Patrick Stahl poses an interesting set of questions:
What parameters should we use to judge the progress of the post war reconstruction? That is, how do we determine if the US’s efforts are leading to success or quagmire?
Almost all of us have opinions on the reconstruction efforts in Iraq yet we rarely have a clearly defined (and realistic) standard of what success would look like. In order to clarify this point I ask that those who want to participate in this thread do the following:
(a) Present a rough scenario of what we should be expecting to have achieved and explain how we are progressing relative to that standard.
(b) Respond thoughtfully to the models that are presented and offer cogent, concise and relevant critiques.
(c) Stay on topic and observe general rules of blog etiquette.
[Note: Since I usually don’t post much on the weekend’s I'm considering making this a regular feature with questions submitted by my readers. Let me know whether you think this is something you'd like to see every Saturday.]
1. All the "insurgents" are dead.
2. US military bases have been established for quick-reaction strikes anywhere in the Middle East
3. A booming market economy, complete with a modern banking system and stock exchanges, begins to develop in Iraq
4. The Iraqi currency is denominated in US dollars
5. A Pro-Western--actually, no, come to think of it, France and Germany are Western--a pro-American government is elected and is thriving in Iraq.
6. The Iraqi oil fields are at peak production and oil falls to $13 per barrel
7. John F. Kerry, France's ambassador to the Paletinian Authority, is denied visitation rights to the new Iraq, on the grounds that he represents two regimes with ties to terrorism
Scorecard:
1. B, with progress being made.
2. A
3. C+--some elements of an entrepreneurial economy, but much work is required in banking
4. Unknown.
5. Pending.
6. F. If it's true we went to war for better oil prices, let's bring it on, as Ambassador Kerry would say.
7. A--his presidential prospects dimming by the hour, Kerry's star is rising in Paris.
My criteria are broad:
1) Stable Iraqi-run market economy with minimal influence from organized crime.
2) A stable Iraqi government with universal sufferage, where graft and corruption are at a minimum.
3) Iraqi armed forces that can respond with professionalism to insurgents and regional threats.
4) A people that will make up their own minds and make intelligent choices: Hoping and praying they remember who freed them and return the favor.
5) Borders that can be reasonably maintained by Iraqi armed forces.
Notice I didn't say "when all insurgents are dead." Virtually impossible, considering most of the insurgents at this point are coming from Syria and Iran. The success comes when the Iraqis can handle their own threats.
This is a little OT, but I thought I would post a detailed overview of casualties to this point (as of Oct. 1st) which was written by a vet in another military forum in response to your insurgency post Joe (I posted a link to here from there):
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As regards an additional data set, the New York Times ran a breathless article on how widespread the insurgency was, based on statistics on attacks over a 30-day period compiled by a PMC. They gave a total of 2,300 attacks and gave a breakdown by governorate of those with the most attacks: "During the past 30 days those attacks totaled 283 in Nineveh, 325 in Salahuddin in the northwest and 332 in the desert badlands of Anbar Province in the west. In the center of Iraq, attacks numbered 123 in Diyala Province, 76 in Babylon and 13 in Wasit. There was not a single province without an attack in the 30-day period." Baghdad was said to have 1,000 (but an accompanying graphic placed the number at 997). The accompanying graphic placed the total number of attacks in the 30-day period at 2,368.
Blogger The Belmont Club looked behind these numbers. The blog's analysis is here. I have noted a discrepancy in their analysis involving misallocation of the numbers (due to an error in the NY Times graphic), of which I have notified them.
The main numbers by governorate, with additional observations of mine, are as follows:
1. Baghdad (pop. 6,677,000) had 997 attacks, or 14.93 per 100,000. That works out to about 33 attacks per day for the 30-day period.
