A Snapshot of Iraqi Life after the War - Post-9/11 Era

A Snapshot of Iraqi Life after the War

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: Marc Flemming

John Stewart joined children as they began the day at a primary school in a Baghdad suburb:


It's barely more than a concrete shell. Not because of damage from bombing or looting but because in this Shia Muslim area they've had no government investment for about 20 years.

As well as a shortage of basic teaching materials, there are more fundamental problems. The lack of a reliable power supply or clean water means sanitation is a real issue.

Sewage sometimes floods the playground.

And it's not just the schools with problems. Baghdad's universities started back this week after being closed for two months during the war.

Buildings were looted after the fall of the regime. They've lost much of the up-to-date laboratory equipment and computers that help contribute to their very good international reputation.

Lecturers say some of them haven't been paid since March. And less than half the students have come back.

Many of them, especially the women, are just too scared to travel alone because of daily reports of muggings and car-jackings. Those that have come back are trying to carry on as normally as possible.

But because exams were set by Saddam's ministry of education, no one's really sure what will happen this year.

-----

Barbara Plett visited one of Baghdad's central markets:

There is food here at the Sharjah market in the centre of Baghdad. There are stacks of dried goods like tinned tomatoes and canned meat.

Fruit, vegetables and fresh meat are also available in the country. The problem is post-war disorder. People aren't getting paid so they can't buy the goods.

There are fuel shortages so it is difficult to transport them. Also, it is impossible to keep them fresh.

Sixty per cent of Iraqis depend on the UN ration system for basics like flour, rice and oil.

They were given six months worth of supplies before the war, but the UN estimates most will run out as early as June because poor families have been selling their supplies to get other necessities.

The UN is bringing lots of food into the country but it is still trying to restore the distribution system which was disrupted by the war and it is trying to stop the looting at the warehouses.

---

Jennifer Glasse spent part of the day in the home of an Iraqi family in Baghdad:

Here in Baghdad, the water system is operating at about 50% of its pre-war capacity and electricity is about the same, according to the American reconstruction team.

But throughout Iraq, water and electricity services are sporadic. Much of the damage is not war-related.

Many power stations and water-treatment sites have been looted. Iraqi technicians say the main problem is security - that even when they get something fixed, looters often come and steal newly-installed equipment.

Living without regular power and water has disrupted the lives of almost all Iraqis.

Wealthier families can get electricity and water independently if they buy a generator or a water pump. For Salim Mohammed and his family, that's not an option. He says he just can't afford the $1,200 a generator costs.

Iraqis who can afford generators are having trouble - getting fuel is a problem here. Like water and electricity, fuel is in short supply.

----

David Bamford visited the Electric Lighting Fitting Company in central Baghdad:

The workers are busy organizing things, cleaning up ready to start work again.

But like many small companies in Iraq, it has suffered: first from the UN sanctions that limited what could and couldn't be imported, and more recently by the war.

The company's manager, Mustafa al-Wakil, told me the factory closed a few days before the war started.

He said the companies now have to operate through the American-led administration here in Baghdad, ORHA, and that's not always easy. They have been given the run around, they say.

So life is tough for independent companies wanting to get started again here in Baghdad after the war.

They're being prevented from doing so first by the lack of security and secondly by the bureaucracy linked to the American administration.

Source: BBC

Reply To this Message

Posted by: honorlaw

It took the US two years to stabilize Germany after WWII, and it took three years for the US to stabilize Japan after WWII. The British occupied Iraq for 30 years and had major problems throughout the period -- including several major Shiite uprisings. I submit that it will take the US at least a year to stabilize Baghdad, and two years more to stabilize the entire country. The infrastructure does not just need be rebuilt, in many cases it never exisited. There is a more disturbing problem: Arab culture and the work ethic. Progress will be slow, and lawless corruption will be rampant.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: nowar

quote:
The British occupied Iraq for 30 years and had major problems throughout the period


this will be the keypoint: how Iraqi will feel the 'coalition' presence in Iraq ?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ireland

quote:
Originally posted by honorlaw
The infrastructure does not just need be rebuilt, in many cases it never exisited. There is a more disturbing problem: Arab culture and the work ethic. Progress will be slow, and lawless corruption will be rampant. [/B]

This is very ignorant. First of all Iraq if you remember, was once a rich country. Also remember that amongst the infrastructure targeted and destroyed by the U.S in both Gulf wars were water and treatment facilities. Also in reference to power stations, approximately 20 power stations were destroyed by the allies in gulf war1. This violates article 54 of the geneva convention.
Secondly your assesment on Arab culture and the work ethic is both ignorant and racist. You seem to be suggesting that arabs are lazy and corrupt. This is simply untrue and undeserved.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: honorlaw

quote:
Originally posted by Ireland

This is very ignorant. First of all Iraq if you remember, was once a rich country. Also remember that amongst the infrastructure targeted and destroyed by the U.S in both Gulf wars were water and treatment facilities. Also in reference to power stations, approximately 20 power stations were destroyed by the allies in gulf war1. This violates article 54 of the geneva convention.
Secondly your assesment on Arab culture and the work ethic is both ignorant and racist. You seem to be suggesting that arabs are lazy and corrupt. This is simply untrue and undeserved.


