Bush ponders £10bn New Deal to create jobs in Iraq

The Sunday Times ^ | December 24, 2006 | Sarah Baxter

[MadIvan]

THE White House is expected to announce a reconstruction package for Iraq as part of a plan for a “surge” of up to 30,000 troops into Baghdad when President George W Bush unveils America’s new strategy next month.

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (£5.1 billion) to Iraq as part of a “New Deal” that would create work for unemployed Iraqis, following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the 1930s depression.

At the Pentagon, the joint chiefs of staff are insisting on reconstruction funds as part of a package of political and economic measures to accompany the armed forces. They fear the extra troops will be wasted and more lives lost if Bush relies purely on the military to pacify Iraq, according to sources close to General Peter Schoomaker, the army chief of staff.

Military commanders have come round to the idea that an increase of troops is likely to form the backbone of Bush’s new strategy on Iraq. “People are warming to the idea that some sort of surge is necessary,” said a military official.

Robert Gates, the defence secretary, held talks with Bush, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, at Camp David yesterday, where he reported back on his three-day tour of Iraq. He said the willingness of Iraqis to “step forward” had advanced significantly.

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House and a member of the defence policy board advising the Pentagon, is calling for a cross between the New Deal and the post-second world war Marshall Plan that would “mop up every young Iraqi male who is unemployed”. He said it would be “as big a strategic step towards victory as whether you have more troops or fewer troops”.

Gingrich believes his position as a staunch conservative could help to sell the reconstruction package to sceptical Republicans who argue that Iraq has already cost too money. The Pentagon this month requested an extra $100 billion from Congress as an emergency supplement to the 2007 military budget, bringing the total to $663 billion.

Americans have already spent nearly $40 billion on economic aid for Iraq, much of which has been squandered. Bush’s proposals are likely to be more modest than the former speaker’s but he has been listening carefully to advice from generals such as Peter Chiarelli, who stepped down as head of the multinational forces in Iraq last week. He believes a US-funded, Iraqi-led job creation programme is essential to weaken the power of militias.

Bush is also thought to have been influenced by advice from retired General Jack Keane and Frederick Kagan, author of Choosing Victory, published by the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank. The report, which advocates more troops, argues that “reconstruction is a vital part of stabilising and securing the Iraqi population”.

“The military commanders have been emphasising this heavily,” said Kagan. “It is tremendously important. We’re proposing that an economic team goes automatically into areas where the troops are sent in.”

The plan is to extend significantly Chiarelli’s innovative use of Sweat teams (responsible for sewage, water, electricity and trash) to back up military operations.

Local leaders will be asked what they need to improve the quality of life in their neighbourhoods and the unemployed will be put to work. According to Kagan, the scale of the package should be linked to the degree of co-operation over disbanding militias and providing intelligence about insurgents.

Stephen Biddle, a military expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, who recently advised Bush at the Oval Office, is backing plans for economic reconstruction but is sceptical about its chances of success.

“If Sunni death squads are murdering your relatives and you’re afraid they will slaughter you if you compromise with the Americans, promising to rebuild the local health clinic won’t help,” he said.

[Terpfen]

You really could've saved us all the trouble just by posting the link (using HTML, not BBcode.)

[logic101.net]

The economy in Iraq is doing well, it is the security situation that needs to be addressed. Kill off the terrorists, secure the borders and the economy will boom.

[4Freedom]

Is the long-term answer to put the New Iraqi Dinar back on the FOREX, already? IMO, they need a revaluation of the Dinar. What are they waiting for?

Just 'DO IT' for Pete's sake.

[TomGuy]

We weren't told about the North American Free Trade Union between Canada, the United States and Mexico. We weren't told about the North American trans highway, a multi-lane freeway from the southern border to the Canadian border. We were told that the Minutemen were vigilantes. We were told that Harriet Meyers was the best choice for the Supreme Court and we've been consistently assured that Iraq is going well. So sleep well tonight fellow Americans we're in good hands. W has good intentions.

I recall too, that the Prescription Drug bill was supposed to cost around $380B. Three days after it passed, ooopps, they meant around $534B. And within a few months, he hehe, they actually meant closer to $720B.