2. Al-Anbar Governorate, with a population of 1,260,200, had 332 attacks or 26.35 per 100,000 people. The daily average was 11 attacks. Most of these were in the districts of al-Falluja Qadha and ar-Ramadi Qadha, with a smaller number in Khadimiya and Abu Ghrayb (the districts just west of Baghdad on the road to Fallujah). There was also a cluster of attacks (about a dozen) around the town of al-Qa'im along the Syrian border.
3. Salah ad-Din, or Salahuddin, Governorate (pop. 1,113,400) was third with 325 attacks, or 29.19 per 100,000. The daily average was 10.8 attacks. The districts of Tikrit, Bayji, Balad, Samarra and al-Faris, which were the heart of the Ba'athist regime's power base, are the main crisis areas, although violence varies. IEDs along the main highway (Highway 1) account for a large portion of the attacks.
4. Ninawa, or Ninevah, Governorate (pop. 2,514,800) had 283 attacks, or 11.25 per 100,000. The daily average was 9.43 attacks. In Ninevah, the main flashpoint is Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, There were also a few attacks in and around Tell Afar, site of recent operations by US forces against Sunni Arabs and Shi'ite Turkmen insurgent supporters involved in smuggling weapons and people across the border from Syria.
5. Diyala Governorate (pop. 1,397,500) had 123 attacks, or 8.80 per 100,000. That works out to 4.1 attacks per day. The majority of these were in the districts of Ba'qubah and al-Muqdadiyah, with a number of incidents recorded in al-Khalis.
6. Basrah (pop. 1,916,000), had 87 attacks, or 4.54 per 100,000. The daily average is 2.9 attacks. The overwheliming majority of these were in and around the city of Basrah (in the district of the same name), Iraq's third largest city. Zubayr, a smaller town to the south on the road to Kuwait, had a small cluster of attacks.
7. Tamim (pop. 927,200) had 83 attacks, or 8.95 per 100,000. That works out to 2.77 attacks per day. The majority of these were in and around the city of Kirkuk. Attacks on oil infrastructure in the region is also a factor.
8. Babil, or Babylon, Governorate (pop. 1,454,700) had 76 attacks, or 5.22 per 100,000. The daily average was 2.53 attacks. The major locus of these was in al-Mada'in Qadha, specifically around the village of Latifiyah. Nearby Mahmudiya Qadha, described as a "Sunni Muslim insurgent bastion," also has seen a number of attacks.
The other 10 governorates, none of which had more than 13 attacks in the period, are: Dahuk (pop. 496,100, 1 attack, 0.20 per 100k), Dhi Qar (pop. 1,458,500, 6 attacks, 0.41 per 100k), Irbil (pop. 1,349,200, 4 attacks, 0.30 per 100k), Karbala (pop. 731,500, 7 attacks, 0.96 per 100k), Maysan (Missan) (pop. 784,300, 12 attacks, 1.53 per 100k), Muthanna (pop. 537,700, 2 attacks, 0.37 per 100k), Najaf (pop. 954,100, 1 attack, 0.10 per 100k), Qadisiyah (pop. 924,900, 1 attack, 0.11 per 100k), Sulaymaniyah (pop. 1,677,500, 1 attack, 0.06 per 100k) and Wasit (pop. 964,600, 13 attacks, 1.35 per 100k).
The current pattern appears to be exactly what we have known for some time. The main crisis areas are Baghdad itself, the ethnically and religiously mixed large city of Mosul, some of the other large cities, the so-called "Sunni Triangle" and the insurgent main supply routes into and out of Syria.
We still don't have a geographical distribution for WIAs, but the two metrics we do have - KIAs and attacks - support each other.
As you can see from above, 10 of Iraq's governorates - primarily those of the Shi'ite southeast and the Kurdish northeast - are relatively quiet. Eight had less than 1 attack per 100,000 people during the period, and the other two had between 1 and 2. These 10 governorates account for 36% of Iraq's population.
The other eight governorates, which account for 64% of Iraq's population, experienced 98% of all attacks. But in four of them - Babil, Basrah, Diyala and Tamim - the rate of attacks was between 4.5 and 9 per 100,000 people. And the average number of attacks was around 3 per day.
