Hmmm. Looks like... it might not be.
Iraq's economic strides�-�Editorials/Op-Ed�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
Did you know that Iraqi real-estate prices have gone up several hundred percent since the fall of Saddam Hussein?
That Iraqi workers' salaries have increased more than 100 percent in that time?
That the number of cars in violence-torn Baghdad has grown by 500 percent in the same period?
That the Iraqi construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are all growing at a healthy pace?
Chances are that you are astonished by these facts. I certainly was when I read them in an article by Silvia Spring in the end-of-the-year edition of Newsweek International.
The piece is titled "Iraq's Economy is Booming" and it's a revelation. It goes on to mention that the number of registered businesses has increased from 8,000 to 34,000 in three years; that the number of cell phone subscribers has increased from 1.4 million to 7.1 million; that the stores are stocked with goods, and that consumers are buying them; that taxes have been cut, government revenues are up and that oil revenues and foreign grants are estimated at $41 billion for the year just ended.
Moreover, "Iraq's official economic institutions are making progress," the Kurdish region in the north is booming and with the oil fields in the south increasingly secure, oil production revenues are projected to grow substantially. The Global Insight firm,which tracks international economic activity, estimates Iraq's GDP growth at 17 percent for 2005 and projected 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank's estimate is lower (four percent for 2006), but the fact that there is any economic growth at all in Iraq will come as a shock to most people.
The article does not gloss over the country's many problems-- the raging sectarian violence foremost among them. Unemployment is estimated at a minimum of 30 percent, but even here there is a silver lining as foreign investment from neighboring countries is pouring into Iraq because of cheap labor. The author notes that "there is a vibrancy at the grassroots that is invisible in most international coverage of Iraq."
Of course - it can still all be lost. If we pull out now, it'll be a great signal to those who would destroy the budding state. Sadly, from what I'm seeing re the Dems - the impression I've got is that they've already written the whole effort off and in a couple of months will do their damnedest to get a Viet-Nam style withdrawl started.
Yet apparently those countries around the area, close to it, haven't got the same opinions.
Kuwait Times - Iraq On The Right Path
Generally speaking, the media worldwide report predominantly about the sensational, catastrophes, deaths, controversial statements by international personalities, wars, celebrity stories, gossip, rumours and the abnormal.
News about socio-economic success, development and progress is scantily tackled. A veteran German reporter told me this kind of news is boring for media consumers. People prefer the sensational. Hence, media providers fiercely compete to get hold of dramatic events. This is the kind of news that mesmerises people to the media. Commercial media, above all TV channels rejoice in reporting about wars and killing, the sooner the better. They rush to the scene of events and report live. "Thank God! At last something sensational is happening. Now we can make money (through commercials of course)." Commercial TV owners celebrate joyfully. Sensational events overshadow normal, ordinary, effective, humane achievements.
Had Mohammed Yunus not won this year's Nobel Prize for peace, no body would have taken notice of his great Mini-Loan Bank in Bangladesh which helped eradicate poverty for seven million people. International media used to report almost only about floods and poverty from Bangladesh. Yunus's work was ignored. It was not sensational enough. Commercial media live on the sensational, the weird, the bloody, the negative, the abnormal, and the controversial.
All this seems to apply to Iraq. We only hear and read bad news from Iraq: suicide and car bombs. Random killing, sabotage, and destruction are the only news we get from Iraq. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General describes the situation in Iraq as "worse than a civil war." Obviously he watches only CNN. But is Iraq really only killing and destruction?
An American businessman with links to major parts of Iraq told me another story of Iraq. While he admits that there is daily killing and destruction in Iraq, there is also construction, development, progress and freedom. Here are some of his facts: Slowly but steadily, "80 per cent of Iraqis are creeping (back) to (normal) life."
"Um Qasr, in the southeast extremity of Iraq on the Persian Gulf" which was deserted by the spring of 2003 is back to normal. "It is back in business as a port with commercial and military functions. "Hundreds of families have returned - joining many more who have come from all over Iraq."
"The boom in Um Qasr is part of a broader picture that also includes Basra, the sprawling metropolis of southern Iraq"
As observed above, it's very hard to tell just what's going on. Good news is no news.
It's weird to consider that you have to interpret the news, and try to evaluate it by as much as what's NOT reported as what IS - but it sure seems like we're not seeing everything that's relevant.
And when you're deciding whether or not to cut loose 25 million people and leave them to the tender mercies of the head-hacking jackals, it makes sense (at least to ME) for you to learn as much as possible about what's going on - both pro AND con.
(You know, I have to wonder if the same standards were applied to LA and the gang problem they've got, would people be advocating abandoning LA?)
The folks at
PowerlineBlog also commented:
Power Line: Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
The other thing to keep in mind is that Iraq faced a day of sectarian reckoning regardless of the conduct of the United States. The Sunnis weren't going to be able to oppress the country's majority indefinitely. Ten, twenty, or thirty years down the road, all hell was going to break loose. One can argue that the U.S. would be better off to be nowhere in the vicinity at that time. But it's quite clear that Iraq is better off having the U.S. around to help limit the scope and intensity of the bloodshed.
You can release the steam slowly, or let things pop open. I'd like to think that what's going on in Iraq is (currently) the equivalent of a big-ass safety valve. It's a mess, and a lot of steam's being vented, but it's avoiding a real explosion, with hundreds of thousands dead...
J.