Navigate / search

Home > Blog > 2007 > January

>Wasted Billions/Equipping US Troops

>

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) just released its quarterly report and truth be told I could probably just copy and paste my earlier blog entry on the last SIGIR report in this space. Little to no progress has been made in reviving crucial sectors of Iraq such as water and electricity, and reconstruction projects continue to suffer from poor construction practices and in a new twist, unwarranted extravagances. In one case, contractors building a camp for American trainers constructed an Olympic-size swimming pool that hadn’t been ordered.

Once again at issue is a lack of effective oversight. The major contractors are passing on the contracts to Iraqi subcontractors without ever following up.

In its last report SIGIR revealed that 4% of the weapons that the United States had provided to Iraqi security forces could not be accounted for. This time around, SIGIR went a step further auditing the US’ ability to equip the soldiers presently stationed in Iraq. SIGIR found that many soldiers have gone without guns, ammunition and other supplies necessary for the soldiers to complete missions. Soldiers have also been found lacking proper body armor, armored vehicles and communication devices. This Washington Post article has more details on the challenges the Pentagon is having equipping US troops.

So because of a lack of proper oversight, billions have been wasted on shoddy reconstruction projects essentially depriving US soldiers of the equipment they count on to survive in Iraq. And this is not even taking into account the 21,000 extra troops that will soon be arriving in Iraq. How will we properly equip them, if we can’t even manage to satisfy the demands of the soldiers currently in Iraq? Add to this the fact that the Iraqi security forces these soldiers will be fighting alongside are similarly ill-equipped. Putting aside any notion you may have that we have already lost, this new strategy for Iraq has been cited by many as our last shot at achieving a preferred outcome in Iraq. So how is it that we can’t dedicate all our efforts to increasing its probability for success? Let us just hope that those on the ground in Iraq and on the Hill in DC are readying a Plan B.

>IOM Report on Iraqi IDPs

>I just got back from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) where I sat in on a presentation by the International Organization for Migration’s Iraq Displacement Specialist, Dana Graber, on the IOM’s just-released Iraq Displacement 2006 Year in Review. While I encourage all of you to read the report in full, here is a brief outline of what it includes.

The IOM has been working in Iraq since 2003, monitoring internally displaced persons (IDPs) and contributing to emergency aid programs like Mercy Hands, directed by Kaldhoon Ali, who was kind enough to sit down recently for an EPIC Ground Truth Project interview. As you know, the the level of sectarian violence in Iraq has grown rapidly since the February 2006 bombing of al-Askari shrine, and in turn, this rise in violence has caused a sharp spike in number of IDPs. While the Iraqis with greater wealth and resources manage to flee the country to safer places like Jordan or Syria, thereby achieving refugee status and protections under international law, IDPs lack the ability to do the same and consequently are much more vulnerable. Currently, there are 370,000 IDPs in Iraq. This number has been growing at an alarming rate, with a January average of 1,000 new IDPs every 24 hours.

According to Ms. Graber, the most violent areas, which are in the center of the country, are the source for over 70% of Iraq’s total IDPs for 2006. They are abandoning their homes not just because of direct threats on their lives–which take the form of everything from texts messages on mobile phones to threatening graffiti–but also because of general crime and military operations. The report contains detailed data sets that deal with the most prominent IDP issues: resettlement intentions, shelter options, property issues, food and fuel availability, health care accessibility, and the impact of displacement on women and children.

Ms. Graber concluded her sobering presentation with some information about the future of IOM funding. IOM and other organizations simply lack the funding to cope with the increasing scale of this crisis, she said. Through its humanitarian programs, IOM has assisted 30,000 families in Iraq since 2003, with 22,000 of those families receiving assistance since the February 2006 bombing of al-Askari shrine. Yet in the fifth year of this war, donor fatigue has taken a toll on funding levels. In 2006, IOM only received 25% of their requested funding. Ms. Graber shared that two organizations that work closely with IOM in providing humanitarian assistance have decided to shut down their operations in Iraq because of a lack of funds and the increasingly precarious security situation.

