Rebuilding Iraq (warning, may make you angry)

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
THE EMERALD CITY
Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq
Early U.S. Missteps in the Green Zone


By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 17, 2006; Page A01
Adapted from "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, copyright Knopf 2006

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.


To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors. Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation, which sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people, according to many people who participated in the reconstruction effort.

The CPA had the power to enact laws, print currency, collect taxes, deploy police and spend Iraq's oil revenue. It had more than 1,500 employees in Baghdad at its height, working under America's viceroy in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, but never released a public roster of its entire staff.

Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated -- and ultimately hobbled -- by administration ideologues.

"We didn't tap -- and it should have started from the White House on down -- just didn't tap the right people to do this job," said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings."

Endowed with $18 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds and a comparatively quiescent environment in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion, the CPA was the U.S. government's first and best hope to resuscitate Iraq -- to establish order, promote rebuilding and assemble a viable government, all of which, experts believe, would have constricted the insurgency and mitigated the chances of civil war. Many of the basic tasks Americans struggle to accomplish today in Iraq -- training the army, vetting the police, increasing electricity generation -- could have been performed far more effectively in 2003 by the CPA.

But many CPA staff members were more interested in other things: in instituting a flat tax, in selling off government assets, in ending food rations and otherwise fashioning a new nation that looked a lot like the United States. Many of them spent their days cloistered in the Green Zone, a walled-off enclave in central Baghdad with towering palms, posh villas, well-stocked bars and resort-size swimming pools.

By the time Bremer departed in June 2004, Iraq was in a precarious state. The Iraqi army, which had been dissolved and refashioned by the CPA, was one-third the size he had pledged it would be. Seventy percent of police officers had not been screened or trained. Electricity generation was far below what Bremer had promised to achieve. And Iraq's interim government had been selected not by elections but by Americans. Divisive issues were to be resolved later on, increasing the chances that tension over those matters would fuel civil strife.

To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience.

Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's résumé and pronounced him "an ideal candidate." His chief qualification was that he had worked for the Republican Party in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000.

O'Beirne, a former Army officer who is married to prominent conservative commentator Kate O'Beirne, did not respond to requests for comment.

He and his staff used an obscure provision in federal law to hire many CPA staffers as temporary political appointees, which exempted the interviewers from employment regulations that prohibit questions about personal political beliefs.

There were a few Democrats who wound up getting jobs with the CPA, but almost all of them were active-duty soldiers or State Department Foreign Service officers. Because they were career government employees, not temporary hires, O'Beirne's office could not query them directly about their political leanings.
[…]
'Loyalist' Replaces Public Health Expert


The hiring of Bremer's most senior advisers was settled upon at the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon. Some, like Foley, were personally recruited by Bush. Others got their jobs because an influential Republican made a call on behalf of a friend or trusted colleague.

That's what happened with James K. Haveman Jr., who was selected to oversee the rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system.
Haveman, a 60-year-old social worker, was largely unknown among international health experts, but he had connections. He had been the community health director for the former Republican governor of Michigan, John Engler, who recommended him to Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense.

Haveman was well-traveled, but most of his overseas trips were in his capacity as a director of International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that provided health care while promoting Christianity in the developing world. Before his stint in government, Haveman ran a large Christian adoption agency in Michigan that urged pregnant women not to have abortions.


Haveman replaced Frederick M. Burkle Jr., a physician with a master's degree in public health and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and the University of California at Berkeley. Burkle taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he specialized in disaster-response issues, and he was a deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which sent him to Baghdad immediately after the war.
He had worked in Kosovo and Somalia and in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A USAID colleague called him the "single most talented and experienced post-conflict health specialist working for the United States government."


But a week after Baghdad's liberation, Burkle was informed he was being replaced. A senior official at USAID sent Burkle an e-mail saying the White House wanted a "loyalist" in the job. Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the president.
Haveman arrived in Iraq with his own priorities. He liked to talk about the number of hospitals that had reopened since the war and the pay raises that had been given to doctors instead of the still-decrepit conditions inside the hospitals or the fact that many physicians were leaving for safer, better paying jobs outside Iraq. He approached problems the way a health care administrator in America would: He focused on preventive measures to reduce the need for hospital treatment.

