On Reconstruction
The Economist has an article (graciously reprinted online) on the reconstruction of Iraq.
They see the glass as half full-- many utilities have been restored to prewar levels, oil is flowing-- which is valid. But I don't think that's too great. While I get that it will take time, "prewar levels" just aren't that great a benchmark. We can be doing better.
The entire article is worth a read, and the most interesting bit is at the end. It suggests that big oil companies aren't biting at Iraqi oil contracts, because such interests "tend nowadays to look at the lifetime capacity of a field, not at the chance of a quick profit. 'You're talking about a horizon of 10-12 years, minimum,' says a European businessman searching for deals. Despite the high technical calibre of Iraq's oil ministry, outsiders are not yet confident that long-term contracts will be watertight."
So, even if it was all about the oil (and yes, let's not kid ourselves that the economics of oil aren't a big piece of the Whole General Sort Of Mish-Mash), it's not really about the oil now, for better or worse. Ironic.
Of course, until sabotage is minimized, infrastructure upgraded, pipelines re-established, and stable operations established, investing in Iraqi oil is a fool's game suitable only for sinking giant sums of US government money. That's ironic too, and unfortunate.
on
| § 3
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
I think a central point that
I think a central point that many people miss is that it has only been about half a year since the libervasion. This is a very small amount of time to have rebuilt a nation reeling from decades of neglect under Saddam, and from battle damage of the mercifuly brief campaign. It is also a very small amount of time to hunt down the thousands of people who were willing partners in Saddam's regime and all the foriegn terrorists who have come for the party.
That we have already achieved prewar levels in so many areas is frankly amazing to me. Iraq is a nation with many millions of people, and is geographically the size of California. That we are having so few attacks on our troops is evidence that the vast majority of these people are neutral or happy that we are there - and not involved in the resistance.
Recently, Lileks had a cover of a Life magazine from '46 complaining about how we had screwed the pooch on the German occupation - a year and a half after the end of "major combat operations." It is way too early to start complaining that all is lost, and probably too early to judge how well things are actually going. As long as positive signs are even approximately equal to negative, we're probably doing all right for the long run.
As always, I agree with you
As always, I agree with you that it hasn't been all that long since the libervasion began.
But I am a bit less proud of achieving "prewar" status. That's not because I don't think the grunts we have in Iraq working on the place aren't cutting it.
Rather, I just don't accept that "shitty" is that great an upgrade from "totally f*cked up."
So, basically we disagree on how to value the progress that's been made, and agree that progress is being made.
Well, to extend your
Well, to extend your nomenclature, shitty is a necessary waypoint on the journey from "totally f*cked up to" to "crappy/third world normal"; before moving on to "not too bad".