Apropos of nothing, I thought I would ask the question.

What do you think should be done to rebuild Iraq, and why, and how? We have possibly enough time since the war to allow for a little hindsight, but not so much time that we know all the answers.

Personally, if I wanted to rebuild Iraq as a free market economy, I wouldnt make hundreds of thousands of gvt employess redundant straight away. More importantly, as much work as possibl should be done by whatever companies exist in Iraq, or can be cobbled together. International contractors should be kept to a minimum.
As for democracy, how about getting people in areas together to organise themselves and so on up the ladder until you get to the gvt?


And try and keep it clean, folks, theres no need to stray onto "The war was evil" or "the war was necessary". The USA is there to stay now, and much as I dislike its policies, it would be tidier if they actually did a good job.

Their purpose there has little to do with creating a functional society for the Iraqi citizens . Logically their effords dont involve measurements to reach results satisfactory to such purposes .

Free-market economy and minimizing international contractors doesnt go together very well .

Democracy doesnt work either when the demographics show such great political differences (hostile differences even) among ethnic diversity .

Stabilization and self-rule is the most iumportant thing , this self-rule can only be actual self-rule within either seperation or federation . Since seperation is a pretext for civil war , foreign invadors and distabilization of the entire region , a federation is the only option that results into democratic-self rule regarding the needs each political movement requires .

The biggest problem outside of the obvious occupation would be Kurdistan , however within a federal system there can be appeasement on their side . Arabs should not have rule over Kurds against Kurdish desires .

Within Arabic context I cannot be positive toward free-market as the results on both sides (positive or negative) are a disaster for the international Arab community . We have had enough of exploitation nor do we need any new rich oil-state to join the gang .

In anyways this path today of pseudo-democracy within capitalist context is a disaster and has nothing to do with satisfying Iraqi needs , but satisfying the needs of all the Imperialist interests there are within Iraq .

Rebuilding Iraq would be beautiful. Unfortunately the fact is that Iraqis will have to endure post-colonialism in fast forward first, and it will not be pretty. All the King's horses and men won't be putting this one back together.

This is not to say that the United States should not engage with the international community and Arab governments, and transition as soon as possible into a more legitimate international support structure.

Iraq has been lobotomized from its tortured but formerly intact brain and nervous system. There is no legitimate replacement "brain" available at this time. The patient is dying, and the best that can be done IMO is to cushion the humanitarian aspects of a precipitous decline, as was done in the breakup of Yugoslavia- however, outside forces exacerbating each crisis will be greater, and the international peacekeepers/nation-stabilizers (not builders) will need to be at least as cohesive and international as was KFOR: Probably more to be successful.

"What do you think should be done to rebuild Iraq, and why, and how?"

1. The USA must back down as the leading visible military and corporate power: No resemblance to colonialism, No US bases, no US flags, no Halliburton.

2. Rapid creation of a legitimate peacekeeping force under UN and Arab League auspices. Public order must be established with situational awareness on the part of peacekeepers- Arabic speaking, regionally aware, moderate, and orderly peacekeepers at the public-interface level... NOT intimidation along the lines of Israeli occupation forces. NOT westerners lead around by the first most crooked local guide who turns up with palm out and/or scores to settle.

3. Continuity: Nobody knows where this is going now, all that can be done is to give Iraqis hope (and warning to those with other agendae) that a commited international and arab-inclusive force is engaged for as long as necessary, contributing to stability and not arousing general hostility.

Generally, America must back down, and the UN must get in high gear, or this will go out of control. I am afraid it may go out of control regardless. Then we'll be left to consider the rebuilding in 5-10 years after the Iraqi civil war has expended the last disgusting full measure of its horror.

Firstly I take exception to this:


Personally, if I wanted to rebuild Iraq as a free market economy, I wouldnt make hundreds of thousands of gvt employess redundant straight away. More importantly, as much work as possibl should be done by whatever companies exist in Iraq, or can be cobbled together. International contractors should be kept to a minimum.
As for democracy, how about getting people in areas together to organise themselves and so on up the ladder until you get to the gvt?

