Posted on 06/29/2004 3:03:25 AM PDT by johnny7
The formal occupation of Iraq came to an ignominious end yesterday with a furtive ceremony, held two days early to foil insurgent attacks, and a swift airborne exit for the chief administrator. In reality, the occupation will continue under another name, most likely until a hostile Iraqi populace demands that we leave. But it's already worth asking why things went so wrong.
The Iraq venture may have been doomed from the start — but we'll never know for sure because the Bush administration made such a mess of the occupation. Future historians will view it as a case study of how not to run a country. Up to a point, the numbers in the Brookings Institution's invaluable Iraq Index tell the tale. Figures on the electricity supply and oil production show a pattern of fitful recovery and frequent reversals; figures on insurgent attacks and civilian casualties show a security situation that got progressively worse, not better; public opinion polls show an occupation that squandered the initial good will. What the figures don't describe is the toxic mix of ideological obsession and cronyism that lie behind that dismal performance.
The insurgency took root during the occupation's first few months, when the Coalition Provisional Authority seemed oddly disengaged from the problems of postwar anarchy. But what was Paul Bremer III, the head of the C.P.A., focused on? According to a Washington Post reporter who shared a flight with him last June, "Bremer discussed the need to privatize government-run factories with such fervor that his voice cut through the din of the cargo hold." Plans for privatization were eventually put on hold. But as he prepared to leave Iraq, Mr. Bremer listed reduced tax rates, reduced tariffs and the liberalization of foreign-investment laws as among his major accomplishments. Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time — but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics.
If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one reason was that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people whose qualifications seemed to lie mainly in their personal and political connections — people like Simone Ledeen, whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent neoconservative, told a forum that "the level of casualties is secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war." Still, given Mr. Bremer's economic focus, you might at least have expected his top aide for private-sector development to be an expert on privatization and liberalization in such countries as Russia or Argentina. But the job initially went to Thomas Foley, a Connecticut businessman and Republican fund-raiser with no obviously relevant expertise. In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review." Checks and review? Yesterday a leading British charity, Christian Aid, released a scathing report, "Fueling Suspicion," on the use of Iraqi oil revenue. It points out that the May 2003 U.N. resolution giving the C.P.A. the right to spend that revenue required the creation of an international oversight board, which would appoint an auditor to ensure that the funds were spent to benefit the Iraqi people. Instead, the U.S. stalled, and the auditor didn't begin work until April 2004. Even then, according to an interim report, it faced "resistance from C.P.A. staff." And now, with the audit still unpublished, the C.P.A. has been dissolved.
Defenders of the administration will no doubt say that Christian Aid and other critics have no proof that the unaccounted-for billions were ill spent. But think of it this way: given the Arab world's suspicion that we came to steal Iraq's oil, the occupation authorities had every incentive to expedite an independent audit that would clear Halliburton and other U.S. corporations of charges that they were profiteering at Iraq's expense. Unless, that is, the charges are true.
Let's say the obvious. By making Iraq a playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors, the administration did terrorist recruiters a very big favor.
I wonder what Lefty Krugman has to say about Russia's very successful experiment with "supply-side" economics. Where is his head when he is trying to make a lefty economic argument as power is returned to Iraqis? He is so mad that Bush has finessed this issue before the election that he is spitting nails. I love it!!!
Krugman appears to be legally insane.
It's good the NYT continues his column. It's got to turn off thousands of would-be subscribers.
p.s.: He USED to be a second-rate economist. Now he is a first-rate politcal muckraker.
I can only skim Krugman...(delicate stomach)...but when he's unhappy, I'm happy.
Why, Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists!
What a silly question, Mr. Krugman.
When leftists like Krugman are unhappy with prosperity, that makes me happy that Bush and everything he stands for on principle, is getting under their skin.
What I resent the most about Krugman's statement is the use of the word "we". This guy is no American in any way in my book. He is the like the fan who complains about his team all year, and then, when they win, starts using the we word.
He won't freely admit it was Saddam who lost Iraq, because that doesn't fit the leftist template of failure and the prism of "It's all Bush's fault".
Insane is the only word that comes to mind when the left begins to rant and rave.
Miserable fool sounds like he may be on the payroll of Al Qaeda.
What went wrong in Oraq? Hatriots started aiding the enemy. confusing them about Americas dedication to free the Iraqui people. Encouraging terrorists to fight in the belief that the cowards among us would lose heart and run off. Yes folks like John Kerry , Teddy Kennedy and Leaky Leahy encouraging the terrorists , thats what went wrong.
I like how he used the phrase "the occupiers" when referring to Americans. Shows how he isn't with us, he's against us.
Oh, and phrases like "in reality" so he can reframe a stunning success as a failure.
Puke.
They are American communists.
Krugman needs to take higher dosages of Prozac and get over his disappointment over the success of this phase of the war on terror.
Krugman's columns reveal more about Krugman than they do about Bush, neocons, etc. How does a person become do deranged by hatred for political opponents that they believe and print any lie to try to justify themselves? How can Krugman continue to deny what is in front of his face? I think that the tax-cuts reviving the economy, after he stated we were headed for another thirties-sytle depression, was the last straw for him mentally speaking. I realize he's not the only liberal to become unhinged by Bush's successes, but he's certainly one of the most prominent.
This is a good example of an insane person giving irrational answers to his own insane questions.
Who lost Iraq? The left did. Once again they were proven to be on the wrong side of history.
Krugman is worried about failed economic policies in Iraq by the rigyht when he probably should be focusing on the failed economic policies of the Democrats for the last 40 years in the US.
This guy is a tool and a hack.
Who lost Iraq? Saddam Hussein lost Iraq.
Goebbles alert appreciated
Lost it? We've just found a new friend. But if Krugman has his way, we will lose it. Maybe that is what he's talking about.
Krugman is sad because his mass murdering Stalinist buddy Saddam is going on trial. He's also concerned that all the lines will be drawn, connecting Saddam to many of Krugman's Marxist friends. But he's really terrified that Saddam will dump the beans on all the connections between the NYT and Saddam.
Get ready for Duranty, part II.
Krugman is a fool and one of the icons of the rabid Left. His obsessive hatred for George Bush and America is easily as malignant as that of Michael Moore. I find him unreadable. This latest attempt is not as bad as some recent ones of his I have reluctantly skimmed. They remind me of old Pravda boilerplate.
They killed a tree to print this tripe.
The slimes is on a downward spiral. I am curious whether pinchy will try to stop it. It is clear that will spin out of partisan control and self destruct for lack of readers, unless one thing happens. (The may survive as a local NY paper, but as for their paper-of-record bunk and sales outside of the upper west side, they will be irrelevant)
That one thing will be to reign in the wacky leftist slant, both in the news and editorial sections. When Krugman goes, it will be a sign that the paper is fighting for its survival...and it knows it.
Nope. Like all American liberal loonies, he's a volunteer.
I googled for the phrase "new york slimes" and got 4,400 hits.
Not only is this fish wrap losing credibility, it's becoming a joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.