A few highlights:

In Baghdad soon after the war, US officials confidently predicted that with a bit of effort production would reach 3.5 million barrels a day within 18 months, and five or six million barrels a day within few years….

As with other ministries, experienced staff have often been replaced by less qualified political appointees.

To quote from your link:
Says Wael Ziada, an analyst in Cairo who tracks Iraqna: “There will always be pockets of money and wealth, no matter how bad the situation gets.”…

… Yes, Iraq’s problems are daunting, to say the least. Unemployment runs between 30 and 50 percent. Many former state industries have all but ceased to function. As for all that money flowing in, much of it has gone to things that do little to advance the country’s future.

So is that article saying that Iraq’s economy is growing (4% or 17% depending on who you believe) because of the money from sales of oil rights? Also, the deal with the IMF does not bode well for the future of Iraq’s economy.

That article is putting a happy face on what seems, from the facts presented within it, to be a pretty dire situation. “Sure,” says Newsweek, “economic & political conditions are horrible, but if you sell your assets to outside investors, a lot of money will be made by a few.” They keep citing horrible conditions (lack of a banking system, political instability, ethnic strife, kidnappings and bombings, etc…), but then showing, that despite all this we can name two companies (Cell phone service & money transfers) that are making a lot of money. They offer no specifics or evidence to support the “trickle down” effect.

What am I missing in that article?

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business&articleid=260957
indicates otherwise, as do other sources. The US government sites, OTOH, indicate that current production is above 2003 levels.

There seems to be some disagreement over what the prewar production levels were. Claims range from 2.1 million to 2.6 million barrels per day - quite a range.

All of which is besides the point. I never mentioned oil production, I said “oil industry.” Production is one part of the oil industry. I would like to highlight the following:
Despite its attractive potential for development — only 17 of the 80 fields discovered in Iraq have been developed — a number of reasons have been behind Iraq’s slowness to turn around its post-war oil industry.

Political instability, violence, and the sabotage of oil industry pipelines and infrastructure have been main factors. The 2003 war itself did little damage to the infrastructure, but looting and sabotage in the aftermath accounted for 80% of the destruction.

You may notice that the problems with the industry are outside of the area of production. If you’re going to insist that I’m wrong, you should at least address the subject on which I have written, not the subject on which you wish I had written.

Also, if you would like to address the subject of how much power Iraqi’s have now, there is always this:
“Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies,” said a November report entitled “Crude Designs: the rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth” from the independent British-based social activist organisation Platform.

“But,” the reports continues, “with the active involvement of the US and British governments, a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long-term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny, or democratic control”.

Look, that’s the American Dream. Strangely, it doesn’t seem like the Iraqi dream.

Please, give me sites that show that Iraq’s infrastructure is better than it was pre-invasion, that security is as good, that the economy is doing well and that there is a viable, stable government in Iraq now. If I’m wrong, and you can show it, I will happily admit to my mistakes.

Blood and Money In what might be called the mother of all surprises, Iraq’s economy is growing strong, even booming in places.

Inconceivable!

First, as you know, I disagree with the decision to invade in the first place. I thought that the excuses were bullshit and that we were doomed to failure in the long run if we didn’t install our own strongman. But, more than that, I never for a moment thought we would prosecute the invasion and occupation so ineptly. The problem is that we have had no plan, that we went into it with no knowledge of the country or the culture. After 4 years of flailing around and achieving nothing (except the end of Saddam Hussein and making Iran stronger and more popular), there doesn’t seem to be a realistic plan to correct those errors (if that is even possible) and provide stability.

We haven’t been able to rebuild the infrastructure. In fact, the infrastructure is in worse shape than before the invasion. We haven’t been able to provide security. We haven’t been able to aid in the formation of a stable government. We haven’t been able to stabilize the economy. We haven’t even managed to get the oil industry back on it’s knees, never mind it’s feet.

So when you say, “At the end, people will be more secure, and will have more power,” I don’t see any evidence for that. It seems like a fairy tale that you’re telling yourself so that you can feel good about the invasion. Show me anything about Iraq (the country, the culture, the history) that gives any evidence that the people will be more secure and have more power “in the end” (will the end be within our lifetimes? within our children’s lifetimes?). If anything, Lebanon and Afghanistan, in neither of which are the people better off now than Iraqis were pre-invasion, provide more evidence of what Iraq will look like in 20 years than anything that you have said.

Also, the examples of people getting kidnapped and killed, etc., is not something that’s happening all over Iraq, but at certain points, and those points are being addressed via the decentralization of Coalition forces and the increasingly effective training and deployment of Iraqi forces. There are a great many areas in Iraq where people don’t have these problems AND they don’t have to worry about Saddam’s secret police anymore, either, but this is not generally publicized by the MSM. To paraphrase, “if it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead”.

