I want that as well but the question as I see it is what is the bigger risk to this country: Leave Saddam (which is risky) or go after him (which is risky). If we go after him (assuming we get him with minimal difficulty), we stay there awhile and take on enormous costs (hopefully just money and not blood). That's why I want more allies on board. It's great that the Baltics are with us and offering use of their air space and all, but really, what can Estonia do after the guns stop firing? Do we have the cash and the more importantly, the determination to follow through like you are suggesting? Our record in Afghanistan does not lend one to great optimism. I think it's essential Germany and France and others help us in the rebuilding both for cash and manpower. If we don't do it right, we run a great risk of creating a more unstable middle east than we currently have. If we don't do it right, we open ourselves up to criticism about it only being for oil or an anti-arab exercise. If we don't do it right, we waste a good chunk of the US treasury. If we expect to be met in the streets of Baghdad like we were in Paris, I think we're being too optimistic. Bush has not come out with a credible rebuilding strategy, exit strategy, or cost estimates. Do we want to be there for 10 years with US soldiers patrolling the streets? How do we deal with the Kurds and Shiites? Maybe he's waiting until after the war, but to me, it's the same thing, just different stages. If the administration is not honest about the strategy and costs of the war and reconstruction, why should I trust them on anything else? (This whole "shock and awe" theory of warfare seems a bit naive as well though I hope it works should we get to that point.) I'm not willing to commit the next few generations to paying off an enormous debt so we can do this and give a huge tax cut at the same time. In terms of blood, in terms of money, and in terms of security, our Iraq policy is the same as our domestic policy. There's no dividing foreign and domestic anymore and one must reflect the other. In my view, there's a disconnect here.
That's the big question. Who foots the bill for reconstruction? Typically in UN "initiatives" it's been the French, British and Germans doing the police patrols in the border zones, the Dutch, Swiss and Scandinavians providing the humanitarian aid and US busting the door down and kicking ass. For us to do everything alone is going to put another drain on our economy. Unilaterally, we can destroy Iraq. But it's going to take a multilateral initiative to rebuild it. We're not as prosperous as we were after WW2. And the Iraqi's don't share the same ethnicity as Japan or Germany did. Busting the bank and ruining all the international goodwill we've earned is going to expose the cracks in our "resilient economy". As for N. Korea. They didn't violate the agreement. They exploited a loophole by pursuing uranium instead of plutonium. Oops, you think coitus, I think fellatio.... In hindsight, we should've threatened stopping the oil and food program instead of doing it outright. And it turns out that N. Korea and Pakistan had been doing some technological exchanges in order to further their respective nuclear programs. Not that it matters that the same intelligence group who fostered and still supports Al Qaeda still exists and has power in the Pakistani government. After all, the Pakistanis are our friends. On a sidenote there's an excellent NY Times article that posed about our position in the world right after the New Year. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/05EMPIRE.html
Bush has said that he will use the money from Iraq's oil to rebuild Iraq. I secretly suspect that Bush would also like to use the oil to pay for the regime change. Having Iraq pay the US to kick their ass has a certain Bushian ring to it.
Iraqi oil proceeds will be used to cover the majority of the reconstruction costs. As for Afghanistan, here's a few numbers from the USAID website: "Since October 1, 2001, the U.S. has committed $840 million in humanitarian and reconstruction aid to help the people of Afghanistan with the U.S. fulfilling 95 percent of the $297 million pledged at the Tokyo Conference in January 2002." Some aid of note: The United States contributed more than $23 million to health in Afghanistan in 2002. Since April 2002, 2 million Afghans in rural areas have enjoyed improved access to primary health care. In addition, 4.3 million children were immunized against measles, 120,000 insecticide-treated bed nets were provided, sixty-eight clinics received drugs and equipment, the central surveillance system of the nationwide polio eradication program was revitalized, the national curriculum for midwives was revised and training for auxiliary midwives developed. America's Fund for Afghan Children has raised more than $1 million in the past two months, bringing the total donations to the fund to $11.4 million since October 2001. The U.S. is investing more than $38 million to help the Afghan people strengthen civic institutions and reinforce democracy and stability. The United States is giving $5 million to facilitate the Afghani government and encourages other countries to fulfill their pledges. The women's resource centers are part of $100 million specifically assisting women. The U.S. has committed $80 million to reconstruction of the main commercial road between Kabul, Kandahar, and Herat. Construction is underway. The U.S. is assisting the Afghan government in creating a national army. In 2002, American soldiers helped train 1,600 Afghan soldiers. Of course there is more, much more. The point is that Bush has not ignored Afghanistan and the United States is doing much to help the people and the nation. The results are telling. "More than two million Afghan refugees and internally displaced persons have returned home in the past year. The United States has helped some of the most needy and vulnerable returnees, donating $145.7 million over the past year."
Iraqi oil proceeds will be used to cover the majority of the reconstruction costs. So basically, we're going to make Iraq pay for its own reconstruction.
You mean like this? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/dowjones/20030218/bs_dowjones/200302181440000865
Thanks for pointing out this article. It is a fantastic read and I would recommend that everyone who has not read it do so.
With the $$$ you have, just hop on a plane, apply for citizenship and make your dream come true. Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.
The problem is that they are very poor right now and they need help building up the infrastructure to become self- sufficient. Also, they aren't a democracy so some troops will need to be there for the "interim" government, manage elections, etc. It's going to be a HUGE task. Just leaving them alone will probably result in continuous war between several factions.