He urged the Health Ministry to mount an anti-smoking campaign, and he assigned an American from the CPA team -- who turned out to be a closet smoker himself -- to lead the public education effort. Several members of Haveman's staff noted wryly that Iraqis faced far greater dangers in their daily lives than tobacco. The CPA's limited resources, they argued, would be better used raising awareness about how to prevent childhood diarrhea and other fatal maladies.

Haveman didn't like the idea that medical care in Iraq was free. He figured Iraqis should pay a small fee every time they saw a doctor. He also decided to allocate almost all of the Health Ministry's $793 million share of U.S. reconstruction funds to renovating maternity hospitals and building new community medical clinics. His intention, he said, was "to shift the mind-set of the Iraqis that you don't get health care unless you go to a hospital."


But his decision meant there were no reconstruction funds set aside to rehabilitate the emergency rooms and operating theaters at Iraqi hospitals, even though injuries from insurgent attacks were the country's single largest public health challenge.

Haveman also wanted to apply American medicine to other parts of the Health Ministry. Instead of trying to restructure the dysfunctional state-owned firm that imported and distributed drugs and medical supplies to hospitals, he decided to try to sell it to a private company.

To prepare it for a sale, he wanted to attempt something he had done in Michigan. When he was the state's director of community health, he sought to slash the huge amount of money Michigan spent on prescription drugs for the poor by limiting the medications doctors could prescribe for Medicaid patients. Unless they received an exemption, physicians could only prescribe drugs that were on an approved list, known as a formulary.

Haveman figured the same strategy could bring down the cost of medicine in Iraq. The country had 4,500 items on its drug formulary. Haveman deemed it too large. If private firms were going to bid for the job of supplying drugs to government hospitals, they needed a smaller, more manageable list. A new formulary would also outline new requirements about where approved drugs could be manufactured, forcing Iraq to stop buying medicines from Syria, Iran and Russia, and start buying from the United States.

He asked the people who had drawn up the formulary in Michigan whether they wanted to come to Baghdad. They declined. So he beseeched the Pentagon for help. His request made its way to the Defense Department's Pharmacoeconomic Center in San Antonio.
A few weeks later, three formulary experts were on their way to Iraq.

The group was led by Theodore Briski, a balding, middle-aged pharmacist who held the rank of lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy. Haveman's order, as Briski remembered it, was: "Build us a formulary in two weeks and then go home." By his second day in Iraq, Briski came to three conclusions.

First, the existing formulary "really wasn't that bad." Second, his mission was really about "redesigning the entire Iraqi pharmaceutical procurement and delivery system, and that was a complete change of scope -- on a grand scale." Third, Haveman and his advisers "really didn't know what they were doing."

Haveman "viewed Iraq as Michigan after a huge attack," said George Guszcza, an Army captain who worked on the CPA's health team. "Somehow if you went into the ghettos and projects of Michigan and just extended it out for the entire state -- that's what he was coming to save."

Haveman's critics, including more than a dozen people who worked for him in Baghdad, contend that rewriting the formulary was a distraction. Instead, they said, the CPA should have focused on restructuring, but not privatizing, the drug-delivery system and on ordering more emergency shipments of medicine to address shortages of essential medicines. The first emergency procurement did not occur until early 2004, after the Americans had been in Iraq for more than eight months.

Haveman insisted that revising the formulary was a crucial first step in improving the distribution of medicines. "It was unwieldy to order 4,500 different drugs, and to test and distribute them," he said.

When Haveman left Iraq, Baghdad's hospitals were as decrepit as the day the Americans arrived. At Yarmouk Hospital, the city's largest, rooms lacked the most basic equipment to monitor a patient's blood pressure and heart rate, operating theaters were without modern surgical tools and sterile implements, and the pharmacy's shelves were bare.
Nationwide, the Health Ministry reported.
 
This doesn't make me angry, it makes me sad.

It's also not the slightest surprise. The current administration has always made it clear that it operates under the 'spoils system'. Winning, whether it's an election or a war, is an opportunity for the people that won to reward themselves. The question of competency is not an important one to them.

Like I said, sad.
 
Since there's no question this is broadly accurate, people will now chime in trying to discredit the source. Unless the length of the article prevented them reading it.

What you have here is completely consonant with unembedded news reports out of Iraq. Because it was disloyal to complain, hospitals were under the impression they were being harassed, rather than rebuilt; doctors were being intimidated by troops and government people and forced to deal black market for medical supplies. No electricity or clean water, no tools, equipment, or medicines. Troops breaking in and rousting patients and staff at gunpoint. Any disturbance, and there were frequent disturbances, seemed to trigger a policy of investing the hospitals with armed personnel. No one got in or out, including especially ambulances, which largely brought any function of the place to a halt. Troops securing a place do a significant amount of breakage, too.