Halfway through the Civil War, things didn’t look good for the Union, and there were a lot of people who wanted to sue for peace and accept partition of the U.S.

Jake, name me even ONE totalitarian regime in all of history, with the aspiration and capability to expand their rule beyond their borders, that stopped ON THEIR OWN, forwore tyranny, pulled back to their own borders, and established rights-respecting governance for their people without the “prodding” of the CREDIBLE threat of force being used against it.

Show me another way to stop them, instead of just denigrating a proven way to do so.

As for dominoes, the most famous application of that theory — the Vietnam conflict — at least drained the totalitarians to the point that they could no longer expand into places like Thailand, even after we left the theater. Therefore, the ability of confrontation to stop the dominoes from falling was at least partially validated.

All right Rich, you let me know when you start pushing for the removal of our good friend Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan by military force. Please also show me evidence that you have promoted the invasion of China and please lay out the reasons that you think an invasion of China wouldn’t be an unmitigated disaster.

When Nazarbayev tries to expand beyond his borders and/or sponsor terror, he deserves more of our attention. Until then, we have more urgent concerns to deal with … but he deserves to be watched even now, for totalitarian behavior within one’s own borders is, in the light of history, a rather reliable indicator of one’s proclivity to cause trouble outside them.

And, you apparaently lack the wisdom to understand that confrontation does not necessarily lead to invasion or war … in fact it can PREVENT all-out, indiscriminate war, but only if your adversary knows that you are READY to go to war, if necessary, to defend life and liberty.

Now, let me deal with some examples from history … and with China.

1> We were at a state of undeclared war with Eastern Europe for most of my lifetime … the Cold War. Two of my uncles lived on the bullseye in that war … their farms smack-dab in the middle of a Minuteman Missile Wing in western Missouri, complete with crews on 24-hour alert from their installation until the end of that war. If those missiles had ever been launched, my uncles would have had less than thirty minutes to bend over and kiss you-know-what goodbye.

How did that end? By President Reagan … over the strident, vitrolic objections of people who think like you, who called him a “cowboy” and said he would start a war … confronting the Soviet Union with the reality that they would find American technological and economic might leveraging our military might, and would be deployed to thwart any further expansionism on their part.

BTW, thanks to Mr. Reagan’s confrontation … and NO THANKS to those who opposed him, favoring instead the universal impotence of unilateral nuclear disarmament and/or perpetual MAD … those missiles are no longer present around my uncles’ farms. Reagan’s willingness to CONFRONT the Soviets did more to reduce nuclear-arms stockpiles than all the detente and Kumbiyah ever generated!

2> As of 10 Sept 2001 the state sponsors of radical-Islam-derived terror were Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Thanks to the confrontation of terrorist regimes by our current President, three of these states are no longer sponsoring terrorism today … but they could return to such sponsorship, if we do not stay and defend them until strong, sustainable rights-respecting governance is established within the two nations we had to invade to put an end to their previous sponsorship.

The other two states in the list above, from what I see, are playing the international community … and people like you … for fools. I do not see them making the substantial changes need to end their sponsorship of terrorism, until they also are confronted with the CREDIBLE threat of force.

Understand that there is a difference between authoritarian states like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where the rules are strict, but public … and totalitarian states like Iran and Saddam’s Iraq, where the threat of disappearing on the word of a snitch or from looking the wrong way at a powerful person was widespread. There is enough openness and contact with the rest of the world in the former, to rub off their harsh edges over time. We are already seeing that process begin in Kuwait and the Gulf States.

3> We already have been confronting Kim Jong (mentally) Il … otherwise, Jimmy Carter would have wrangled himself another Nobel Peace prize, printed on paper that glows-in-the-dark. Lil’ Kim has been coming around to the six-way of thinking, lately … partly because China holds his chain, partly because China, America, and the other parties in this six-way dance have confronted Kim.

As for China — we need to be ready to confront them, at least at a Cold War level … but the difference between them today, and the Soviets during the Cold War, is that China is already having its harsh edges rubbed off by its addiction to world trade. The Chinese, while Machivellian, are not meglomaniacal or fanatical … they have the capability to realize that it is in their best interest to adopt more and more elements of rights-respecting governance over time, which will reduce the threat they pose to America.

Like the Soviets, China is a rational adversary … as opposed to the terrorists of radical Islam, who we have seen again and again exhibit a willingness to kill millions of their own people — and even their children — to get at us.

That is not a sustainable course of action for them … but if we leave the battle now, they will be able to resume the sustainable course of action they were on in September 2001 … in relative peace to plan and plot …

… and we will wind up with the unmitigated disaster I described above.

Just like another unmitigated disaster, seventy years ago.

Learn from history, Jake … instead of regurgitating Leftist talking points and snapshot interpretation of the facts-on-the-ground.

