February 26, 2003
Rebuilding PreWar Iraq
Everyone agrees that Iraq is a messed up country. Everyone agrees that Saddam is an outrageously awful man. I believe that he really does murder and torture people and that he's guilty of all sorts of horrible crimes. I think it's a reasonable statement to say that the Hussein regime itself is... bad... and that it would be better if a different regime were there.So there's all this talk about going in to invade Iraq, remove Hussein, and then rebuild Iraq. We'd go to war "preemptively", win, and then rebuild Iraq with democracy.
So why don't we just skip the war part? I say we just pretend he doesn't exist and start rebuilding Iraq first. Heck, even warn him. Say, "On March 15th, we're going to start laying cable. Fair warning. Feel free to use it, we're letting everyone else use it."
Invade with global humanitarian groups. Start building better infrastructure in outer Iraq. Don't train militias, train professors and build schools. Don't ask permission from Iraq, just start building. Install autonomous universities. Install telephone lines. Reroute a communications satellite or ten. Just be generous without restrictions. Make it impossible for America OR Hussein to control how the resources are used. Give them net access, send resources. Leave instruction manuals. Waltz right in with explicitly peaceful generous purposes, don't route the aid through the Iraqi government, and just start building. If the Iraqi forces try to get in the way of that, THEN smack them down. Eventually Hussein will be found crying on a street corner in his underwear.
Yeah, I know it's a silly suggestion (once you figure in the supporting forces required to defend the humanitarian groups, you're probably describing an invasion anyway), but maybe there IS something more sophisticated along those lines that isn't being considered. What the hell is it about rebuilding Iraq that makes killing civilians a pre-requisite?
Posted by Curt at February 26, 2003 01:13 AM
Don't you think that, in a perfect world, if we did just march in there and start doing all the things you suggest that innocent civilians would die at the hand of Hussein? Do you really think he would voluntarily lose control over the people? If he couldn't get to us, he would get to them. So, on top of the forces needed to protect the humanitarian groups, you would need forces to protect the people of Iraq against their own leader which supports why they want to remove him by force.
What about the weapons of mass destruction?
I know you think it's silly, but I like the idealistic quality of your suggestion :). I suspect the challenge is to make it realistic and plan for everything that could wrong. In reality, they are probably looking at the most economical way to build the infrastructure needed with the least amount of casualties, the least amount of opportunities for something to go wrong, and don't forget time in this mix..because the longer it takes the smaller our "return on investment" gets. That my friend, is war. Life is at the mercy of the numbers. I don't feel good about that and I wish it could be different, but I think the days of doing the right thing are over...they are running the country like a business.
Posted by: Deborah at February 26, 2003 08:13 AMSo, I am thinking about this now instead of getting ready for work....I have an idea I will share later! :)
Posted by: Deborah at February 26, 2003 08:21 AMWell, I wrote it when I was feeling petulant and not too patient about inconvenient things like, "reality". But I still believe there are alternatives. This is me being stubborn and lazy about the whole thing because in addition to having strong convictions I'm also experiencing war-talk overload and am just tired of the whole thing.
Posted by: Curt at February 28, 2003 05:40 PM