The three main trouble areas in the heart of the so-called Sunni Triangle - Baghdad, al-Anbar and Salahuddin - which comprise 33% of Iraq's population, together accounted for 70% of all attacks. Adding the fourth main trouble area, Ninevah (primarily the city of Mosul), means these four governorates, which account for 43% of Iraq's population, accounted for 82% of all attacks.
I have a comparison. It is admittedly apples and oranges, but it may help in placing abstract statistics in some sort of context.
According to the most recent available FBI Uniform Crime Reports, California's annual rate of violent crime was 593.4 per 100,000, which works out to an average of 49.45 per 100,000 for any 30-day period. In other words, you are almost twice as likely to be the victim of a murder, forcible rape, robbery or aggravated assault in California than you are to suffer an "insurgent" attack in al-Anbar. Of course, you can increase your risk of both by going to certain neighborhoods - Compton or Falluja, for example.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nice work, David.
>>Of course, you can increase your risk of both by going to certain neighborhoods - Compton or Falluja, for example.
Yeah, but Compton's got electricity and water and stuff more readily accessible. I vote for a place that's got the essential stuff that allows one to live, although... To be fair, shouldn't we be comparing the best of Iraq to the bestest of what our country has to offer? If we were to use David's methodology to determine the health of a country, shouldnt we also include the percentage of kids able to enjoy xbox or ps/2? Isn't that a true abstract statistic that would provide some sort of context to the war as well? (Would you not agree that Compton would kick butt using that abstract statistic?)
It's surprising that we're constantly hearing complaints about the lack of specificity in Kerry's plan to 'deal with' Iraq. Should we not just support our troops by not asking questions about having a plan with goalposts and significant milestones? Why do you people not bother to heed Cheney's pearly words? Our's is not to question why, it's to make the right choice.
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.
David should forward on to our president his next new talking point:
"Fallujah, it's not as bad as Compton"
"1. All the "insurgents" are dead."
Swell! We'll never leave, because our very presence breeds insurgents.
"2. US military bases have been established for quick-reaction strikes anywhere in the Middle East"
So they will love us as much as they do Israel.
"3. A booming market economy, complete with a modern banking system and stock exchanges, begins to develop in Iraq"
Nice, but this could take a generation. How much patience will the American electorate have for such an interminable occupation?
"4. The Iraqi currency is denominated in US dollars"
Why?
"5. A Pro-Western--actually, no, come to think of it, France and Germany are Western--a pro-American government is elected and is thriving in Iraq."
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa! How is this going to happen? Will the bases mentioned in #2 make them love us?
"6. The Iraqi oil fields are at peak production and oil falls to $13 per barrel"
So we can fuel our recklessly unsustainable system at full tilt and use up the oil reserves much faster, meanwhile reducing the pressure to find alternatives and increasing the magnitude of the crisis to come. After all, who cares what happens to our grandchildren?
I like David's criteria much better; they are more realistic and less short-sightedly selfish.
The Left has been heard from, with no plan of success of their own, except withdraw, surrender, and build windmills to reduce our foreign energy needs.
Come a long way since Vietnam, they have.
build windmills to reduce our foreign energy needs.
How are you going to get the lefties in the animal rights movement to build more "condor cuisinarts."
"The condors won't somebody please think of the condors"--Helen Lovejoy with slite artistic license.
Of course I meant "slight artistic license", it is pretty tough to type, spell, and hold my 2 month old.
Kevin:
Who is advocating withdrawal and surrender?
And I would rather build windmills than tilt at them.
I notice you don't respond to specific criticisms; instead, you pummel a straw man.
Having not plunged the nation into the quagmire, I hardly feel obligated to become the foreign policy alchemist here. I have shared my plan for Middle East peace here before, and you said it was interesting...remember? If you don't, I'll be glad to repeat it:
Withdraw all support for Israel until they dismantle all settlements of occupied territory, withdraw to pre-1967 borders, allow formation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as a capital.