Not ignorant at all, in fact, I am quite well educated and very experienced with the subject matter. My career for twenty years was with large international engineering firms building dams, power plants, and airports all over the world. I have lived and worked throughout the Middle East. I served as special representative to foreign governments. I am currently a regulatory advisor on comparative legal systems for Middle Eastern Affairs. I am Irish-American. My wife is from Syria, and she worked throughout the Middle East for US companies and British government and British companies for over twenty years. Her parents together as a two-person team designed and implemented the entire educational system from scratch for a Middle Eastern government. Our daughter was born in Syria, and was raised in UAE and US. We are Muslim. Wherefore, I submit that I am very qualified to assess the past and current infrastructure of Iraq, and to make general comments about cultural problems that will likely impede reconstruction progress. I am decidedly NOT a racist.

You are wrong about several points. Power generating facilities are acceptable military targets. You are correct that Iraq was once a beautiful "modern" country, but for a thousand years it has experienced large and varying regions of lawlessness with religious uprisings, faction wars, and outside agitators formenting political dissent.

As for the Arab cultural work ethic prevalent throughout the region, I was not saying Arabs are lazy; you, for some unknown reason, read that interpretation into my comment. I was speaking of regional cultural aversions against dirty hands -- it is acceptable to soil hands from your own field but not acceptable to soil hands in the field of another. Disparate regional economies and surrounding third world conditions have provided a ready labor pool for manual laborors, menial laborors, and servants. It is analogous to the US situation where we rely on migrants and immigrants to plant and harvest our fruits and vegetables for huge conglomerate agribusinesses. This is often carried to the extreme in the Middle East where it is very common for a poor family with a monthly income less than $400US to have a part-time houseboy, gardner, maid, nanny, and a cook! Furthermore, the maid oftentimes has a monthly income HIGHER than that of her individual employers!

In my own experience, it was difficult and oftentimes impossible to hire Arab workers (except Palestinians and Yemenis) for ANY job that required hands-on work regardless of the candidate's overal lack of education or qualification for supervisory or managerial positions. Many companies resort to bestowing managerial titles on common laborors, i.e., "second assistant to general manager," "supervisor's aide," etc. to satisfy local legal hiring quotas -- and employees oftentimes could not tell their families the kinds of work they actually performed.

In Iraq, the problem is even worse because some families (tribal affiliations) may not work with or be supervised by members of other families. Now add religious biases. Now add country biases. Now add social status biases. Now add past affiliations. Do you see the problem? It is a human resources nightmare!

My closest friend ran a commissary for a large construction site and several nearby oil fields with mancamps in Saudi Arabia. He was required to prepare 26 separate menus per day for 32,000 meals per day -- and serve those meals in different areas and at different times to provide adequate separation between worker groups. The menus had to satisfy both the palates and religious restrictions of the diverse international workforce.

Thus I stand by my previous comments. I hope my further explanation helps clarify my previously sucinct points.

Comments?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: honorlaw

I commented that infrastructure need not just be rebuilt; Iraq never had much needed infrastructure in some areas. And it is not just a problem of design and construct. The "tarit", the hard-pack sand crust covering the desert has been broken by trucks, tank, troops, bombs, etc., and it is the tarit that prevents sand storms and major shifting and drifting sand dunes. That will have to be repaired-- a monumental task. Disrupted tarit threatens the entire Iraqi eco-system and agricultural systems. Because of concerns over tarit, building new roads and repairing old roads will require special design considerations. The electrical power grid system in Iraq is not like the power grid here in the US -- minor problems tend to quickly rise to crisis levels. The equipment was largely french in origin, but design cast-offs and constructed from second-rate materials with third-rate labor. Construction standards were largely ignored under Saddam, so reconstruction must begin first by curing existing design and construction defects. Testing and inspecting will be a monumental task. The Euphrates and Tigress rivers are filthy with human waste, industrial waste, and military waste -- clean water systems and waste treatment systems must be constructed and they will be large, complicated, and expensive. Many areas of Baghdad are not served and never were, so distribution systems must be constructed -- through the myriad tunnels and other fortified obstacles built by Saddam.

At its peak Baghdad had elctricity to only 65% of its residents, and that power was continually interrupted several times each day. The wealthier residents have relied on personal generators; the poor went without electricity. Clean water supplies have always been dismal, and waste treatment was sorely lacking, especially in the Shiite ares of Baghdad. The US destroyed several waste treatment facilities during the '91 Gulf War, so the waste systems have been overloaded for more than a decade.

