Posted on 12/23/2006 7:34:08 PM PST by 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.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
This is Newt's contrabution?
From what my son tells me, these guys are sorely needed.
Interesting that he seems to be ignoring James Baker, his father's pal.
Just as Government can't produce jobs in the US, it can't produce jobs in Iraq.
Perhaps he is trying to get them saddled with Socialism, to prevent them from being a threat again, just as Germany is no longer a threat to us.
Weren't we told, in the early days of the Iraq War, that Iraq would pay for the war itself, through oil revenues?
Holy...! Well that's definately the most un-conservative act one can expect, but if it's used in a Marshall-Plan manner (and it better does...) it can work out well. It has to be used in very specific projects.
On the other hand the money could be invested in striking the sh*t out of Iran... this would bring peace to Iraq more than anything else. Reconstruction can be done afterwards.
That being said my conservative heart revolts...
About $80 billion have already been flushed down the toilet of Iraq 'reconstruction' so why should we expect that another $10 billion will do the trick?
How reliable is this source?
We were told a lot of things in the begining,it never ends.
.
NEVER FORGET
Praise GOD that...
President BUSH has promised...
Freedom's Return to:
Communist Vietnam
Communist North Korea
Communist Cuba
..as well as..
Freedom's Arrival to:
All the Countries of the Middle East
...as America's own best self-protection against future terrorist attacks here at home.
Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer
Veteran-1st Major Battles in the Fight for Freedom of the Vietnam War 1965-66
http://www.WeWereSoldiers.com
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_collection.htm
NEVER FORGET
.
what do Republicans is newly competitive
districts think about this?
those stupid s^^^^ are going to get slaughtered
in the next election
thanks for throwing Congress under the bus,
mr bush
About time. Next they should put a serious buyback program for guns and explosives in place. Mop it all up. Flood the place with money, makework projects, and buyback programs. It'll be cheaper in the long run.
Yep, and the rest of the world has flushed an additional $40 billion into that cesspool. Squandered? What they mean to say is that the security environment is so dreadful that as much as half of the funds in many projects goes toward providing security, that projects are frequently abandoned because of the deteriorating security situation, and that much of what does get built soon gets wrecked again.
What exactly has changed so that the next $10 billion will be any different?
It's hard to see how this will help. History indicates that when you give money to corrupt or inept governments, it is totally wasted.
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.