Iraqis wonder what price they'll pay in Katrina's wake

Link

By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY
Fri Sep 23, 6:34 AM ET



The Gulf of Mexico is 7,000 miles away, but Iraqis are worried about hurricanes Katrina and Rita: They fear the storms will divert U.S. money and attention from Iraq.
"Our hearts and our prayers are with the victims," Planning Minister Barham Saleh says. "But one should also keep in mind the importance of reconstruction in Iraq. You cannot leave Iraq alone, because failure is not an option here."


A USA TODAY/CNN Poll last week showed that a majority of Americans give the war effort a low priority compared to domestic needs. Asked for the best way to pay for Hurricane Katrina damage, 54% recommend cutting spending for the Iraq war.


The hurricanes come at a time when money for Iraq's reconstruction is running low. Congress approved $18.4 billion in 2003, but $5 billion was later set aside to rebuild Iraq's military and police.


More at link

Thanks, Tybee, for posting this. It gives me an opportunity to ask something I've been curious about. (Please forgive me for not being very well informed on this subject.)

1. If Iraq has oil, then why don't they help us out with oil?

2. Or why don't they sell their oil and help pay for their own reparations? (Are WE paying for their new infrastructure?)

It seems to me they could help with the financial end of this. It's the least they could do, considering our military people are giving their lives for their freedom.

dani

dani said:

Thanks, Tybee, for posting this. It gives me an opportunity to ask something I've been curious about. (Please forgive me for not being very well informed on this subject.)

1. If Iraq has oil, then why don't they help us out with oil?

2. Or why don't they sell their oil and help pay for their own reparations? (Are WE paying for their new infrastructure?)

It seems to me they could help with the financial end of this. It's the least they could do, considering our military people are giving their lives for their freedom.

dani

Click to expand...

excellent questions, and a most astute opine...you may wish to read this treatise from the eminently conservative and mostly Republican Center for Strategic and International Studies (PDF Format)?

as an aside, I'd forget about the oil revenue from Iraq, if I were counting on that. According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA) -- a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy -- Iraq's maximum capacity is currently 1.9 million barrels a day. Current production is meeting this capacity, averaging about 1.9 million barrels per day from January to June 2005. Iraq's pre-invasion capacity was much higher: Iraq's oil production reached its historic high of 3.7 million barrels per day in 1979 and averaged 2.52 million barrels a day in January and February of 2003. Although current Iraqi oil production is near capacity, it is far from achieving pre-invasion levels, much less meeting Vice President Dick Cheney's "pie in the sky" April 9, 2003, boast that production might reach 3 million barrels a day by the end of that year. An EIA analysis of Iraq's energy outlook stated: "Most analysts believe that there will be no major additions to Iraqi production capacity for 2-3 years." In addition, Iraqi oil production has actually declined since 2004. In April and September of 2004, production reached a post-invasion high of 2.3 million barrels a day. No month in 2005 has surpassed 1.9 million barrels a day.

[font=times new roman, times, serif][/font]

dani said:

Thanks, Tybee, for posting this. It gives me an opportunity to ask something I've been curious about. (Please forgive me for not being very well informed on this subject.)

1. If Iraq has oil, then why don't they help us out with oil?

2. Or why don't they sell their oil and help pay for their own reparations? (Are WE paying for their new infrastructure?)

It seems to me they could help with the financial end of this. It's the least they could do, considering our military people are giving their lives for their freedom.

Click to expand...

Umm, let's see.... WE INVADED Iraq, bombed the HELL out of it, killed tens of thousands of civilians, dismantled their military, and destroyed their infrastrucure. Now you want Iraq to pay for its own reconstruction AND to reduce oil prices for Americans (the most wasteful nation in the world)?!! Sorry, but this is exactly the mentality that got us into this war in the first place -- and why we are going it alone.

Cypros said:

...killed tens of thousands of civilians ...

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the statistics you cite?

Link

August 5, 2005


There have been several efforts to count the war's toll on civilians, yielding reports ranging from 24,000 to 128,000 from last fall through last month. Compounding the complexity, all of these numbers were collected differently and count different things, so they aren't directly comparable. For example, the widely cited number last month of about 25,000 counts only violent deaths that have been reported to the media. Meanwhile, a study conducted last fall that found 100,000 deaths arrived at that figure by calculating "excess" deaths -- all deaths, including those from illness and accidents, were included, but deaths from a comparable prewar period were subtracted out.


another link

Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003

Casualties in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the ensuing 2003 occupation of Iraq, and the continuing coalition presence there have come in many forms, and the accuracy of the information available on different types of casualties varies greatly.

