronies.