Guest Blog: Sentry

What should be done in Iraq? How could the reconstruction process be sped up??

It's easier than you think, and in some aspects from an economic perspective, it's necessary.

The first thing you have to do is to use Iraq as a bargaining chip to achieve your goals in the Middle East. What were those goals? Ahhh...now I remember:

Weren't those arguments based that a democratic Iraq would work towards democratization of the Greater Middle East?

Well, lofty idealisms aside, the REAL goal should be the introduction of the free market in this region. THAT should be the goal, because a nation that is actively trading with many other nations is far less likely to go to war with those nations.

Now, how do you do this?

It starts with the reconstruction funds, and how those contracts are currently being rewarded.

What SHOULD be done:

I would propose that all decisions based on further reconstruction and the provisions of contracts to be rewarded should be mandated to a special council that would make determinations on how to improve the effort in Iraq as a whole. It would be based upon the idea of a committee, with a chairperson possessing the ability to override decisions as set forth by the committee (overriden by 2/3 vote over a veto), with the position changing hands every year until such time as Iraq is a self-autonomous, fully developed nation. The following nations should be considered for chairs in this committee:

United States (holding the chair for the 1st year)
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Kuwait
United Arab Emirates
Egypt
Jordan
Oman
Bahrain
Lebanon
Syria*
Iran*

(*Asterisks would imply that a seat would be offered, but not accepted until such time as the nations in question comply with demands as set forth by the international community.)

The reconstruction council should be set in place for 10 years, and after that point Iraq would responsible for its own economic development and further investments towards its nation.

Now, you might ask "What difference would this make?" Well, it would make a LOT of difference. First, if a nation has an economic stake in an asset of Iraq, they are probably not going to be as keen to allow nujob jihadists to cross the border and incite violence. The arab press would have something "good" to report as more and more arab-owned companies and firms assumed contracts for the reconstruction. Furthermore, with these nations investing and developing Iraq, you create a place where it might be possible for these nations to form bilateral relationships towards other treaties and trades which would further stabilize the Middle East as a whole.

So, to push the point further...if the Saudis are developing the pipelines, if the Jordanians hold the water and sewer contracts, if the Emirates are holding other contracts, if Qatar has a telecommunications contract....then, you have greater cooperation in the region for a successful Iraq. From an economic perspective, the OPEC cartels (and other nations in the region) are currently accumulating large amounts of US dollars into their treasuries. The IMF has recommended that this money be invested, so WHY not argue for an investment into Iraq instead of seeing that money invested elsewhere, like China as an example, or into other currencies or commodities?

On top of that, many of the reconstruction contracts are held by a corporation that has consistently defrauded and overcharged the United States government and the American people. By rights this contract should be reviewed, and revoked with another alternative in place that WILL inevitably speed up the Iraqi reconstruction process, offer more stability in this nation, and push for something that will resemble success as opposed to "staying the course".