The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government’s capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns.
Excepting, of course, the Dodobirds who question nothing the government does.
More than 180,000 civilians — including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis — are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
Including the recent troop buildup, 160,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilian government employees are stationed in Iraq.
The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq — a mission criticized as being undermanned.
Like Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution said, “This is not the coalition of the willing. It’s the coalition of the billing.”
mxpwr03: Ok we’ll see in September how King David’s plan is working.
Oh wait!
September is no longer a milestone! Maybe we should check back in the year 2525? If man is still alive? If woman can survive? I wonder how many more unseen coffins will come into the country by then, and how many more war veterans tottering around on prosthetic legs we’ll be treated to on television by then?
The “plan” (if you can dignify it by calling it that) has not worked so far, and it only shows evidence of working WORSE (if such a thing is possible).
Not that I’m a big fan of John Kerry (although I voted for him as part of the “anyone but Bush” strategy), but who will be the last one asked to die for a mistake? We made a mistake. I know Dumbya (and his handlers, Presidents Rove/ Cheney) can’t admit that, but the rest of the country can. Bring our troops home now.
Would you care to offer some of your own supporting analysis as to why the Baghdad Security Operation is not working? I’m sorry but I need more than your word on that.
And yes, I am looking forward to the September Congressional Hearing about the security operation.
>>Would you care to offer some of your own supporting analysis
I don’t do analysis. I just watch the death count.
So. It’s not working.
Counterpoint?
My counterpoint is that I’m glad you’re not involved in any planning for the State, Defense, or Intelligence community.
Just saw this on C-SPAN, Micheal O’Hanlon from the Brookings Institution, “The U.S. did not create this mess in Iraq, certainly the Bush Administration made several mistakes, but the legacy of the Ba’ath Regime is the main driving force.” — Mind you that is from a left leaning think-tank. It is on now if you want to check it out.
>>Bush Administration made several mistakes
Well, I hate to be overly critical, but that’s not much of a “counterpoint”. Now everybody is pointing fingers as to whose “legacy” the failure in Iraq should be. Nice.
And you’re right, the Bush administration made “several mistakes”, beginning with their “we’re going to invade no matter what” misbegotten invasion of the country in the first place.
So. I wonder who will be the last person asked to die for a mistake. Or maybe we should bring our troops home now, and let the civil war work itself out without adding American kids to that meat-grinder. Given that we are losing now, and we can never win.
As to the Brookings Institute being a “left-leaning think tank””
“Brookings is widely regarded for being politically independent. Its scholars are cited with equal frequency by Democratic and Republican members of Congress.” (wikipedia)
I guess political independence is regarded as “left-leaning” by adherents of the Church of Rove/ Cheney, huh?
As to my involvement in planning for State, Defense, or the intelligence community, wtf? It’s unlikely that I could have done any worse of a job in Iraq than those highly-trained experts. And here would be a whole fuck of a lot more live (and physically intact) Americans. And as an added bonus, America would not be the laughingstock of he entire world. Cant beat that, huh?
Buddy, I watch 3-4 think-tank presentations a week on C-SPAN from the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Brookings Institute, Center for Strategic & International Studies, and several foreign affairs schools. I know on average where they fall on the political spectrum with regards to foreign policy ideologies.
Obviously this debate has reached a brick wall, so good night and good luck.
>>I know on average where they fall on the political spectrum
Heh heh heh. Buddy. As I said, I guess “political independence” falls somewhere to the left of moveon.org for adherents to the church of Cheney/ Rove.
And since you purport to be such an “evidence-based” guy, how about some evidence that “The Surge” is working? Death count isn’t going to do it, so what do you have to offer? Or do you want to postpone this until the September-Deadline-That-Isn’t-Really-A-Deadline? And then, until Janurary ’09, when Dumbya/ Cheney/ Rove can run off to their oil profits, and writing their memoirs? HAW!
30—OK max==as this is a war in a foreign land, GOUSA can always send troops and mercenaries there to do battle and “make progress.” But after 5 years we aren’t making it.
Honestly now—what kind of evidence is required to show definitively that we are in the middle of a civil war that won’t resolve as long as we are there? ((This assumes we don’t go “all in” and the Iraqi’s never stand up.))
30—Conversely, define success and how long we should legitimately support the effort to get there?
>>Conversely
Or perversely. Unless every young American of draft age (not that we would ever draft kids like the Bush twins) have been killed in Iraq, there is NOTHING that could ever happen that would force the neocons to admit that the whole thing has been nothing more than one big clusterfuck.
The legacy of Dumbya, and presidents Cheney/ Rove.