The State Department’s PRM and USAID-OFDA, which provided the funding for the IOM report (as did IOM member states the Netherlands and Australia) have been very interested in the report’s findings. Ms. Graber says that this information will be used by these and other organizations to lobby for continued, and hopefully increased, funding from Congress.

>Plan B- Containment

>Bush’s new strategy in Iraq, the centerpiece of which is a 20,000 odd surge in the number of troops in Iraq, may well be the US’ last chance to “win” Iraq. I’ve already outlined my reservations regarding the plan so I won’t repeat them here, but suffice it to say that without a winning economic strategy to complement any political and military strategies, the chance for success is considerably diminished. So what next? What is our plan B? It is not an option to simply ignore the problem, the stakes are too high; hundreds of thousands more Iraqis will die, millions more refugees will flood the region and the civil war itself could spill over Iraq’s borders creating a regional conflict of unimaginable proportions.

Yesterday, Ken Pollack and Dan Byman of the Brookings Institution released a paper [pdf] examining one such plan B: containment. The authors argue that should Bush’s new strategy fail, the US must do everything in its power to insulate Iraq’s neighbors from the effects of an all-out civil war towards which Iraq has been slowly slipping for several years. The report is quite long and introduces a number of recommendations including financial assistance to Iraq’s neighbors, stationing US troops at Iraq’s borders, and engaging the neighbors-including Iran- in a diplomatic dialogue. But if this plan B is to suceed, the US and international community must commit to it completely. Pollack and Byman cite case studies in which the commitment was not entirely there, noting the disastrous results.

Another plan B that you may have heard is to partition Iraq and create a loose federation of three states defined by their sectarian identity; Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish. I won’t dwell on this here as I plan on posting another entry that addresses this option featuring an excerpt from an interview I did with Rutgers professor Eric Davis, but let me just quickly say that this is a horrible idea that ignores, not reflects, the realities on the ground in Iraq.

>Iran in Iraq

>I’ve always believed that to mitigate the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, the US must engage its neighbors, especially Iran which has considerable influence over the predominantly Shia Iraq. The US excuse has been that Iran is unwilling to negotiate with the US, that the US has no “leverage” when it comes to Iran. And so we have been on the offensive: accusing the Iranian government of supplying weapons to the militias, seizing Iranian operatives within Iraq, authorizing our military to kill Iranian operatives inside Iraq and so on.

Meanwhile President Ahmadinejad has had this to say: ” Trying to weaken the Iraqi government is tantamount to “treason for the Iraqi people and Islamic nation.”

Whether he is being sincere or not is a up to debate. The point is that no matter what differences the US and Iran may have, both have an overwhelming desire to prevent Iraq from sliding into an all-out civil war. Today the New York Times reports that Iran is going to go ahead with its plans to help stabilize Iraq regardless of the US’ warnings not to “meddle.”

“The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called ‘the security fight.’ In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.”

These projects will certainly strengthen Iran’s influence in Iraq, and so it is in America’s best interest that it works together with Iran to temper this influence as best it can. In a related story, it was reported today that Iran recently received a letter from US officials that sought to ease the tension between the two countries. Hopefully this letter signifies a realization on the part of the US that whether we like it or not, Iran is going to be a factor in Iraq.

>Cutting Funds to the Militias and Insurgent Groups

>Key to President Bush’s new strategy for success in Iraq is the dismantling of militias and insurgent groups across the country. In today’s Christian Science Monitor, Keith Crane, senior economist at RAND, discusses where these groups obtain their funding and suggests a “five-point plan” to starve them of these funds. He explains that, “if successful, this effort could give Iraq’s government a fighting chance to curb the violence.”

Militias and insurgent groups are funded by four primary sources: the smuggling and resale of gasoline and fuel, kidnapping and extortion, other countries, and Iraq government payrolls. Regarding the fourth source of funding:

“…anti-American Shiite cleric and Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr controls the ministries of agriculture, health, and transportation. Mr. Sadr puts his militia members on the payrolls of these ministries in a broad range of jobs, including as members of the Facilities Protection Service (FPS).”