The problems are large, yes, but not insurrmountible. But it would be foolish to think the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq will take months instead of years. A first progress assessment might be made after one year, and substantial progress after three years -- provided we do not get distracted militarily elsewhere in the region.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ireland

quote:
Originally posted by honorlaw


Not ignorant at all, in fact, I am quite well educated and very experienced with the subject matter. My career for twenty years was with large international engineering firms building dams, power plants, and airports all over the world. I have lived and worked throughout the Middle East. I served as special representative to foreign governments. I am currently a regulatory advisor on comparative legal systems for Middle Eastern Affairs. I am Irish-American. My wife is from Syria, and she worked throughout the Middle East for US companies and British government and British companies for over twenty years. Her parents together as a two-person team designed and implemented the entire educational system from scratch for a Middle Eastern government. Our daughter was born in Syria, and was raised in UAE and US. We are Muslim. Wherefore, I submit that I am very qualified to assess the past and current infrastructure of Iraq, and to make general comments about cultural problems that will likely impede reconstruction progress. I am decidedly NOT a racist.

You are wrong about several points. Power generating facilities are acceptable military targets. You are correct that Iraq was once a beautiful "modern" country, but for a thousand years it has experienced large and varying regions of lawlessness with religious uprisings, faction wars, and outside agitators formenting political dissent.

As for the Arab cultural work ethic prevalent throughout the region, I was not saying Arabs are lazy; you, for some unknown reason, read that interpretation into my comment. I was speaking of regional cultural aversions against dirty hands -- it is acceptable to soil hands from your own field but not acceptable to soil hands in the field of another. Disparate regional economies and surrounding third world conditions have provided a ready labor pool for manual laborors, menial laborors, and servants. It is analogous to the US situation where we rely on migrants and immigrants to plant and harvest our fruits and vegetables for huge conglomerate agribusinesses. This is often carried to the extreme in the Middle East where it is very common for a poor family with a monthly income less than $400US to have a part-time houseboy, gardner, maid, nanny, and a cook! Furthermore, the maid oftentimes has a monthly income HIGHER than that of her individual employers!

In my own experience, it was difficult and oftentimes impossible to hire Arab workers (except Palestinians and Yemenis) for ANY job that required hands-on work regardless of the candidate's overal lack of education or qualification for supervisory or managerial positions. Many companies resort to bestowing managerial titles on common laborors, i.e., "second assistant to general manager," "supervisor's aide," etc. to satisfy local legal hiring quotas -- and employees oftentimes could not tell their families the kinds of work they actually performed.

In Iraq, the problem is even worse because some families (tribal affiliations) may not work with or be supervised by members of other families. Now add religious biases. Now add country biases. Now add social status biases. Now add past affiliations. Do you see the problem? It is a human resources nightmare!

My closest friend ran a commissary for a large construction site and several nearby oil fields with mancamps in Saudi Arabia. He was required to prepare 26 separate menus per day for 32,000 meals per day -- and serve those meals in different areas and at different times to provide adequate separation between worker groups. The menus had to satisfy both the palates and religious restrictions of the diverse international workforce.

Thus I stand by my previous comments. I hope my further explanation helps clarify my previously sucinct points.

Comments?

My statement to you was based on your previous comments you made which stated: "There is a more disturbing problem: Arab culture and the work ethic. Progress will be slow, and lawless corruption will be rampant." : My interpretation of your comments were that you felt Arab culture in general and the Arab work ethic (which I interpreted to mean an attitude towards work) would hinder the progress of rebuilding Iraq. If your intended message differs from my interpretation of it than I apologise, however it was not made clear enough in my opinion. Furthermore I was not suggesting you as an individual was ingnorant or uneducated for that matter, my comments about ignorance were directed to and based upon the above quoted statement which again I interpreted to be racist and ignorant in tone. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings.
On the issue at hand however I feel the focus is being shifted somewhat from the United States actions onto the Iraqi people and their work ethic, especially concerning the "reconstruction" efforts. We have to remind ourselves who is running this effort and who is set to gain financially and politically from it. Do you feel it is right for U.S corporations to benifit so much from the war? What about employment issues for Iraqis?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: honorlaw

quote:
Originally posted by Ireland

On the issue at hand however I feel the focus is being shifted somewhat from the United States actions onto the Iraqi people and their work ethic, especially concerning the "reconstruction" efforts. We have to remind ourselves who is running this effort and who is set to gain financially and politically from it. Do you feel it is right for U.S corporations to benifit so much from the war? What about employment issues for Iraqis?


I don't deny that the US will gain politically from the reconstruction of Iraq. Merely our presence in the region has daily politically beneficial and negative effects. The US can capitalize politically by delivering humanitarian aid and rebuilding a self-governing Iraq.

The hundreds of millions of dollars paid to US contractors and workmen is really an insignificant sum. Cost of structural steel alone for a US thirty story high-rise office building is likely to exceed $400 million. The general contract (prime contract) given to Bechtel (San Francisco) COULD go as high as $600 million.

Certainly Iraqis will be the main labor pool for rebuilding Iraq. And there is no shortage of competent Iraqi engineers, scientists, or skilled craftsmen. The reconstruction of most of Iraq's infrastructure will likely resemble a fasttrack design-build affair billed at time and material rates from proceeds of Iraqi oil sales. In short, Iraqi oil money will be used to pay Iraqis to rebuild Iraq -- the key to economic and social stability. But the US will manage the project and the money until such time as bureaucratic infrastructure has been well established. That will likely be some years from now.
Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Post-9/11 Era Forum: A Snapshot of Iraqi Life after the War

Forum Forum Forum