Posted on 11/08/2007 3:24:37 AM PST by SJackson
The surge of US troops in Baghdad is succeeding but deeper structural problems continue to plague the American presence in Iraq. The country's largest dam, 40 kilometers northwest of Mosul, near the Turkish border, spectacularly symbolizes this predicament.
Just after occupying Iraq in April 2003, a report found that Mosul Dam's foundation was "leaking like a sieve and ready to collapse." A more recent, still-classified report from the US Army Corps of Engineers concludes that "The dam is judged to have an unacceptable annual failure probability." More explicitly, the corps finds the current probability of failure to be "exceptionally high." A senior aid worker calls the dam "a time bomb waiting to go off."
Mosul Dam, formerly known as Saddam Dam (Arabic: Sadd Saddam) is in danger of collapse. That's because the dam was built on unstable bedrock of gypsum that requires a constant infusion of grout to prevent the foundation from eroding and the giant earthen wall from collapsing. Over the years, engineers have pumped into the foundation more than 50,000 tons of a bentonite, cement, water, and air mixture. As the Washington Post explains, "Twenty-four clanging machines churn 24 hours a day to pump grout deep into the dam's base. And sinkholes form periodically as the gypsum dissolves beneath the structure."
Despite these efforts, the dam's condition continues to deteriorate, raising the prospect of its complete collapse. Were this to happen with a reservoir full of water, predicts Engineering News-Record, "as much as 12.5 billion cubic meters of water pooled behind the 3.2-km-long earth-filled impoundment [would go] thundering down the Tigris River Valley toward Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq. The wave behind the 110-meter-high crest would take about two hours to reach the city of 1.7 million." In addition, parts of Baghdad (population 7 million) would come under 5 meters of water.
THE ARMY Corps estimates the flood would kill a half-million people immediately, while the aftershocks, such as power outage and drought, would kill many more. (Not coincidentally, Iraq was the site of Noah's Ark.) It would likely be the largest human-induced single loss of life in history.
Many Iraqi officials, unfortunately, exhibit a cavalier attitude toward these dangers, further exacerbating the problem. They reject as unnecessary, for example, the Army Corps recommendation to build a second dam downstream as a back-up.
Yet, were a catastrophic failure to take place, who would be blamed for the unprecedented loss of life? Americans, of course. And understandably so, for the Bush administration took upon itself the overhauling of Iraqi life, including the Mosul Dam. Specifically, the US taxpayer funded attempts to shore it up by with improved grouting, at a cost of $27 million. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has, however, judged these efforts mismanaged and ineffective.
Massive Iraqi deaths would surely spawn conspiracy theories about American malevolence, inspiring epic rage against the US government and creating a deep sense of guilt among Americans themselves. Yet, this blame and remorse would be entirely misplaced.
Saudi and other Arab aid - not US monies - funded what was originally called the "Saddam Dam." A German-Italian consortium headed by Hochtief Aktiengesellschaft built the $1.5 billion structure in 1981-84. It had a primarily political goal, to bolster Saddam Hussein's regime during the Iran-Iraq war. The dam, in other words, had nothing to do with the United States - not in funding, construction, or purpose. Nonetheless, misbegotten American policy has made it an American headache.
Mosul's dam replicates a myriad of lesser problems in Iraqi life that have landed in the lap of Americans (and, to a much lesser extent, their coalition partners), such as provisioning fuel and electricity, working schools and hospitals, a fair political and legal system, and an environment secure from terrorism.
Since April 2003, I have argued that this shouldering of responsibility for Iraq's domestic life has harmed both Americans and Iraqis. It yokes Americans with unwanted and unnecessary loss of life, financial obligations, and political burdens. For Iraqis, as the dam example suggests, it encourages an irresponsibility with potentially ruinous consequences.
A change of course is needed, and quickly. The Bush administration needs to hand back responsibility for Iraq's ills, including and especially the Mosul Dam. More broadly, it should abandon the deeply flawed and upside-down approach of "war as social work," whereby US military efforts are judged primarily by the benefits they bring to the defeated enemy, rather than to Americans.
We cannot turn this dam back over to the Iraqis in it’s current condition. Better to just dynamite the damn thing and get it over with.
If we walk away, the Iraqis will fail to maintain the grouting process and the dam will fail, probably within five years. The Iraqis will steal the money, and we will get the blame.
If this dam is a politial symbol, all the more reason we should tear it down. Saddam liked to have the ability to flood things. He flooded a huge portion of Southern Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war in order to provide a buffer. He diverted water from another province in order to cause a forced migration of troublesome people. He was like a kid playing with mudpies in a stream. This dam looks like one more mudpie madcap construction project, and we would all be better off if it was gone.
The US Army Corps of Engineers, God love ‘em, never met a dam they didn’t like. This one may prove the exception to the rule.
Tearing it down, or rebuilding downstream with oil revenues, would make sense to me. But if a collapse would really cause 500,000 casualties, I assume the economic cost would be enormous. Of course if Pipes is right, we will bear the blame for a collapse.
I have heard from other sources and Engineering New Record, which is a reputable publication, that this dam is in deep, deep trouble. You know that when the US Army Corps of Engineer turns against a dam, it’s gotta be pretty bad.
Time to use the bully pulpit to get the word out that the dam has to be repaired or opened to relieve the pressure. Or both. Otherwise the American and European media will lead the way claiming our neglect caused the dam to fall or even worse, we blew it up. Anything to make us look bad. And the ignorant and uneducated masses of muslims around the world would believe whatever they were told.
Drain it. Dynamite it, be done with it.
2. Drain the reservoir. If it serves a flood relief purpose, it need not hold much water at all, and only during certain times. Which would pose little danger.
3. Go on to next problem.
McGraw-Hill Construction | ENR - Iraqi Dam Has Experts On Edge Until Inspection Eases Fears 05/05/2003
http://enr.construction.com/news/Front2003/archives/030505.asp
German-Italian joint venture called GIMOD, designed an aggressive grouting program to deal with this. Concrete lined grout galleries, each some 1,600 m in length, extend from each wing to the center, in the dam’s core. Mounted lines on the gallery walls deliver bentonite, cement, water and air to make grout for portable drilling machines. Four crews are working in one gallery. There are 12 machines in all. Another wall-mounted line extracts water. Grout injection wells are evenly spaced approximately 10-20 m apart. The grout curtain extends to a depth of 90 m. The dam consumes some 50 mt of grout a day, under normal maintenance. Voids throw the program into emergency status and have consumed up to a quarter million tons of grout a day.
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.