When the U.S. is perceived as fair by a majority of Arabs, our task of extricating ourselves from Iraq with a positive outcome will become more manageable. Remove the fuel, and the fire dies.
Bush is trying to smother fire with gasoline.
I see.
So US forces will remain in Iraq until a Palestinian state is established with East Jerusalem as its capital and the US withdraws all its support for Israel and Arabs across the whole Middle East start to see the US in a whole new light.
Hmm. Call me a cynic if you like, but I think my approach will take a lot less time, and is in the best interests of the United States, as opposed to our enemies, who want all those things you want.
Yeah, but Compton's got electricity and water and stuff more readily accessible...
So you ignore the entire outline, go for one comment at the end, and then expound in to an adjacent topic? Not a good way to debate.
To be fair, shouldn't we be comparing the best of Iraq to the bestest of what our country has to offer?
For the most part, no. Since Iraq never had usch levels pre-war and it has been the de facto of opponents of the war to measure it against pre-war levels, we should continue to do the same, until they exceed pre-war conditions overall. Then maybe.
If we were to use David's methodology to determine the health of a country, shouldnt we also include the percentage of kids able to enjoy xbox or ps/2? Isn't that a true abstract statistic that would provide some sort of context to the war as well?
Um, how would it provide context in analysis of attacks?
And you couldn't really use the statistic, since they never had such things in the first place, pre or post-war. Excluding, perhaps, the consoles brought in by the CPA when they built the Internet cafes in Baghdad and a few other places for Iraqis.
Using Eruopean cars might be possible. I understand they have been bringing those in by the truck-load over the border and the per captia might be higher than the US. But again, why would you use such a statictic in an analysis of casualties?...
So we can fuel our recklessly unsustainable system at full tilt and use up the oil reserves much faster, meanwhile reducing the pressure to find alternatives and increasing the magnitude of the crisis to come. After all, who cares what happens to our grandchildren?
You heard that we weren't buying oil from the Iraqis, right? Our tax dollars, right now, are going toward trucking in to Kuwait to be refined and then trucking it back to Iraq. And increasingly the Iraqis are running the system.
I'm not against buying oil from them when it becomes economical, but for us, I think, it isn't going to be that way for years. There are other safer places to get oil. And frankly, the final political fallout of a major purchase might dissaude us in the end.
If this war was fought for oil in any way, they chose badly...
"I see."
Apparently not.
The Arab response to our policy change will be immediate and dramatic, even in the unlikely event that the Israeli response is not. Your criteria for success will never be met; mine can be, and quickly.
"Call me a cynic if you like, but I think my approach will take a lot less time, and is in the best interests of the United States, as opposed to our enemies, who want all those things you want."
Call me an idealist if you like, but I think it is in the best interests of the United States to avoid making enemies unnecessarily. If I can give my enemy what he wants while simultaneously serving justice and making the world safer, I won't let spite deter me from doing what's right.
"You heard that we weren't buying oil from the Iraqis, right? Our tax dollars, right now, are going toward trucking in to Kuwait to be refined and then trucking it back to Iraq. And increasingly the Iraqis are running the system."
David: Cheap fuel is not my criterion for success, remember? The words you quote are my response to Kevin's wet dream.
I'm not the one having masturbatory fantasies, Rob.
Where was all this Arab goodwill during the Clinton administration? Yassir Arafat visited the White House more than any other foreign "leader". Our negotiators continually tried to force Israel to give up the settlements, harangued Israel on the wall, voted against them in the UN. Yet the Muslims still blew up our barracks in Khobar, tried to bring down the World Trade Center in 93, blew up the USS Cole. God almighty--they blew up French oil tankers and kidnapped French journalists--are they pro-Israel, too? The French?
This is what passes for intelligent discourse from the Left.
Go ahead and insult; you are better at that, anyway.
