You're right. We aren't. Take a look at this.
Defence Internet | Defence News | Dispatches from Baghdad - a soldier's view on IraqA few highlights follow...
There are also numerous signs of economic, health and communications development since the fall of Saddam. Just a few are listed below:This doesn't sound like a failed state, does it? One that's irredeemably flawed, and unable to be salvaged? The last few paragraphs...In 2005 alone, 98 percent of Iraqi children between 1-5 years old (3.62 million) were immunised against measles, mumps, and rubella.
Also in 2005, 97 percent of Iraqi children under five (4.56 million) were immunised against polio.
The average monthly teacher’s salary has increased from a pre-war amount of $2 a month, to $100 a month in 2006.
Since the ousting of Saddam Hussein, an additional one million children have enrolled in primary school.
Since the war, some 268 newspapers, 54 television stations, and 114 radio stations have officially registered. No independent newspapers, commercial television stations, or radio stations existed under the restrictive regime of Saddam Hussein.
Hundreds of Civilian flight operations from Baghdad International Airport each week.
Four mobile phone operators have now reached 7.2 million subscribers. This represents a dynamic expansion of Iraqi civil liberties as mobile phone usage was forbidden under Saddam’s regime.
There is now a record number of marriages taking place.
As for the Iraqi police, the Minister of Interior is putting all nine national police brigades through a transformation plan, which is designed to instill national allegiance and weed out corrupt elements.... are very important. We're used to instant results any more, and to write off Iraq for immediate political gain (as the Democrats seem willing to do) will damage the people of Iraq far more than it'll damage the Republican party. (See 'Nose, cutting off, to spite face") And it'll damage the US as well - though I can understand why that's not considered important.In terms of Nation building, these are only small steps, but nevertheless are important and just maintain that independent momentum.
Iraq will not be completely free of violence - no country ever is. But as the Iraqis begin to learn to trust their security forces and actively work to rid the country of extremists, violence can be reduced to acceptable levels. Iraqis are making progress, and the Coalition Force remains steadfast in its support of Iraq through its transition to a more unified, secure, and prosperous country.
Can this still fail to meet our expectations? Of course it can. I personally do not believe that it will, and I am inclined to believe that greatness will eventually return to a country long overdue its sovereignty. But it would be a shame to fail simply because we all grew tired of trying."
J.
Comments (10)
Jerry:
You forgot to note that these are the published comments from the British commander in Iraq.
We wouldn't want anyone to go around thinking these comments are from one of those American blood-for-oil facist occupiers, now would we?
otpu
Posted by otpu | January 13, 2007 12:30 PM
Posted on January 13, 2007 12:30
Whoops - my bad.
J.
Posted by JLawson | January 13, 2007 12:53 PM
Posted on January 13, 2007 12:53
Still - they're hard to refute. There's MANY people who've made it clear that the only acceptable end-state is to see Iraq in a sectarian civil war and transitioning to a failed state that when something comes up like this I think it deserves notice.
The really sad part is that I'd say a good-sized minority of the folks who want to see Iraq fail are in our own government.
J.
Posted by JLawson | January 14, 2007 12:57 PM
Posted on January 14, 2007 12:57
I think a large percentage of that 'good-sized minority' are high level employees of the State Department. Without a doubt one of the major supporters of International Islamic Jihad are the Bush Haters in positions of power and influence in the State department. The problem within the State Department is not so much a policy of direct support for jihad as it is a pervasive policy of obstructionism for any thing positive the Bush administration is trying to accomplish. The leaks that the New York Times and the Washington Post have published that did the most damage have been traced back to the curtain of silence that surrounds Foggy Bottom and no further.
One of the major things Bush should have done no later than early 2002 was to burn Foggy Bottom down, scatter the ruins, and sow the ground with pelletized high level radioactive waste.
otpu
Posted by Otpu | January 14, 2007 6:17 PM
Posted on January 14, 2007 18:17
I second that the State Dept. needs a good house-cleaning.
Posted by Ben USN, (Ret) | January 14, 2007 7:04 PM
Posted on January 14, 2007 19:04
It's hard to believe there could be such animosity there that they'd sell out their own country for political gain - but it's happened before. And it'll happen again, most likely.
So they drop the country into the crapper because Bush is President - do you think some of them will wake up in early 2009 and go "Oh, crap - did we do what I THINK we did?"
The hangover from their Hate Bush drunk is going to last a long, long time...
J.
Posted by JLawson | January 14, 2007 10:23 PM
Posted on January 14, 2007 22:23
The Fog generators at Foggy Bottom really do need to get out of the swamp there... I remember how so many of them hated that jobs were being re-aligned from cushy positions in Bonn and Amsterdam to New Delhi and Lahore. Why, it was like they were being asked to do their job or something! Gripe, moan, complain... only reassigned to the largest democracy in the world by population, a mere *nothing*.
Still, it is the staff there that needs the thorough scrub-brushing. How about let DISA run the comms and TRANSCOM taking folks places and then just make the rest of the position 1 year renewable term contracts, with no extra payoff when the Government ends such for its convenience? Maybe a bit of merit added in like actually knowing a bit of the country or region you are going to? There really must be a better way than letting the bureaucrats run foreign policy.
Far too many 'Realists', far too few that understand what it is they are doing.
Posted by ajacksonian | January 15, 2007 1:15 PM
Posted on January 15, 2007 13:15
But reality is SO subjective, AJacksonian. After all, who's to say that their immediate machinations WON'T have long-term positive side effects?
(That rmeinds me of a book I read once where a poison was discussed - long term the stuff was supposed to be quite healthy for you, darn shame the immediate effect was fatal. Might have been something by Pratchett, or another humorist.)
J.
Posted by JLawson | January 18, 2007 10:57 PM
Posted on January 18, 2007 22:57
Iraq will not be completely free of violence - no country ever is.
For some reason, this triggered an idea; since we're still having plenty of problems with civil violence here in the US, by the Dems rationale, shouldn't we give our country back to the Brits?
Posted by Mattexian | January 20, 2007 11:18 AM
Posted on January 20, 2007 11:18
I'd imagine there are those who'd argue for that, or for giving it back to the Indians...
J.
Posted by JLawson | January 20, 2007 9:58 PM
Posted on January 20, 2007 21:58