Thursday, September 29, 2005

Baghdad on the Bayou

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
AUSTIN, Texas -- The Big Whew blew over Texas, leaving
Port Arthur underwater and whole lot of stress across
the state. It is highly stressful to be in a car with
two adults, three children, the dog and the cat for a
12-to-20 hour trip from Houston to Austin, Dallas or
San Antonio. It is also stressful to have two adults,
three children, their dog and their cat move into your
1,200-square-foot house with you, especially if your
sister-in-law thinks anyone who criticizes George W.
Bush is a tool of Satan.
Stress-sensitive groups like Alcoholics Anonymous
were doing land-office business in Texas this weekend,
while bartenders served up the KatrinaRita. Austin, of
course, was also having a music festival and offering
free yoga and aromatherapy sessions to hurricane
refugees. Austin musicians have adopted New Orleans
musicians en masse: You're practically no one if you
haven't got a Neville in your guest room.
The refugees trade tales of heroism and generosity,
along with reports of the bad and the ugly. That's
human nature, but there's nothing forgivable about
organized government corruption.
I'm sorry, there are no exceptions: The first
commandment of governing is Thou Shalt Not Steal the
People's Money. Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980
on the mantra that he would rid the nation of Waste,
Fraud and Abuse. He proceeded to raise the national
deficit by $2 trillion with tax cuts and spending on
the military in the face of a collapsing Soviet Union.
This led to the peppy military procurement scandals of
the late '80s and early '90s -- the $435 hammer and
the $640 toilet seat.
When Newt Gingrich and Co. took power in 1994, they
promised many "reforms" and spent millions of dollars
on hearings and investigations -- the endless
prosecution of Henry Cisneros may actually be a
stronger case in point than the impeachment of Bill
Clinton. Despite these splendid efforts, they never
could find the Waste, Fraud and Abuse they claimed
were the hallmarks of government. But this Bush
administration has given us Waste, Fraud and Abuse
galore.
The waste of money in Iraq is already into the
billions, and the lack of accountability is fed by a
Republican Congress that refuses to seriously
investigate anything done by the Republican
administration. The sums being overtly wasted are
already staggering, and because there is no
accountability, we can expect that situation not only
to continue, but deteriorate.
With billions being allocated to clean up after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, you can already smell the
corruption -- fat contracts awarded without
competitive bidding. The New York Times reports, "More
than 80 percent of the $1.5 billion in contracts
signed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
alone were awarded without bidding or with limited
competition, government records show, provoking
concerns among auditors and government officials about
the potential for favoritism or abuse."
"Provoking concerns," eh? Good old Times, eternally
blah -- why doesn't it ever run a screaming headline
that says, "You're getting ripped off!" "They are
Stealing Your Money to Pay Off Their Political Pals!"
The trouble with journalism in this country is that
it's too damn polite.
Look, this is rank, nasty business -- corruption,
cronyism and competence (the lack thereof) are the
issues here. And as we have so recently and so
painfully been reminded, when government is run by
corrupt, incompetent cronies, real people pay a real
price. There is nothing abstract about swollen bodies
floating in flooded streets or dozens of old people
dead in nursing homes.
Frankly, it's just a mercy most of Houston didn't
drown in a giant traffic jam last week. Already, the
corporate vultures are moving in -- contracts are
arranged through people like Joe Allbaugh, the former
FEMA director who brought in his old buddy Michael
("Heckuva job, Brownie") Brown to run the agency.
This pattern is not just one rotten agency: The
arrest last week of David Safavian, the Bushie who
oversaw contracts for the Office of Management and
Budget, ties into a whole nest of cronyism. Safavian's
friend and former lobbying partner is Jack Abramoff,
who in turn is big buddies with Texas Rep. Tom DeLay.
The corporate clout in this administration is
mirrored everywhere, with the same pattern of crony
contracts. Allbaugh didn't just start getting
contracts for politically connected firms after
Katrina. He's been in Iraq, where he has a flourishing
lobbying business precisely to help corporations get
government contracts.
Already, Homeland Security is flooding what's left
of New Orleans with mercenaries from the same private
security contractors flourishing in Iraq. The Nation
reports companies like DynCorp, Intercon Security,
American Security Group, Blackwater, Wackenhut and an
Israeli company called Instinctive Shooting
International are all in New Orleans.
"Some, like Blackwater, are under federal contract.
Others have been hired by the wealthy elite, like F.
Patrick Quinn III, who brought in private security to
guard his $3 million private estate and his luxury
hotels, which are under consideration for a lucrative
federal contract to house FEMA workers."
Baghdad on the Bayou for real. (Molly Ivins)




