This was covered yesterday by
Booman23 in
this diary (also front paged over at
Booman's) but it got almost no traction, so I think it is worth a repost.
Official US agency paints dire picture of 'out-of-control' Iraq
An official assessment drawn up by the US foreign aid agency depicts the security situation in Iraq as dire, amounting to a "social breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein".
Apart from the initial
article in the WaPo yesterday, and an article in
the Guardian today, it has received
scant coverage, which is a shame.
So here it is again.
from the WaPo
The U.S. Agency for International Development paints a dire and detailed picture of the Iraq security situation in its request for contractors to bid on its $1.32 billion, 28-month project to help stabilize 10 major Iraqi cities.
To prepare potential bidders for the task, USAID included an annex with the contractor application. It describes Iraq as being in the midst of an insurgency whose tactics "include creating chaos in Iraq society as a whole and fomenting civil war." Many of the attacks are against coalition and Iraqi security forces, the annex says, and they "significantly damage the country's infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq."
As flagged by Booman, this is part of a plan to spend US taxpayer money in Iraq over the next two and a half years, and thus a sure sign of the expectation of a continued presence of US forces over there. But as it is part of requests fro bids from contractors, it tries to paint a realistic view of the conditions the work will need to be done in, and it's not pretty.
from the Guardian
The USAid analysis talks of an "internecine conflict" involving religious, ethnic, criminal and tribal groups. "It is increasingly common for tribesmen to 'turn in' to the authorities enemies as insurgents - this as a form of tribal revenge," the paper says, casting doubt on the efficacy of counter-insurgent sweeps by coalition and Iraqi forces.
This reveals the sad role the US forces find themselves in, with an obvious lack of good intelligence on the ground, and thus the inability to identify friends and foes. US forces seem to be used as the executioner by whichever Iraqi warlord has their ear, and a target by all others: neither an arbiter, not a full party to all the conflicts that wrack the country.
Meanwhile, foreign jihadist groups are growing in strength, the report said.
"External fighters and organisations such as al-Qaida and the Iraqi offshoot led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are gaining in number and notoriety as significant actors," USAid's assessment said. "Recruitment into the ranks of these organisations takes place throughout the Sunni Muslim world, with most suicide bombers coming from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region."
The assessment conflicted sharply with recent Pentagon claims that Zarqawi's group was in "disarray".
To this, wingnuts come back with the "flypaper" theory and the argument that it is better to fight the terrorists in Iraq than elsewhere. The best retort to this that I have seen is to say that you do not fight germs by creating a new, ultra-dirty hospital away from existing hospitals to fight them over there...
"In the social breakdown that has accompanied the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime criminal elements within Iraqi society have had almost free rein," the document says. "In the absence of an effective police force capable of ensuring public safety, criminal elements flourish ... Baghdad is reportedly divided into zones controlled by organised criminal groups-clans."
The lawlessness has had an impact on basic freedoms, USAid argues, particularly in the south, where "social liberties have been curtailed dramatically by roving bands of self-appointed religious-moral police". USAid officials did not respond to calls seeking comment yesterday.
The invasion has not brought freedom, but chaos, "social breakdown" (and that in a society which was already on its knees from 25 years of war and sanctions) and worse, less freedom for women. Iraq now has religious police - which suggests that the fight against radical Islam is not being won in Iraq, quite the opposite.
US forces seem unable to even control Baghdad, so what are they doing over there?
This report which, remember, is an official description of the situation on the ground to be used by US companies to get access to US federal funds (you know, cronyism does not preclude due diligence - for the benefit of the companies) paints a rather dismal, but probably realistic image. The question is - why is this used only to help companies that cash in the situation, and not to assess what US forces are doing over there?
The US Army appears to be a tool used by various fractions in what is already a full-blown civil war. What strategic US interests are protected by this? Or is this only about the interests of the contractors? Is this enough for the bushistas to justify this senseless waste of human lives, vast amounts of money, and the goodwill of the world?