For troops in the U.S.-led coalition, the death toll is carefully tracked and updated daily, and the names and photographs of those killed in action as well as in accidents have been published widely.

Regarding the Iraqis, however, information on both military and civilian casualties is both less accurate and less reliable, and given the political significance of these figures and the varied agendas of all parties, no source can be considered free of bias. At best, we learn of estimates of casualty levels either from reporters on the scene, from officials of involved organizations, or from groups that summarize information on incidents reported in the news media.

The word "casualties" in its most general sense includes the injured as well as the dead. Accounts of the number of coalition wounded vary widely, partly because it is not obvious what should be counted: should only those injuries serious enough to put a soldier out of commission be included? Do illnesses or injuries caused by accidents count, or should the focus be restricted to wounds caused by hostile engagement? Sources using different definitions may arrive at very different numbers, and sometimes the precise definition is not clearly specified. As for the Iraqis, where even the death toll has only been very roughly estimated, it appears that no one has attempted to count the wounded.

The failure to rebuild key components of Iraq's petroleum industry has impeded oil production and may have permanently damaged the largest of the country's vast oil fields, American and Iraqi experts say.

The deficiencies have deprived Iraq of hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue needed for national rebuilding efforts and kept millions of barrels of oil off the world market at a time of growing demand.

Engineering mistakes, poor leadership and shifting priorities have delayed or led to the cancellation of several projects critical to restoring Iraq's oil industry, according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.S. and Iraqi officials and industry experts.

The troubles have been compounded in some cases by security issues, poor maintenance and disputes between the U.S. and its main contractor, Houston-based KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp., according to the interviews and documents.

Despite the United States' spending more than $1.3 billion, oil production remains below the estimated prewar level of 2.5 million barrels per day and well below a December 2004 goal of up to 3 million barrels per day.

Interviews and documents from whistle-blowers show problems with at least three projects deemed crucial to Iraq's oil production:

GonzoReiter said:

The failure to rebuild key components of Iraq's petroleum industry has impeded oil production and may have permanently damaged the largest of the country's vast oil fields, American and Iraqi experts say.

The deficiencies have deprived Iraq of hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue needed for national rebuilding efforts and kept millions of barrels of oil off the world market at a time of growing demand.

Engineering mistakes, poor leadership and shifting priorities have delayed or led to the cancellation of several projects critical to restoring Iraq's oil industry, according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.S. and Iraqi officials and industry experts.

The troubles have been compounded in some cases by security issues, poor maintenance and disputes between the U.S. and its main contractor, Houston-based KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp., according to the interviews and documents.

Despite the United States' spending more than $1.3 billion, oil production remains below the estimated prewar level of 2.5 million barrels per day and well below a December 2004 goal of up to 3 million barrels per day.

Interviews and documents from whistle-blowers show problems with at least three projects deemed crucial to Iraq's oil production:

Click to expand...

Remember when the plan was that the Iraq oil revenue was going to pay for the cost of the war, and definitely for the rebuilding of Iraq. Seems the insurgents have been fairly successful at disrupting the flow of oil.

I'm not at all worried about how the cost of Katrina and Rita are going to effect our expenditures in Iraq. I'm much more worried about how the cost of the war in Iraq is going to effect all of us here in the U.S.

The shame of it all is that once again, much like Vietnam, this isn't a war we are going all out to win. It has now become much moire like a holding action. There has been such a push to lower the number of troops, to appease the American public, that the number of U.S. troops isn''t really sufficient to overwhelm our scattered enemy. We aren't really sending our troops into battle; it's more like they have become stationary targets for roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and sneak attacks, by the insurgents. It's like a delaying action action while our troops lose their lives, 2, 3, and 4, at a time, but constantly. It is appearing very bleak, that what our administration wanted to have happen in Iraq, will ever happen. To prevent all out civil war, is going to require a substantial presence for many years to come. We have once again managed to place ourselves in a position where we can't win, no matter how it turns out.

Cypros said:

Umm, let's see.... WE INVADED Iraq, bombed the HELL out of it, killed tens of thousands of civilians, dismantled their military, and destroyed their infrastrucure. Now you want Iraq to pay for its own reconstruction AND to reduce oil prices for Americans (the most wasteful nation in the world)?!! Sorry, but this is exactly the mentality that got us into this war in the first place -- and why we are going it alone.

Click to expand...

Is that why we still have all those troops over there - to rebuild Iraq???