The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Pentagon Won't Ask Iraq to Cough Up $1 Billion to Help Fund US Forces in Iraq, GAO Says Iraq Has $11.8 Billion 2010 Surplus

    By NCD on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 12:26am |

    Rep. Levin (D-Mich) suggested we ask the government of Iraq to pay $1 billion of what is calculated to be $2 billion of training and equipment planned by the Pentagon for Iraq in the next fiscal year. A recent study by the GAO found that Iraq had $11.8 billion in the bank and was running a surplus. So with both Republicans and Democrats worried about OUR deficit, its a slam dunk we will ask Iraq to help out, right? No, Rep. Levin was overruled by the guys who brought you Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he received no support from the budget hawks of the GOP.

    Gen. Ray T. Odierno said 'Iraq will need all those billions later'! (Like the US doesn't need it?)  I suppose, to the Pentagon, Iraq's money is its own, but US taxpayer money isn't their money, it's the Pentagon's money to waste destroying countries, and then trying to patch them back together again. Anyway, as described below, there are other things Iraqi politicians can spend the Iraqi government's money on, like real estate in Dubai, or perhaps it can all just disappear into the same black hole tens of billions of US funds have vanished into, never to be seen again.

    Of course, Iraq could afford $1 billion for the remarkable and irreplaceable US training and protection our 50,000 remaining troops there provide to them.  In addition to the surplus mentioned above, the IMF found $40 billion in funds missing and unaccounted for in Iraq (talk about "systematically gaming the system"-hey! that's what Bush and McCain said about Saddam). Also, the IMF was also told by Iraq that the government had supposedly spent $16.9 billion on orphans and old age pensions, (if you believe that, I'll sell you....!) although people who work with children in Iraq, say otherwise:

    ...Maxwell Quqa, president of the Sponsor Iraqi Children Foundation. Iraq has more than a million young orphans, but only one of every 1,000 of them is afforded anything more than minimal food and shelter. Many don't go to school, Quqa told me. Hundreds live at city trash dumps.

    It looks like Congress will go along with the Pentagon, and not ask Iraq to put up one dime to support US troops, and the Pentagon certainly has no intention of ever leaving, or cutting its bills of empire being funded by the US taxpayer. Learn this, the Pentagon doesn't give a crap about the nation's deficit, the poverty rate, or how much their endless wars cost, in lives or dollars. But its all worth it in the end, right? We are all glad Saddam isn't running Iraq anymore, yeah...?

    Hundreds of members of Iraq's non-functioning and corrupt government ponder how to spend, or what to do with,  their $11,050 dollar a month salaries, with expenses & housing, 3 armored SUV's and 30 paid security guards per member. The Council of Elected Representatives has met for only 19 minutes since the last election, on March 7, 2010. In the meantime, electricity is still spotty at best, garbage is uncollected, bombs go off every week, terror stalks the streets, widows and orphans go hungry, and the Pentagon asks for more billions.

    Many of these 325 representatives of what George W. Bush called, The Newest Democracy in the World, spend their time in homes and hotels abroad. A just published NYT article did not say if many had purchased homes or villas in Dubai or other gulf states, with pilfered US funds. Hamid Karzai, his family and many Afghan government officials have done so in Dubai. Hey, you gotta plan ahead!  It gives them a place to go when the US pulls out. As far as Iraq goes, with all the billions of US taxpayer funds squandered and lost, it is likely there are many loose millions adrift that could have been used to buy a retirement property in a safer country where the electricity works and the place is not crawling with terrorists like Iraq and Afghanistan. Who would want to live in a hell hole like the US has created in those countries if the US will give you the money to depart when the time is right? Below, a VICTORY VILLA!

    Bought by US taxpayers for the corrupt leaders George W. Bush installed in Afghanistan!

    The home of Mahmoud Karzai. (Andrew Higgins/The Washington Post-( I assume this is in Dubai)

    Comments

    Pardon me for being so blunt, but I don't beieved we were asked to overthrow Saddam in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan. I believe part of the consideration in waging war would be to determine the cost of such adventures. So if the cost of waging war is becoming too much of a burden, then it's a telltale sign someone forgot to raise taxes to support the war effort. Besides, if I remember correctly, didn't Cheney say we would be greeted with flowers and candy. I don't remember anything being said about exchanging money or oil...just candy and flowers were all that the US expected.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 8:52am

    I remember talk of God, mushroom clouds, camel butts, permission slips and justice (but no mention of our funding Victory Villas in Dubai):

    "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive." -- George W. Bush, 9/13/01

    Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01

    "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01

    "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- George W. Bush, 10/07/02

    "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" -- George W. Bush, SOTU Speech, 1/28/03

    "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." -- George W. Bush, SOTU, 1/20/04


    by NCD on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 10:28am

    The last statement you posted by Bu$h..."America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."...sounds like he wasn't concerned about the cost of waging war. In fact, I read every one of the quotes as to imply cost was never a factor in the decision to go to war. So if my assumptions are correct, any cost rhetoric is small chump change when compared with the republican sense of defending the country at whatever cost. That Karzai from Afghanistan and others in Iraq have used their positions to make a comfy nest egg at US taxpayer expense should have been caught at the beginning of the Middle East farce. That is wasn't and allowed to florish indicates acceptance by the US government and Congress, who had oversight over the money flowing into both countries. So if there's anyone to blame, it all starts in the halls of Congress.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 12:54pm

    Of course, in the halls of Congress, the GOP 'just before the mid-term election political jujitsu' October, 2002 Use of Force Resolution, did fail on the Democratic side of the aisle in the House, by a fairly good margin.

    Ultimately, as Commander in Chief, it is the President who bears the responsibility for the decision to invade Iraq.  The blame falls first and foremost on the Republican President, George W. Bush. Also, almost all of the looted money occurred while Bush was in office, the US/CIA were flying planes with pallet loads of cash over there.


    by NCD on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 3:57pm

    The truth may hurt, but all the $$$ that has gone to Iraq and Afghanistan has found a home with the factions necessary to support the Bu$h/republican war effort against imaginary terrorists. There's ample evidence where US business interests made $$$ killings off government contracts supporting the war efforts. To do so required greasing palms to ease the effort. That exotic sand castle you enclosed in your blog is nothing more than chump change. None of the $$$ the US sent over there can be accounted for. In short, the US taxpayer got the least bang for every buck they paid in taxes...the bang ended up in the pockets of those who had set themselves up to collect all the free $$$ rolling off the presses without any accounting or auditing efforts to make sure we got exactly what we were paying for. Too bad Obama and the Democrats insisted on bipartisanship instead of raking republicans over the coals. It's gonna come back and haunt them in 2010 and 2012.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 4:34pm

    Was it Wolfowitz who flat out said that Iraq's oil industry would fund the country's rehabilitation?  Didn't quite work out that way.  I guess we need to impose a liberation tax and a self governance tax on them.  If they don't like it, they can always form tea parties.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 11:58am

    Wolfowitz was absolutely correct. Except, it was China that gained the benefit of rehabiliting Iraq when they got exclusive rights to their oil fields that Cheney was angling to get for Haliburton.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 12:57pm

    So Wolfowitz was right that Iraq has the wealth in resources to have paid for its own reconstruction and even for our costs of war.  What he didn't get, or didn't intend, was that a free Iraq would spend its money however its government wanted.


    That said... why have we allowed state run Chinese companies to get contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan?  On some level can't we say "no, we're competing with you, so you can't have contracts in countries that we're presently occupying."  Morality of our wars aside, it'll be really bad if 10 years from now we're not only still paying for them but face a China with resource access that we don't have.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 1:48pm

    "Morality of our wars aside, it'll be really bad if 10 years from now we're not only still paying for them but face a China with resource access that we don't have."

    No, it won't, destor. It will be poetic justice, delicious irony, and -- one would hope -- an object lesson. I have major problems with the notion that any country should be entitled to wage an illegal war on a country, then loot it to pay for its own conquest and occupation. I don't recall Wolfowitz's assertion being met with vigorous White House denials.

    The corruption of Iraq's current leaders is a serious issue, but it's an Iraqi one (they've reclaimed their sovereignty, remember?). U.S. whining about Iraq keeping the profits from its own resources, or doling them out in its own interests, is a bit arrogant.


    by acanuck on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 2:33pm

    Except that it's not going to teach the people who made the decisions anything.  The lesson will be learned by people trying to fill up their cars to drive to work.  Don't think I disagree with you, I don't.  But I'm amazed that we spent a decade acting like imperialists and didn't even get the imperial part right.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 3:01pm

    Don't feel too bad. Few countries get the imperial part right for very long.

    And it's not a total loss if ordinary citizens eventually learn something. I'm not sure they actually will. No evidence of that yet.


    by acanuck on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 3:06pm

    I like the idea of an Iraqi 'liberation tax'. Since the Iraqi Council of Representatives only meets 19 minutes in seven months, it might be hard to get it on the agenda, what with all the issues that they must cover, and being the The Newest Democracy and all, and having less than 20 minutes!


    by NCD on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 4:04pm

    As long as we have 50K troops there (in combat at least twice since combat 'ended') protecting the asses of the 19 minute wonders in the government, I wouldn't say its arrogant to ask for reimbursement for training and equipment that Iraq has requested.

    What was arrogant was invading their country, firing the whole government and the Army, and putting these guys 'in charge'  of what seems to have become a very dysfunctional and corrupt country.


    by NCD on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 4:11pm

    The only reason we're still there are the Kurds. Without a US point of presence, they'll be reduced to chopped liver in a heart-beat. Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and the Shi'te's running Iraq would like nothing more than to bring their Kurd problem to it's conclusion by their standards. Also, if we leave, Iran would have a open invitation to be a active participant in Iraqi affairs. Bu$h screwed the pooch when he took out Saddam...Iran thought he really did have a nuke or two and knew he wouldn't hesitate a split second over lobbing one in their direction. The whole Middle East problem went down the $hithole once Bu$h and the neocons thought they could control the area if they took out Saddam and put in a proxy of their choosing.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 4:52pm

    Agree. It is anyone's guess when the downward spiral in Iraq will hit bottom. It seems clear they need a 'nicer' strongman, the place seems unsuited for democracy at this point.


    by NCD on Mon, 09/27/2010 - 10:32pm