Given the fact that Maliki relies on the support of Moqtada al-Sadr to stay in power, it seems quite unlikely that he will cut funding to his militia. And yet lately Maliki has demonstrated that the Mahdi Army is not immune. Two weeks ago Iraqi security forces arrested 400 members of Al-Sadr’s militia and detained a top aide to al-Sadr. Many have suggested that the 400 arrested were likely renegades not dear to al-Sadr and that the top aide was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time (he was not the main target of the raid), but either way it is a sign of progress.

Sunni insurgent group, on the other hand, receive much of their funding from reselling smuggled gasoline and diesel to several countries including Turkey and Jordan. The U.S. could really make a dent in this source of funding if it began pressuring the Turkish and Jordanian governments to secure their borders.

The question of funding coming in from other countries is one that also must be addressed. Some Shiite groups are receiving money from Iran, and there continue to be contributions made from Sunnis around the world and Baathist exiles to Sunni insurgent groups. An article today in The Australian discusses the economic pressure Saudi Arabia is putting on Iran, and the effects it will have on Iran’s influence in funding Shiite militias. Along with UN sanctions on Iran and economic pressure being placed through the price of oil, the hope is that Tehran will no longer be able to fund Shiite militias in Iraq.

The current debate between Congress and the Bush Administration on the new strategic plan for Iraq should include dialog on steps the US can take to cut funding to militias. By doing this the US military, along with Iraqi military forces, will have a better chance in dismantling insurgent groups and preventing new ones from forming. If there is to be a sustainable peace in Iraq, the US should put pressure on the Iraqi government to take a stand against funding members of militias and having increased oversight over monies and what individuals or groups are benefiting from them. The steps that can be taken in reducing the influence of insurgent groups across Iraq, will also have the effect of creating greater accountability for the Iraqi government.

>PSA

>We will have two new writers contributing to this blog in the coming months: Shannon Anderson and Dominique Arvanitis. Both recently joined EPIC as interns and will begin posting regularly next week, though I see Shannon has already begun with a post on the Biden resolution.

Also, many of you have been sending comments on blog postings by e-mail. I certainly welcome the comments, but would ask if you might consider commenting directly on the relevant blog posting. This would surely help foster more discussion on the blog which can only have positive results.

>Biden Resolution

>Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to send Senator Biden’s resolution opposing President Bush’s proposed troop increase in Iraq to the Senate floor for debate. This comes one day after the President’s State of the Union Address, in which he requested that Congress give the planned troop increases in Anbar and Baghdad “a chance to work,” as part of his new strategy in Iraq.

Yet is seems that the President’s proposed change in strategy is already having an effect on the ground in Iraq. According to an article in the New York Times, both political groups and militias in Sadr city are looking to negotiate with the U.S. because they are, “eager to head off a major American military offensive in the district, home to two million Shiites, as the Americans begin a sweeping new effort to retake the streets of Baghdad.”

While the article goes on to point out certain demands of the Sadr militias and political parties that the U.S. will most likely not accommodate—like the releasing of certain prisoners and the cessation of raids in Sadr City—there are other demands that seem more likely be put into action by the U.S. These include providing jobs for Sadr City residents, bringing in new construction projects, and tripling the number of police stations in area.

Perhaps such measures are what the General Petraeus had in mind when, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, he called the situation in Iraq “dire,” but still noted that the troop increase will potentially pave the way for several courses of action that could bring about a change for the better. CNN.com gives a good summary of his testimony:

“It’s not just that there will be additional troops in Baghdad, it’s what they will do and how they will do it that is important,’ Petraeus said. ‘Some members of this committee have observed that there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq. They are correct.’ He said success would depend on Iraqi political and economic progress and the increased capacity of the Iraqi military.”