While the Iraqis’ straits are quite dire right now — they at the very least, thanks to America, now have an opportunity to secure the blessings of liberty, and immunize themselves from being hijacked again for totalitarian adventurism — and the thugs no longer have Iraq as a safe haven from which to plan and plot in relative peace, but instead must constantly watch their own backs.

As long as Saddam & Sons held power, they had NO chance to secure those blessings and/or immunization … both they, and America, and global civilization, would have remained at risk in perpetuity.

A few dozen guys pulled off 911 with a budget of under $1M.

Common sense asks the question: why should our civilization trust anyone of like mind when it comes to respecting life and liberty — even if they are NOT affiliated with Al Quada, or radical Islam for that matter — with control of the resources and infrastructure of a relatively-advanced nation?

So some power has been pushed down from the highest level of the hierarchy. The bottom level remains powerless. The net result is an increase in the democratization of power.

As a general principle, is pushing power down a hierarchy a bad thing, or a good thing?

Does the fact that people are afraid to leave their homes and when they do are subject to becoming murder or kidnap victims or merely collateral damage from bombings and , thus, are now dying on their knees (to stay in your particular idiom) have any resonance for you? Also, that’s an easy thing for you, sitting in comfort in a place that is secure, to say. Time and time again, people have shown a preference for security over chaos, even at the cost of some (or a lot of) freedom. Witness the Patriot Act in the US.

Hussein’s death doesn’t put Iraqis, “on their feet,” in any way. People are no more free than they were before his execution. Granted, their repression is from smaller, possibly less well organized, groups than under Hussein’s regime. Nonetheless, your average Iraqi citizen - from all reports - has no more influence than they had before the invasion. Religious clerics and many tribal leaders, on the other hand, do have more influence.

Jake, does the saying “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees” have any resonance for you?

I’m pretty confident that Amp’s point was regarding good days for Iraq and the Iraqis, not the U.S.

I stand by that for Iraqis as well. Hussein’s death hasn’t improved life for the citizens of Iraq. Nor has their (greatly promoted & noticeably pressured by the US) election day improved their lives, as far as I can tell from here.

I’m much more in agreement with Dennis’ mention of the day Zarqawi was killed. There is no question in my mind that that represented an improvement for Iraq. As to British troops pulling out… I don’t think it means what you think it means, Dennis.

Rich Casebolt:
The ONLY way to assure that, is through the credible confrontation of today’s totalitarians, no matter how “insignificant” they look today …

All right Rich, you let me know when you start pushing for the removal of our good friend Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan by military force. Please also show me evidence that you have promoted the invasion of China and please lay out the reasons that you think an invasion of China wouldn’t be an unmitigated disaster.

We pull out, we sign the death warrants for hundreds of thousands…

Because that certainly hasn’t happened between March of 2003 and now.

I’m also fond of your promotion of the domino theory wrt Jihadis. I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you that the domino theory hasn’t been taken seriously for decades.

If you can also show me that you have any knowledge at all of both history and our current military capabilities, chances are I’ll take you a bit more seriously than I do right now.

Jake:

If you believe that the day Saddam Hussein was executed was a good day for the US, you’re sadly mistaken.

I’m pretty confident that Amp’s point was regarding good days for Iraq and the Iraqis, not the U.S.

Hussein was tried by a travesty of a court in a chaotic judicial system that doesn’t really deserve the title “judicial system.” Now the anti-US forces can point to that farce of a trial and claim that Hussein was railroaded with a good amount of credibility.

The trial had some difficulties but I don’t think it’s viewed as a farce. And God knows the anti-Iraqi forces did their best to derail it, what with killing the lawyers and all.

The video of the execution does nothing to help our cause, either. The rush to execute the evil bastard was a mistake.

The execution wasn’t up to proper standards by any measure. But the outrage over that was limited in both breadth and duration. The bottom line is that the vast majority figured he got what he deserved.

He should either have been tried in an international court

With all due respect, screw that. He was an Iraqi tried by Iraqis for crimes against Iraqis. I wouldn’t trust an “international court” with a burnt-out match, never mind an actual question of justice or law.

or tried in Iraq after there was a stable government with a well structured judicial system in existence.

That’s a better argument, worthy of consideration. But the present government had to balance the issues of flaws in the legal system against the threat that Saddam represented. As long as he was alive he remained a rallying point for the ex-Baathists and the idea that he might regain power in some fashion still hung over people. The perfect solution here didn’t exist.

Oh yes, the day they got to elect their own government was a huge success. Why, there’s hardly been a problem since then.

If you measure governments by the problems that exist during their tenure then few measure up, including ours. The idea was never that problems would magically dissapear once the Iraqis got to elect their own government; the idea was that the solution to those problems would become something that all Iraqis would have a say in; that they would become citizens rather than subjects. All of our problems didn’t dissapear when we elected our own Federal government; it took years before we ended up with our present Constitution, and President Washington had to dispatch Federal troops to put down armed rebellion. Then there’s the Civil War.