Neither I nor "the left" is responsible for the failures of past administrations. Clinton did not do what I suggested, so the failure of his policy has nothing to do with mine. You see, Kevin, Arabs are astute enough to recognize serious efforts on their behalf.
You haven't told me what we would lose by holding Israel's feet to the fire.
Criminy, I don't suggest we quit fighting terrorists; I just want us to stop producing them so quickly.
Rob Ryan say,"Withdraw all support for Israel until they dismantle all settlements of occupied territory, withdraw to pre-1967 borders, allow formation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as a capital."
I've seen no indication that the Palestinians would accept anything less than a return to the pre-1948 borders with all the Jews either dead (preferably) or somewhere other than on Islamic land. I can't even put my finger on a time when the Palestinians were willing to negotiate in good faith with the Israelis.
Why do all the libs (I know, its not only libs) want to pick on Israel? We are talking about a nation that is about 2/3 the size of Maryland (my home state), is a stable democracy, and only took the West Bank after being attacked from there 5 times by larger, more populous nations whose stated goal was to push the Jews into the sea. Why should Israel give up nearly 1/4 of their land and severely reduce their ability to defend themselves to establish another third world "thugocracy", when they have been given no guarantees that if they do anything will change? Quite honestly, why do libs want to create another such state? Do the Arabs really need another third world hell-hole? Don't they already have plenty, or do they need a replacement in case that democracy thing works out in Iraq? Currently no country in the Middle East except Egypt(at a cost of $3B/year to US taxpayers) and Jordan have any kind of relations with Israel, and nobody's offering to change that if Israel gives up the West Bank. Who really thinks that OBL and the other Islamists would be satisfied with our withdrawing support from Israel? I doubt anything less than abandoning our Constitution in favor of Sharia, and launching a full scale nuclear strike on Israel would do.
"Neither I nor "the left" is responsible for the failures of past administrations. Clinton did not do what I suggested, so the failure of his policy has nothing to do with mine. You see, Kevin, Arabs are astute enough to recognize serious efforts on their behalf."
Really think so? The United States intervened to prevent genocide against Muslims in Yugoslavia. The United States intervened to stop mass starvation in Somalia, only to have our soldiers dragged through the streets. The United States supplied the muhahadeen's overthrow of the Soviets in Afghanistan. The United States is their biggest customer for the oil and gas production.
Here's the position of Rob Ryan and the America-hating Left:
1. The United States is responsible for terrorism: "I don't suggest we quit fighting terrorists; I just want us to stop producing them so quickly"
2. The United States is to blame for energy consumption: "So we can fuel our recklessly unsustainable system at full tilt and use up the oil reserves much faster, meanwhile reducing the pressure to find alternatives and increasing the magnitude of the crisis to come."
3. The Iraqis are too stupid to build a banking system in a few years' time: "True, but that could take a generation"
4. The Iraqis cannot be trusted with American troops stationed there, like Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan was a generation ago:
"So they will love us as much as they do Israel."
"HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa! How is this going to happen? Will the bases mentioned in #2 make them love us?"
5. Bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq, and making them a trading partner and an ally against terror, and thereby producing stability in the world oil market is a "selfish" act:
"I like David's criteria much better; they are more realistic and less short-sightedly selfish."
6. In order to get what we want in the Middle East, we merely have to jettison our ties with the only functioning democracy there: Israel. Then the terrorist-supporting regimes will fall in line, because they see how serious we are about wanting to kiss their collective ass.
Crazy. Rob, turn your fax machine on: Al Queda wants to send you today's new talking points.
Why don't you sign your work, Ann?
That was me, above. Sorry.
Nice work, David.
Thanks. But it wasn't my work. You'll have to thank the vet who compiled it :-)
Well, you still cut and pasted, all by yourself. Or was that somebody else too?
I hope it wasn't somebody else :-)
I'll second the motion, provided we can be guaranteed military bases in all three.