Mission Accomplished.
2008 elections: BRING IT ON!!!!!
41===Max impresses me as being “fact” oriented. He just has never been asked the right questions.–or perhaps, forced to deal with the right questions.
The fun part rarely reached is when parties agree on the facts, then attitudes, wishes, dreams, and desires come into play. Unless one is truely a tool, facts should control a discussion.
bobbo – I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of progress. I think everyday there is some progress of some type, but at the same time there are set backs.
I asked one of my extremely left political science professors about the “civil war” argument and her answer was extremely academic. From her definition Iraq has been in a civil war since the mid 1980’s. Just because a country is in a civil war does not mean that the international community cannot help the population rebuild and resolve their issues. Also, I don’t think U.S. troops are the main reason for the ethnic tension, however in some regions of the country the presence does not generate positive externalities. There are so many factors as to why there is violence in Iraq and to simply say, it is the result of U.S. troops does not own up to all the facts. On a brighter note: one uplifting case is when Iraqi Army forces, along with U.S. forces, liberates Baqubah and the local population was ecstatic to see the IA and the U.S. forces as liberators from the iron grip of Al Qaeda.
Your second question:
The President has the rest of his term to use as many available troops as he wants to try and solve the situation. However, I would expect there to be a major withdraw around November-December. This trend will continue up until the 2008 election. Over the next decade I would expect there to be around 15,000 troops throughout the country, but mostly in Kurdistan. However, all this depends upon the IA & IP being able to provide security in the place of MNFs, and everyday they show progress towards this goal, as I highlighted above in the recent operations.
Also, if you got an hour check out this video from a C-SPAN segment curtesory of the World Affairs Council of Houston:
http://tinyurl.com/22mqd9 . The presenter, Shafeeq Ghabra, talks about the youth of the Arab world, the challenges, the progress, and the regional wide problems that are not unique to Iraq. He speaks of Iraq as holding the potential for being the model country for the Middle East, and I’ve heard this notion said many times before. So many times the focus is what happens when we lose in Iraq, or that we already have lost. What happens if (or when we do) we (the MNF & Iraqis) win?
Damn, I done wanna be #43, it has a bad connotation.
43—So, you refuse to anwer either question?
Give it a try.
I got homework, running, and GRAW 2 playing to do so I have to stop posting but,
“define success” – is when the MNF is able to withdraw 80% of the troops due to the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, all the while the political and economic situation continues to improve.
“how long we should legitimately support the effort to get there?” As long as the Iraqi Government requests our presence and security efforts.
Mx,
I asked one of my extremely left political science professors about the “civil war” argument and her answer was extremely academic. From her definition Iraq has been in a civil war since the mid 1980’s.
There you go again, dropping professions like they are gospel and can’t be challenged. I see no validity in that statement. Perhaps your “leftist professor” could elaborate. On her definition of a civil war.
Also, I don’t think U.S. troops are the main reason for the ethnic tension, however in some regions of the country the presence does not generate positive externalities
The American troops ARE the reason for the civil strife. When the Americans conquered Iraq, they dismantled the entire civil and military infrastructure. There were far too few troops to maintain civil order. Instead of correcting the problem, anyone who had Baath Party membership, whether or not is was voluntary or a occupational necessity, were fired and forbidden to work in government. With the leadership vacuum came the struggle to fill the spots. Then came the religious strife that helped form the battle lines.
one uplifting case is when Iraqi Army forces, along with U.S. forces, liberates Baqubah and the local population was ecstatic
Until the Americans leave then AQ will once again come back and own the town.
The President has the rest of his term to use as many available troops as he wants to try and solve the situation. However, I would expect there to be a major withdraw around November-December. This trend will continue up until the 2008 election.
I doubt it. The Congress won’t fund the troops after August unless Bush shows a workable plan. You overlook that America doesn’t want to be caught in Bushes little folly and Bush has wasted any political capitol. The Democrats are furious with the White House and know they will win a pissing contest.
46—So you leave it open ended and to the Iraqi’s to define our success? I wouldn’t do that. I would protect our own interests before becoming a pawn in middle east affairs. But, to each our own.
>>asked one of my extremely left political science professors
Jeez. Is there anybody to the left of the John Birch Society that you don’t think is “extremely left” or “left-leaning”???
Go do your homework, and just pray that you’re not the last person asked to die for a mistake.
>>The President has the rest of his term
Uh, in case you hadn’t noticed, the “president” (as opposed to The Presidents, Cheney/ Rove) has no term left. He squandered any little “political capital” he had left pardoning Cheney/ Rove’s sacrificial lamb, Scooter Pie.