Then this from the Washington Post:

The White House released budget figures yesterday [February 8, 2005] indicating that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade... source WP link

[toddlintown]

More nation-building.

[LZ_Bayonet]

"“If Sunni death squads are murdering your relatives and you’re afraid they will slaughter you if you compromise with the Americans, promising to rebuild the local health clinic won’t help,” he said."

75%+ of the problem gets one line and no discussion. BTW- if you substitute "VC" for "Sunni", it's 1966 again.

[billbears]

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (£5.1 billion) to Iraq as part of a “New Deal” that would create work for unemployed Iraqis, following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the 1930s depression.

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House and a member of the defence policy board advising the Pentagon, is calling for a cross between the New Deal and the post-second world war Marshall Plan that would “mop up every young Iraqi male who is unemployed”. He said it would be “as big a strategic step towards victory as whether you have more troops or fewer troops”. Gingrich believes his position as a staunch conservative could help to sell the reconstruction package to sceptical Republicans who argue that Iraq has already cost too money.

Alright!! Can I get a big woo-hoo for new 'conservatism'?!? It was socialism in the 1930s that extended the Depression longer than it should have been and it's socialism in the 21st century that will extend the problems in Iraq for far far longer

I love 'conservatism'. 'Spreading democracy' didn't work (it never does) so we'll throw some old fashioned socialism at 'em. Go George go!! And to top it off Newt's on board so all the real 'conservatives' will be gung ho for this (soon to be) failed plan. But with this, throwing in some more photos of purple fingers, maybe the faithful will continue to believe.

The Pentagon this month requested an extra $100 billion from Congress as an emergency supplement to the 2007 military budget, bringing the total to $663 billion.

Come on now, we've got to get to a trillion here guys. It's not a truly wasteful government endeavor until it comes in at least 10-15 times over the original sold cost. Isn't there anybody left in Iraq to buy off (like Chalabi) that we can throw money at or something?

[aculeus]

Jeffrey Sachs?

[Moonman62]

Just as Government can't produce jobs in the US, it can't produce jobs in Iraq.

Didn't Newsweek just publish a story last week saying the Iraqi economy is booming?

[Moonman62]

“If Sunni death squads are murdering your relatives and you’re afraid they will slaughter you if you compromise with the Americans, promising to rebuild the local health clinic won’t help,” he said.

Yep, the Sunnis know that the Shiites are nuts and will fight them to the end. Public works projects aren't going to change that.

[WhiteGuy]

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (£5.1 billion) to Iraq as part of a “New Deal” that would create work for unemployed Iraqis


gop initiated foreign welfare?

New deal ?

[TomGuy]

Cutting spending and closing the open checkbook do not seem like high priorities.

Bush Has Threatened to Use the Veto 40 Times, but Never Has ...

until

First Bush Veto Maintains Limits on Stem Cell Use

This one didn't make FR:

Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt

By Francis Harris in Washington

(Filed: 07/10/2005)

The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.

The mutiny was the latest setback for an administration facing an increasingly independent and bloody-minded legislature.

[jwalsh07]

The ten billion would not be included in the costs for the grunts and support. The ten billion would, presumably, be the carrot after the stick in Baghdad.

[Wolfie]

Great. Another 10 billion, funneled to the same old cronies who have arleady richly profited from this mess.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

"The ten billion would not be included in the costs for the grunts and support." This still does not address where we are going to staff, train, equip, and mobilize a full combat division of Army troops, and two Regiments of Marines. And such an undertaking is not simply "grunt" work. You are looking at a minimum of 6 Brigadier Generals, 3 Major Generals, and 2 Lieutenant Generals on the Army side. Toss in a few dozen Colonels and a gaggle of Lieutenant Colonels. Let us dismiss the cost in US dollars for now (what is another $600 billion or so?). Kagan and the AEI offer up these simple remedies:

1. The ground forces must accept longer tours for several years. National Guard units will have to accept increased deployments during this period.

2. Equipment shortages must be overcome by transferring equipment from non-deploying active duty, National Guard, and reserve units to those about to deploy. Military industry must be mobilized to provide replacement equipment sets urgently.

