IN THE run-up to the Iraq War, President Bush proudly boasted to his critics that despite his failure to garner the United Nations' approval for the operation, he could still plunge ahead with the help of his "coalition of the willing." This impressive-sounding phrase referred to the list of 46 nations that offered military support to the United States and Britain as they sought to liberate Iraq (or its oil, or its weapons of mass destruction, depending on whom you listen to). Considering that most of those countries committed well under 1,000 personnel, it was always more of a rhetorical device than a fighting force. Iraq's current state three years after the invasion, however, demands that this concept be given another tour of duty in a slightly altered context.
Sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis continues to look more like a civil war each day and the political process remains deadlocked. However, another equally troubling though seldom highlighted aspect of the conflict has gone largely unnoticed.
The actual reconstruction of Iraq by the U.S. government and its slew of contractors is a complete wreck. With the American public's patience wearing thin and its reconstruction coffers quickly emptying out, Bush needs to form a new kind of coalition and quickly -- a coalition of the paying who will subsidize Iraq's reconstruction costs and give it the kind of material foundation upon which a democratic society can function.
The urgency of the problem stems from the fact that by the end of 2006, the $18.4 billion that the U.S. government has allocated for the reconstruction of Iraq will run out, and many of the projects won't be completed. Stuart Bowen, the top U.S. auditor for reconstruction said recently, "I've been consumed for a year with the fear we would run out of money to finish projects," according to The Washington Post. He reported to Congress in February that only 300 of the 425 planned electricity projects will be completed by the end of the year and that a mere 49 of the 136 water projects will be finished. Additionally, he testified that electricity production in the country remains below pre-war levels.
In another example of just how badly run the reconstruction process has been, this week Parsons, Inc., a major U.S. contractor, announced that it would only be able to complete 20 of the 142 health clinics it was assigned to build. The clinics were intended to make up the core of Iraq's health care system. Naeema al-Gasseer, the World Health Organization's representative in Iraq, commented on the development, "That's not good. That's shocking. We're not sending the right message here," in an interview with The Washington Post. With such basic services lacking, it's a small wonder that Iraqis are so angry at their American occupiers.
The Bush administration recognized the pitiful shape of Iraq's infrastructure only after the invasion in 2003. Even then, they failed to plan for the violent insurgency that followed. About half of the $18.4 billion of reconstruction funds has been diverted from building the projects to guarding them. Much of the money was funneled directly into the Iraqi military and police forces. Not helping the matter are large contractors like Parsons and Halliburton, which have been borderline negligent in keeping tabs on their expenses. The Democratic staff of the House Committee on Government Reform released a report last week saying Halliburton had overcharged the federal government by as much as $71 million.
The conclusions to be drawn from this continuing debacle are that the Bush Administration has neither the money nor the competence to continue managing the reconstruction of Iraq, and that Bush should begin furiously lobbying the international community to not only pick up the slack but also take the reins. This week, Paul Wolfowitz, the head of the World Bank, said that he was exploring opening an office in Iraq, an action that would greatly increase his organization's participation in the rebuilding process. This is exactly the kind of help Bush should be looking for. As a senior World Bank official said in an interview with the Boston Globe this week, "Reconstruction is an important part of the World Bank's mission from Bosnia and Afghanistan to Liberia and Iraq. The objectivity the World Bank brings is greatly valued by donors from around the world, as well as host governments."
Iraq doesn't look good politically, but the American government has shown that it is at least capable of some progress, as evidenced by the installation of the country's democratic (albeit deadlocked) government. Its record on reconstruction, however, has been abysmal, and it's time it found another coalition willing to take the mess off of their hands.
A.J. Kornblith's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at akornblith@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