Obviously then you don't want Iraq to a stable country now do we. Lay off 100's of thousands of workers, who are dead lucky to have a government job in a country with minimal employment Opportunities outside the government sector. Iraq is not some hot shot, UAE here man. Get a grip, Iraq cannot be a smooth free market state because what else apart from oil can Iraq really offer? And the only way I can think of spreading the oil wealth is through the government, surely not through some American investment firm, or haliburton. You take away those jobs and make Iraq develop into a state that is "free market" then it would a easy 10 years before all of them get jobs. Which would create a insurrection and topple the government. Thus I suggest you keep those jobs, and gradually get rid of the excess.

I agree with Ghassan in terms of fed. but I personally see it collapsing quickly. iraq has too many interested nations and other major parties.

If there was less chance that someone would blow factories up I suppose they could get into manufacturing. Buy five dollars of raw materials and sell the finished product for 25. After all, they have a huge potential workforce that is willing to work for a pittance. If it was a little less dangerous I think Iraq could also attract a decent tourism industry.

AmWay. That'll get 'em on their feet.

Clock it takes billions of $$ and low wages to attract real investment to any nation, and not many companies are wiling to invest in a nation like Iraq anytime soon. Also the tourism industry depends on stablity, all depends on that. Which has to be accomplished ASAP.

nico,
I think there must be some kind of reading barrier here. You said "Obviously then you don't want Iraq to a stable country now do we... Thus I suggest you keep those jobs, and gradually get rid of the excess", which is what guthrie suggested.

Get a grip, Iraq cannot be a smooth free market state because what else apart from oil can Iraq really offer?
Oil, one of the largest sought after commodities. This not only creates jobs for people who work in the oil industry, but also people who support those that work for oil (food, government, police, etc). Lets take canada for instance:
31050700 people
14,140,400 employeed (45%)
10,559,000 in service related fields (34%)
03,581,400 in good producing fields (11%)

So basically, for every person actually producing something, you have 3 people 'serving them'.
These numbers for Iraq would end up being:
23,332,000 people
10,499,400 employeed
07,932,880 in service fields
02,566,520 in producing fields

In comparison, the US employs 203,000 to extract, treat, store, etc oil/natural gas.

However, the numbers above are for a standard of living that is customary to what is found in Canada/US. Service producing fields are expected to be higher if money actually goes into building infrastructure. Most of the workers will be local, because they are cheaper to pay.

While Iraq's big ticket item is oil, it also has deposits of sulphur, coal, gypsum and salt. Industry is (or at least was) setup to produce chemicals, cement, construction materials, textiles and to process food. As for food they grow, it includes barley wheat, rice, aubergines, beans, chickpeas, cucumbers, onions, okra, tomatoes, dates, watermelons, sesame, cotton and tobacco. Goats, sheep, cattle and camels are among Iraq's livestock. If Iraq did settle down, tourism would surely increase as well.

I think there must be some kind of reading barrier here. You said "Obviously then you don't want Iraq to a stable country now do we... Thus I suggest you keep those jobs, and gradually get rid of the excess", which is what guthrie suggested.


Reading barrier I think not re-read:

I wouldnt make hundreds of thousands of gvt employess redundant straight away.

Is that gradual? No. :rolleyes:

Persol, about the economic stablity and progress in Iraq. You can barf out all the numbers you want from two of the most advanced industrial nations on earth, and the most consumerist as well. But it has ZERO relevance to the Arab world. Egypt is the most likely comparison to Iraq. The only way to get the oil money to the population is through nationalization and that is not going to happen with the US. But nice try man. :D

Is that gradual? No.
He was talking about redundant jobs. This equates to transfering from a government job to a private sector job. This would also result ina gradual trimming as the private sector didn't require everybody.

But it has ZERO relevance to the Arab world. Egypt is the most likely comparison to Iraq.
'The Arab world' is not as unique as you think in economic terms. Egypt has similar stats to Canada. Egypt is at 13% industry employment. The major difference is it's large agricultural employment.http://www.worldbank.org/mdf/mdf4/papers/radwan.pdf The point still stands.

The problem as I see it isn't how much money the country will be getting from exports. It's if enough jobs will be available to circulate the loot.

He was talking about redundant jobs. This equates to transfering from a government job to a private sector job. This would also result ina gradual trimming as the private sector didn't require everybody.


Just admit you were wrong in say that it was gradual? I mean no shame... and he didn't say the jobs were redundant in the sense of them being duplicates of others, he was was talking about laying off redundantcy is another word for it.