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Baghdad on the Bayou

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005
AUSTIN, Texas -- The Big Whew blew over Texas, leaving
Port Arthur underwater and whole lot of stress across
the state. It is highly stressful to be in a car with
two adults, three children, the dog and the cat for a
12-to-20 hour trip from Houston to Austin, Dallas or
San Antonio. It is also stressful to have two adults,
three children, their dog and their cat move into your
1,200-square-foot house with you, especially if your
sister-in-law thinks anyone who criticizes George W.
Bush is a tool of Satan.
Stress-sensitive groups like Alcoholics Anonymous
were doing land-office business in Texas this weekend,
while bartenders served up the KatrinaRita. Austin, of
course, was also having a music festival and offering
free yoga and aromatherapy sessions to hurricane
refugees. Austin musicians have adopted New Orleans
musicians en masse: You're practically no one if you
haven't got a Neville in your guest room.
The refugees trade tales of heroism and generosity,
along with reports of the bad and the ugly. That's
human nature, but there's nothing forgivable about
organized government corruption.
I'm sorry, there are no exceptions: The first
commandment of governing is Thou Shalt Not Steal the
People's Money. Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980
on the mantra that he would rid the nation of Waste,
Fraud and Abuse. He proceeded to raise the national
deficit by $2 trillion with tax cuts and spending on
the military in the face of a collapsing Soviet Union.
This led to the peppy military procurement scandals of
the late '80s and early '90s -- the $435 hammer and
the $640 toilet seat.
When Newt Gingrich and Co. took power in 1994, they
promised many "reforms" and spent millions of dollars
on hearings and investigations -- the endless
prosecution of Henry Cisneros may actually be a
stronger case in point than the impeachment of Bill
Clinton. Despite these splendid efforts, they never
could find the Waste, Fraud and Abuse they claimed
were the hallmarks of government. But this Bush
administration has given us Waste, Fraud and Abuse
galore.
The waste of money in Iraq is already into the
billions, and the lack of accountability is fed by a
Republican Congress that refuses to seriously
investigate anything done by the Republican
administration. The sums being overtly wasted are
already staggering, and because there is no
accountability, we can expect that situation not only
to continue, but deteriorate.
With billions being allocated to clean up after
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, you can already smell the
corruption -- fat contracts awarded without
competitive bidding. The New York Times reports, "More
than 80 percent of the $1.5 billion in contracts
signed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
alone were awarded without bidding or with limited
competition, government records show, provoking
concerns among auditors and government officials about
the potential for favoritism or abuse."
"Provoking concerns," eh? Good old Times, eternally
blah -- why doesn't it ever run a screaming headline
that says, "You're getting ripped off!" "They are
Stealing Your Money to Pay Off Their Political Pals!"
The trouble with journalism in this country is that
it's too damn polite.
Look, this is rank, nasty business -- corruption,
cronyism and competence (the lack thereof) are the
issues here. And as we have so recently and so
painfully been reminded, when government is run by
corrupt, incompetent cronies, real people pay a real
price. There is nothing abstract about swollen bodies
floating in flooded streets or dozens of old people
dead in nursing homes.
Frankly, it's just a mercy most of Houston didn't
drown in a giant traffic jam last week. Already, the
corporate vultures are moving in -- contracts are
arranged through people like Joe Allbaugh, the former
FEMA director who brought in his old buddy Michael
("Heckuva job, Brownie") Brown to run the agency.
This pattern is not just one rotten agency: The
arrest last week of David Safavian, the Bushie who
oversaw contracts for the Office of Management and
Budget, ties into a whole nest of cronyism. Safavian's
friend and former lobbying partner is Jack Abramoff,
who in turn is big buddies with Texas Rep. Tom DeLay.
The corporate clout in this administration is
mirrored everywhere, with the same pattern of crony
contracts. Allbaugh didn't just start getting
contracts for politically connected firms after
Katrina. He's been in Iraq, where he has a flourishing
lobbying business precisely to help corporations get
government contracts.
Already, Homeland Security is flooding what's left
of New Orleans with mercenaries from the same private
security contractors flourishing in Iraq. The Nation
reports companies like DynCorp, Intercon Security,
American Security Group, Blackwater, Wackenhut and an
Israeli company called Instinctive Shooting
International are all in New Orleans.
"Some, like Blackwater, are under federal contract.
Others have been hired by the wealthy elite, like F.
Patrick Quinn III, who brought in private security to
guard his $3 million private estate and his luxury
hotels, which are under consideration for a lucrative
federal contract to house FEMA workers."
Baghdad on the Bayou for real. (Molly Ivins)