3. The president must request a dramatic increase in reconstruction aid for Iraq. Responsibility and accountability for reconstruction must be assigned to established agencies. The president must insist upon the completion of reconstruction projects. The president should also request a dramatic increase in CERP funds.
(Note- CERP is Commander's Emergency Response Program. USAID participates in the distribution)

4. The president must request a substantial increase in ground forces end strength. This increase is vital to sustaining the morale of the combat forces by ensuring that relief is on the way. The president must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this age.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25292/pub_detail.asp

So now we must conclude that the costs will continue to spiral with absolutely zero accountability, and the President will simply issue a new personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight without pay or equipment in the decisive conflict of this age. While unemployment is hovering around historical lows, and Congress has not allocated any funds for this "substantial increase in ground forces end strength". Brilliant plan!

[jwalsh07]

So now we must conclude that the costs will continue to spiral with absolutely zero accountability, and the President will simply issue a new personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight without pay or equipment in the decisive conflict of this age. While unemployment is hovering around historical lows, and Congress has not allocated any funds for this "substantial increase in ground forces end strength". Brilliant plan!

This is of course all nonsense. First of all you are conflating US Armed Forces end strength with a buildup in Iraq of 20,000 soldiers and Marines. You understand the difference, no? There are currently about 150,000 in Iraq, another 10,000 or so in Afghanistan. Including the National Guard and reserves we have a million troops available. If the United States can not reinforce Iraq with 20,000 troops we are in deep kimshi.

As for "zero accountability", that is also nonsense. Congress funds the war, if they decide not to fund it, it will no longer be funded. Pretty simple stuff. It is how this particular constitutional republic works.

As for "volunteers" there are always volunteers. Will there be enough volunteers to fill the 8 divisions that were decommissioned prior to Clinton and a shortsighted Congress? Probably not. But that isn't Bush's fault.

Where does the money come from? We used to spend 6% of GDP on the military and 3% on welfare. Now we spend 6% of GDP on welfare and 3% on the military. There is no "peace dividend" and there never was one. The sooner you and your compatriots understand that the better off America will be.

[traviskicks]

"...following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the 1930s depression."

Great model Mr. President... why not try it here again? /s





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[airborne]

It's not America's fault if they don't use that wealth properly.

Maybe not, but we sure do let them get away with it.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

First of all you are conflating US Armed Forces end strength with a buildup in Iraq of 20,000 soldiers and Marines. You understand the difference, no?

The Kagan paper that you linked calls for "A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the spring of 2007". This includes ALL of the command and support elements, plus the equipment necessary to prosecute combat. It is not merely 20,000 "grunts" (as you like to call them). The training, material, command, and logistics all come from "end strength" resources. Our nation can not simply crank out a full combat Army Division, and two Marine Combat Brigades in one fiscal quarter and send them into combat for "longer tours for several years". It is not sustainable.

Including the National Guard and reserves we have a million troops available.

We sure do. Are all of these available troops trained, equipped, and configured to deploy into combat battalions for security operations in Iraq?. No, they are not. Some number are trained and equipped for Arctic or cold weather conditions, and some number are trained and equipped for jungle conditions. Still other troops are configured for high mountain and coastal conditions. We must use the correct configuration of our armed forces for any "troop surge". The fact that none of the commanders in Iraq are calling for more troops on the ground is quite telling.

There is no "peace dividend" and there never was one. The sooner you and your compatriots understand that the better off America will be.

I do not know what group of "compatriots" you are lumping me in with. My position is this: If it requires additional forces to be deployed in Iraq to bring security, then by all means let us deploy the right amount. Congress and the administration are duty bound to insure that there is a clear objective to be achieved by sending additional forces. Simply propping up a corrupt Maliki Shiite Hezbullah government is not a valid objective. The Iraqi government is the one showing zero accountability. And our constitutional republic is rewarding the Iraqi government with another $10 Billion. All because of the UN Mandate extended by the security council. "The U.N. Security Council has extended the mandate of the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq for another year. From U.N. headquarters, VOA's Peter Heinlein reports the vote was unanimous." http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-11-28-voa53.cfm

[donmeaker]

It is....In Kurdistan. In Anbar it stinks because no oil, and terrorists kill anyone who looks prosperous/cooperative.