The procurement order in 2004 sat, like the Katrina supplies and trucks, in central locations. "Assessments of need" were made, conducted de novo, as if no former requisitions had ever been made.

The job was big, but any job has to be tackled. The size of a job is irrelevant if you don't do it.
 
You're right pure, your post did make me angry, mainly because I hate the way your posts take so long to read. Grrr
 
it made me angry and sad. So armed with this information, what do we do now?
 
Besides voting?

Talk to people. Things are not "fine" or "progressing" in Iraq. It is fair to characterize our early effort as a rape rather than a rebuild. Tell them, influence them, as you can. The scoundrels doing this must be evicted from positions of trust.
 
How naive to think this would not happen in any administration which held office.
 
corruption and incompetence happen; though GWB has practiced them with unparalleled brazenness and insouciance.

witness: "Brownie* you're doing a great job" (i quote from memory).

*Michael Brown, former head of FEMA and advisor to the Arabian Horse Association..
 
So this is new? Concidering the gangsters who started the Iraq mess this is pretty much par for the course.
 
Zeb_Carter said:
How naive to think this would not happen in any administration which held office.
Any empire building administration, yes. That includes Dems, too. Kerry was for the war 100%. He just imagined he'd have bungled it less badly.

No, we're digging that grave for our great grandkids full steam ahead, using both major parties.
 
cantdog said:
Any empire building administration, yes. That includes Dems, too. Kerry was for the war 100%. He just imagined he'd have bungled it less badly.

No, we're digging that grave for our great grandkids full steam ahead, using both major parties.
Agreed. Except, what is your definition of empire building?

Going out into the world to gain territory and resources?

Or

Taking control of your country and making the populace dependent on the government for everything they require?
 
Then you should vote for some other party, if either or both distress you. And speak, as I say, to others, in an attempt to move the sheep to stand up, or at least look up.
 
it is of course true that the 'empire' was a concern of democrats, as well. it was Kennedy and Johnson who got the US into Vietnam. sometimes it's conservatives [not neo's] who say, 'keep the soldiers out of others' messes abroad.

the US, of course, prefers 'soft' control of areas and countries through dominance of their resource exploitation and trade, not through garrisons of soldiers. native born, but pliant flunkies are preferred to American 'pro consuls' like Bremer. where there is any threat of 'disorder', military personnel of a country are simply put on the US payroll, and take over or dominate the government along the desired lines--continued 'favors', low taxes, etc. for US companies, suppression of dissent/terrorism.
 
cantdog said:
Then you should vote for some other party, if either or both distress you. And speak, as I say, to others, in an attempt to move the sheep to stand up, or at least look up.
Would being a member of the Libertarian Party work for you? Although, I do have some problems with their lack of a foriegn policy and they don't always have a candidate running in my district for a seat in either the House or the Senate, I am therefore, left with the lessor of the two evils as I see it.
 
never be a lessor of evils, zeb!


zeb said,
I am therefore, left with the lessor of the two evils as I see it.
 
Pure said:
never be a lessor of evils, zeb!


zeb said,
I am therefore, left with the lessor of the two evils as I see it.
You know what I meant (lesser), quit making fun of my typos. :p
 
Pure said:
THE EMERALD CITY
Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq
Early U.S. Missteps in the Green Zone


By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 17, 2006; Page A01
Adapted from "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, copyright Knopf 2006

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

This is nothing new - the article/argument is not new. My question is what do you think about your quoted article, Pure? THAT is interesting. :)
 
Last edited:
MAY make me angry? There is no MAY, J! I'm mad as hell! No fucking wonder the place is in a shambles after over 3 years of our rule. We have done the Iraqis no favors beyond the initial act of destroying Saddam's regime. All we've done is create what will probably be Iraq's Weimar Republic. That's not exactly a good track record. And perhaps that was generous. The Weimar Republic at least had a brief moment of relative peace and prosperity, not to mention a functioning government for a while and a few parties dedicated to principles of freedom (if somewhat incompetent in upholding them).
 
I suppose as an American you always

believe what you read in the newspaper! Since I'm not an American, I find I don't. Make me mad? Hmmm more like makes me laugh! Where are the black helicopters?
 
Back
Top