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

The Big Uneasy - New York Times

September 23, 2005
The Big Uneasy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Although Hurricane Katrina drowned much of New Orleans, the damage to America's economic infrastructure actually fell short of early predictions. Of course, Rita may make up for that.

But Katrina did more than physical damage; it was a blow to our self-image as a nation. Maybe people will quickly forget the horrible scenes from the Superdome, and the frustration of wondering why no help had arrived, once cable TV returns to nonstop coverage of missing white women. But my guess is that Katrina's shock to our sense of ourselves will persist for years.

America's current state of mind reminds me of the demoralized mood of late 1979, when a confluence of events - double-digit inflation, gas lines and the Iranian hostage crisis - led to a national crisis of confidence.

Start with economic confidence. The available measures say that consumer confidence, which was already declining before Katrina hit, has now fallen off a cliff. One well-respected survey, from the University of Michigan, says that consumer sentiment is at its lowest level since George Bush the elder was president and "America: What Went Wrong?" was a national best seller.

It's true that gasoline prices have receded from their post-Katrina peaks. But even if Rita spares the refineries, a full recovery of economic confidence seems unlikely. For one thing, it looks as if we're in for a long, cold winter: natural gas and fuel oil are still near their price peaks. And most families were already struggling even before Katrina. A few weeks ago, the Census Bureau reported that in 2004, while Washington and Wall Street were hailing a "Bush boom," poverty increased, and median family income failed to keep up with inflation. It's safe to assume that most families did even worse this year.

Then there's the war in Iraq, which is rapidly becoming impossible to spin positively: the purple fingers have come and gone, and there are no more corners to turn. As a result, views that people like Howard Dean were once derided for are becoming the majority opinion. Most Americans say the war was a mistake; a majority say the administration deliberately misled the country into war; almost 4 in 10 say Iraq will turn into another Vietnam.

And many people are outraged by the war's cost. The general public doesn't closely follow economists' arguments about the risks of budget deficits, or try to decide between competing budget projections. But people do know that there's a big deficit, that politicians keep calling for cuts in spending and that rebuilding after Katrina will cost a lot of money. They resent the idea that large sums are being spent in a faraway country, where we're waging a war whose purpose seems increasingly obscure.

Finally, fragmentary evidence - like a sharp drop in the fraction of Americans who approve of President Bush's performance in handling terrorism and the failure of large crowds to show up for the Pentagon's "America Supports You" march and country music concert - suggests that the confluence of Katrina and the fourth anniversary of 9/11 has caused something to snap in public perceptions about the "war on terror."

In the early months after 9/11, America's self-confidence actually seemed to have been bolstered by the attack: the Taliban were quickly overthrown, and President Bush looked like an effective leader. The positive perception of what happened after 9/11 has, needless to say, been a mainstay of Mr. Bush's political stature.

But now that more time has elapsed since 9/11 than the whole stretch from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day, people are losing faith. Osama, it turns out, could both run and hide. It's obvious from the evening news that Al Qaeda and violent Islamic extremism in general are flourishing.

And the hapless response to Katrina, which should have been easier to deal with than a terrorist attack, has shown that our leaders have done virtually nothing to make us safer.