'The Arab world' is not as unique as you think in economic terms. Egypt has similar stats to Canada

It sure does:

Canada: US$ billions 2001: $694.5billion
GDP per capita US$ 2001:$22,343
GDP per capita PPP US$ 2001:25,520

Egypt
US$ billions 2001:$98.5 billion
GDP per capita US$ 2001:$1,511
GDP per capita PPP US$ 2001:$3,520

Ohh yes they are SO similar especially considering that Egypt has 2x the of canada's population. Give me a break there is NO comparison btwn the two economicly:

Canada: GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 2.3%
industry: 26.5%
services: 71.2%

Egypt:GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 17%
industry: 34%
services: 49% (

Yes the comparisons!












:rolleyes:

There would be sporatic layoffs for a while but they would not all be the day after.

Notice that I haven't included $ values anywhere because that is highly influenced by exchange rate, education, infrastructure, etc.. As I stated already, the issue is not how much money is going into those fields, but how many people they are employing.

As for what guthrie says, I'm interpreting it different than you. What he meant is a question reserved for him.

Ahh, did somebody say my name?

Ok, the point i was trying to make, was that if you want the country to transfer to a more modern free market economy in the USA style, which after all the USA keeps trying to promote as the best answer to everything, its still not a good diea to lay off allthose people. What happens to their salaries? Where does the money come from to circulate through the economy and keep things going? Thats why keeping people employed is necessary, there must be plenty of organisaitonal jobs available in some fashion or other. That is basically the point of using local knowledge for as much rebuilding as possible, there must be plenty or Iraqis who know how to build bridges, make pipelines and repair things, except that nobody has any money, and so, they should be encouraged to set up their own businesses etc, if necessary using seed capital from the USA, and lets face it, that would get them far more friends than giving USA multinationals all the rebuilding contracts. All the minor stuff should be handled as locally as possible. From what little I know about this sort of thing, everyone iwll want to improve their standard of living, and most will be willing to help as much as they can, and the only way of helping htem is to decentralise it all as much as possible. I guess tahts where the UN comes in.

Im still trying to work out what you two are arguing about. I can concieve of peopel transferring from the public to the private sector, but it doesnt happen overnight, and certainly doesnt happen without input of capital, therefore making them all redundant like the USA has apparently done, is a stupid move. PLus of course, nobody is giving Iraqis a chance to argue how much of a model country they want- European style country, or USA, or Japanese or something completely different that they make up themselves?

Frankly the man that would be most able to rebuild the country and would bring some sort of stabillity would probably be......



....Saddam Hussein!! (ok, a little pun intended, but still)


Now that the iranians have expressed their nuclear ambitions wouldn't it be nice to have them quarrel with their sunnite neighbour again ?

The most important figures I presented were those of the breakup of GDP. There is no way that Iraq can become a industrial economy unless if there is sustained investment over a 10 year span. Government jobs are the only one's available. You cannot get rid of them, and then pray for stablity. There is no way you can compare Canada with any ME country. Just no way... All this is dependant on good will, and low wages.

Very interesting and thought provoking string.
But:
What is being overlooked, in my not so humble opinion, is there are forces native to the middle east that can not allow Iraq to become a sucessful capitalist and democratic state (by mid east standards).

I am not crystal clear on who but radical Moslem fundamentalists may well be at the top of the list. Unlike Christian fundamentalists in the west, they are quite violent and powerful.

Other forces include area governments such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, in fact all but Israel and perhaps Turkey and Egypt.

I would like the UN to take over in Iraq soon if only so the limited US military (thank you Clinton) can move on in force to other theatres of this war, but, I fear the UN is too inept and corrupt to pull it off. That may be why Bush wants UN support under US control.

Originally posted by nico
The most important figures I presented were those of the breakup of GDP.
The breakup of the GDP isn't nearly as important as the availability of jobs. That's what I was demonstrating, and the GDP has no bearing.

There is no way that Iraq can become a industrial economy unless if there is sustained investment over a 10 year span.
Agreed.

Government jobs are the only one's available.
I disagree. NOW government jobs are the only available. But as private industry grows, so does the jobs it provides. Nobody is suggesting you just layoff a bunch of government employees.

There is no way you can compare Canada with any ME country.
The stats I showed were almost exactly the same for Canada as Egypt (a country you suggested). I agree completely that the money is distributed differently. However, that is less important then it being distributed in the first place. You stated "Get a grip, Iraq cannot be a smooth free market state because what else apart from oil can Iraq really offer?" I was showing that you can have relatively few people generating product, and still have full employment. This is the same if you use Canda as a sample, or Egypt.