>Interview with President of Iraqi NGO

>Just a heads up, EPIC just published an interview with Khaldoon Ali, the president of Mercy Hands, an Iraqi NGO that works to assist the ever-increasing number of internally displaced people (IDP’s) in Iraq. A good read. Beyond covering the IDP crisis and the works Mr. Ali’s organization does to mitigate it, the interview also offers some insight into the challenges Iraqi NGO’s themselves face- from lack of funding to meddling national ministries. I found particularly interesting the fact that Khaldoon Ali refuses to accept funding from the US.

Here is that part of the interview:

epic: Have you received funding directly from the United States?

Khaldoon: We haven’t. As a demonstration of our neutrality, we are not willing to accept funding from parties involved in the conflict. It is also a matter of principle. In my experience, the U.S. has not been completely honest about its spending in Iraq.

I will give you a personal example. Not long ago, I was approached by an acquaintance who works with the U.S. to appropriate funds to Iraqi NGOs, and he offered to give me money. He said that his job is to give money to Iraqi NGOs and report back to Washington that it was spent to support democracy in Iraq’s “hot areas,” like Baghdad and Anbar province. He asserted to me that some NGOs were taking millions of U.S. dollars and simply sending fake “progress” reports back to the U.S.! When he reported these incidents of fraud, his supervisor said that as long as the money was being spent, he didn’t care. I was outraged.

Rather than receive direct assistance from the U.S., Mercy Hands only takes funds from multilateral agencies, like the UN, and some international NGOs. Though funding is sometimes scarce and difficult to come by, it is a more honest means, and it is a way to ensure that my organization does not fall into a trap that could hurt us more than help us in the end.

>Sadr Interview

>The Italian newspaper “La Repubblica” has an interview with none other than Muqtada al-Sadr. An excerpt:

Caprile: The fact remains that your people are about to be struck with an iron fist.

Al Sadr: “The operation has already started. Last night they already arrested over four hundred of my men. It is not us they want to destroy, but Islam – we are only an obstacle. For the time being, we shall not put up any resistance against them.”

The interview also touches on Sadr’s relationship with Maliki, and the controversy surrounding Saddam’s execution. Go here for the full interview translated into English.

>Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq?

>Constant in President Bush’s admonishments of Iran is the accusation that the country is supplying weapons to the the militias of Iraq. Earlier this year the Washington Post created quite a stir when they reported that several hundred British troops whose mission it is to intercept weapons coming into Iraq from Iran, had yet to find evidence of high-volume weapons supply operation.

“It’s a question of intelligence versus evidence,” Labouchere’s commander, Brig. James Everard of Britain’s 20th Armored Brigade, said last month at his base in the southern region’s capital, Basra. “One hears word of mouth, but one has to see it with one’s own eyes. These are serious consequences, aren’t they?”

The British have intercepted a small amount of weapons being smuggled into Iraq by the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq, but David Axe of World Politics Watch explains that this does not indicate that Iran is smuggling massive quantities of weapons into Iraq. I don’t want to go into it here, but Axe makes a very convincing argument.

Yesterday, the LA Times revived this issue in a very interesting investigative report.

“During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered. British officials have similarly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say they have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.”

As Peter Felstead, editor of Jane’s Defense Weekly, explains a lot of rather sophisticated weapons have actually been smuggled in by Syria, not Iran.

The Bush administration is not alone in its accusations that Iran is sending weapons into Iraq. In the interest of balance, I would like to point out a report published by the Jamestown Foundation and written by Mounir Elkhamri, a Middle East Military Analyst for the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth. In this report, Elkhamri provides compelling evidence that Iran is actively contributing to the civil war by arming militias.

I would argue that perhaps both sides have merit; Iranian weapons and other materials are being smuggled into Iraq, but the weapons are not being supplied to the militias currently engaged in the civil war. This would be consistent with reports that Iranian efforts are directed towards building an infrastructure in Iraq that could be activated in the event of a US attack on Iran, and that these weapons and capabilities are not being used in the current conflict.