And here's the important point: these blows to our national self-image are mutually reinforcing. The sense that we're caught in an unwinnable war reinforces the sense that the economy is getting worse, and vice versa. So we're having a crisis of confidence.

It's the kind of crisis that opens the door for dramatic political changes - possibly, but not necessarily, in a good direction. But who will provide leadership, now that Mr. Bush is damaged goods?


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | This is turning into the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans



Comment
This is turning into the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans
There is empty housing for the tens of thousands made homeless by Katrina - but the white elite have other plans

Naomi Klein
Saturday September 24, 2005
Guardian

Outside the 2,000-bed temporary shelter in Baton Rouge's River Centre, a Church of Scientology band is performing a version of Bill Withers's classic Use Me - a refreshingly honest choice. "If it feels this good getting used," the Scientology singer belts out, "just keep on using me until you use me up."
Ten-year-old Nyler, lying face down on a massage table, has pretty much the same attitude. She is not quite sure why the nice lady in the yellow Scientology volunteer minister T-shirt wants to rub her back, but "it feels so good", she tells me, so who really cares? I ask Nyler if this is her first massage. "Assist!" hisses the volunteer minister, correcting my Scientology lingo. Nyler shakes her head: no; since fleeing New Orleans after a tree fell on her house, she has visited this tent many times, becoming something of an assistoholic. "I have nerves," she explains in a blissed-out massage voice.

Wearing a donated pink T-shirt with an age-inappropriate slogan ("It's the hidden little Tiki spot where the island boys are hot, hot, hot"), Nyler tells me what she is nervous about. "I think New Orleans might not ever get fixed back." "Why not?" I ask. "Because the people who know how to fix broken houses are all gone."

I don't have the heart to tell Nyler that I suspect she is on to something; that many of the African-American workers from her neighbourhood may never be welcomed back to rebuild their city. An hour earlier I had interviewed New Orleans's top corporate lobbyist, Mark Drennen. As president and CEO of Greater New Orleans Inc, Drennen was in an expansive mood, pumped up by signs from Washington that the corporations he represents were about to receive a package of tax breaks, subsidies and relaxed regulations so generous that it would make the job of a lobbyist virtually obsolete.

Listening to Drennen enthuse about the opportunities opened up by the storm, I was struck by his reference to African-Americans in New Orleans as "the minority community". At 67% of the population, they are the clear majority; whites like Drennen make up 27%. It was, no doubt, a simple verbal slip, but I couldn't help feeling that it was also a glimpse into the desired demographics of the new and improved city being imagined by its white elite. "I honestly don't know, and I don't think anyone knows, how they are going to fit in," Drennen said of the city's unemployed.

New Orleans is already displaying signs of a demographic shift so dramatic that some evacuees describe it as ethnic cleansing. Before the mayor, Ray Nagin, called for a second evacuation, the people streaming back into dry areas were mostly white, while those with no homes to return to are overwhelmingly black. This, we are assured, is not a conspiracy; it is simple geography - a reflection of the fact that wealth in New Orleans buys altitude. That means that the driest areas are the whitest: the French Quarter is 90% white; the Garden District, 89%; Audubon, 86%; neighbouring Jefferson Parish, where people were also allowed to return, 65%.

Some dry areas, like Algiers, did have large low-income African-American populations, but in all the billions allocated for reconstruction there is no budget for transportation from the far-flung shelters where those residents ended up. So even when resettlement is permitted, many may not be able to return.

As for the hundreds of thousands of residents whose low-lying homes and housing projects were destroyed by the flood, Drennen says the city now has an opportunity for "21st-century thinking": rather than rebuild ghettoes, New Orleans should be resettled with "mixed income" housing, where rich and poor, black and white, live side by side.

What Drennen does not say is that this kind of urban integration could happen tomorrow, on a massive scale. Roughly 70,000 of New Orleans's poorest homeless evacuees could move back to the city, alongside returning white homeowners, without a single new structure being built. Take the Lower Garden District, where Drennen himself lives. It has a surprisingly high vacancy rate - 17%, according to the 2000 census. At that time 702 housing units stood vacant, and since the market has not improved and the district was barely flooded, they are presumably still vacant. It is much the same in the other dry areas, with landlords preferring to board up apartments rather than lower rents.