Just no way... All this is dependant on good will, and low wages.
Good will has nothing to do with it. Do you think oil companies invest in a country in order to be nice? Companies will invest in Iraq only if they see a chance at making a profit. Foreign government funding would need to be maintained until companies begin to invest/form. Low wages are a part of this... but you have to realize that the cost of living is also expected to be relatively low. India is a good example of this. (Note: I'm assuming the 'good will' you mention is on behalf of external sources... IE: investors)

It's notable that new 'industries' are already popping up. The most humorous (and potentially damaging) is the explosion of the porn industry.

Originally posted by Superfudd
What is being overlooked, in my not so humble opinion, is there are forces native to the middle east that can not allow Iraq to become a sucessful capitalist and democratic state (by mid east standards).
This does appear to be a problem. I am interested in what you mean by 'by mid east standard'. Are you suggesting a differnt form of capitalism/democracy, an if so, what?

I would like the UN to take over in Iraq soon if only so the limited US military (thank you Clinton) can move on in force to other theatres of this war, but, I fear the UN is too inept and corrupt to pull it off. That may be why Bush wants UN support under US control.
I do not think Bush's goal of UN support under US control is anything except to make sure the US comes out on top. I feel that the UN could do a better job, simply because they are not the US. They are less likely to attack, and less likely to be attacked. The US does not seem to handle the populous well at all.

The breakup of the GDP isn't nearly as important as the availability of jobs. That's what I was demonstrating, and the GDP has no bearing.

I would argue more important, let's say for example 30% of the population works in agriculture. Now only 5% of the agricultural products are making any money. That would mean some pretty obvious and dangerous things:

i) Most farmers are subsistance and not making anything apart for the BARE minimum
ii) Jobs are not available in other sectors.
iii) and possibly educational standards are low.

So Porportion of the GDP is more important then the #'s of workers.

I disagree. NOW government jobs are the only available. But as private industry grows, so does the jobs it provides. Nobody is suggesting you just layoff a bunch of government employees.

I don't deny that private industry will develop, the question is what form of private industry? Would the private industry be large enough to actually sustain development, and employment? I don't think it can, or will. Iraqi private enterprise would be dependant on a entirely new legal code as well.

I was showing that you can have relatively few people generating product, and still have full employment. This is the same if you use Canda as a sample, or Egypt.


Using that logic, I would have 1 working for $15 of goods. Thus making another job unnessecary, which would mean that prodcutivity is up and unemployment is also up.

Good will has nothing to do with it.

:bugeye: Maybe not for oil companies but for the real investors of course it does.

Companies will invest in Iraq only if they see a chance at making a profit.

They should be investing in Iran then... hmmm.

Low wages are a part of this... but you have to realize that the cost of living is also expected to be relatively low.

That is only possible if inflation stays low, but keeping inflation too low would mean low wages and low costs. With real inflation 5%+ would mean that costs in said country would be prohibative for the corp. And goods go up but wages hardly if any.

Ism'Al-lah il-Rahman il-Rahim: (ahem) Take your fucking Petro-Dollars and stick them up your ass, America. Do we have to make it any clearer by shooting more of your misinformed teenagers in the head? Or would you prefer an LP tanker rammed into Manhattan? Sanitize this, Ashcroft, [euro symbol]/euro symbol] all washed up.

What do you think should be done to rebuild Iraq, and why, and how?

I do not see how that is possible. America is a foreign invader to the Iraqi. No matter what America does her actions will be suspicious and deceptive toward the Iraqi.

The only way I see America could rebuild Iraq is through non-Democratic channels....such as not having elections where people elect the leaders and nominating judges who will do your bidding for years to come.

But I digress.

:p

Here's a strategy 4 ya:

Gee, ti eff. OH!

GTFO

(get the fuck out)

Originally posted by hypewaders
Here's a strategy 4 ya:

Gee, ti eff. OH!

GTFO

(get the fuck out)

I would agree with that. But the US is whats keeping Iraq (what's left of it) intact.

By leaving right now the USA would be hurting herself even more so.

Key words: Hurt ourselves

Now let's simply and logically make our choice:

(a)Hurt ourselves In Iraq

(b)Hurt ourselves Out of Iraq

(c)Wait until we're very hurt by (a) and default to (b)

A simple choice, but choose carefully, 'cause it's gonna co$t us.