In areas that sustained only minor damage and are on the mayor's repopulation list, there are at least 11,600 empty apartments and houses. If Jefferson Parish is included, that number soars to 23,270. That means homes could be found for roughly 70,000 evacuees. With the city's permanently homeless residents estimated at 200,000, that is a significant dent in New Orleans's housing crisis.

Malcolm Suber, a longtime New Orleans community activist, was shocked to learn that thousands of livable homes were sitting empty. "If there are empty houses in the city," he says, "then working class and poor people should be able to live in them." According to Suber, taking over vacant units would do more than provide much-needed immediate shelter - it would move significant numbers of poor residents back into the city, preventing key decisions about its future from being made exclusively by those who can afford land on high ground.

But he concedes that it will be a fight: the old-line families in Audubon and the Garden District may pay lip service to "mixed income" housing, "but the Bourbons uptown would have a conniption ... It will certainly be interesting."

Equally interesting will be the response from the Bush administration, especially its ideological obsession with building a radically privatised "ownership society". It's an obsession that has already come to grip the entire disaster zone, with emergency relief provided by the Red Cross and Wal-Mart, and reconstruction contracts handed to Bechtel and Halliburton - the same group that has been paid billions while failing to bring Iraq's services up to prewar levels.

This vision was laid out in undisguised form during a meeting at the Heritage Foundation's Washington headquarters this month. There, a Republican group compiled a list of 32 "pro-free-market ideas for responding to Hurricane Katrina and high gas prices", including school vouchers and repealing environmental regulations. Among the proposals were: "Make the entire affected area a flat-tax free-enterprise zone." Nothing energises the neocon true believers like a good disaster.

Research assistance was provided by Aaron Maté; a version of this column was first published in The Nation

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Poverty in the USA

Published on Thursday, September 8, 2005 by the lndependent/UK
UN Hits Back at US in Report Saying Parts of America are as Poor as
Third World
by Paul Vallely


Parts of the United States are as poor as the Third World, according to a shocking United Nations report on global inequality.

Claims that the New Orleans floods have laid bare a growing racial and economic divide in the US have, until now, been rejected by the American political establishment as emotional rhetoric. But yesterday's UN report provides statistical proof that for many - well beyond those affected by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - the great American Dream is an ongoing nightmare.

The document constitutes a stinging attack on US policies at home and abroad in a fightback against moves by Washington to undermine next week's UN 60th anniversary conference which will be the biggest gathering of world leaders in history.

The annual Human Development Report normally concerns itself with the Third World, but the 2005 edition scrutinizes inequalities in health provision inside the US as part of a survey of how inequality worldwide is retarding the eradication of poverty.

It reveals that the infant mortality rate has been rising in the US for the past five years - and is now the same as Malaysia. America's black children are twice as likely as whites to die before their first birthday.

The report is bound to incense the Bush administration as it provides ammunition for critics who have claimed that the fiasco following Hurricane Katrina shows that Washington does not care about poor black Americans. But the 370-page document is critical of American policies towards poverty abroad as well as at home. And, in unusually outspoken language, it accuses the US of having "an overdeveloped military strategy and an under-developed strategy for human >> security".

"There is an urgent need to develop a collective security framework that goes beyond military responses to terrorism," it continues. " Poverty and social breakdown are core components of the global security threat."

The document, which was written by Kevin Watkins, the former head of research at Oxfam, will be seen as round two in the battle between the UN and the US, which regards the world body as an unnecessary constraint on its strategic interests and actions.

Last month John Bolton, the new US ambassador to the UN, submitted 750 amendments to the draft declaration for next week's summit to strengthen the UN and review progress towards its Millennium Development Goals to halve world poverty by 2015.

The report launched yesterday is a clear challenge to Washington. The Bush administration wants to replace multilateral solutions to international problems with a world order in which the US does as it likes on a bilateral basis.

"This is the UN coming out all guns firing," said one UN insider. "It means that, even if we have a lame duck secretary general after the Volcker report (on the oil-for-food scandal), the rest of the organization is not going to accept the US bilateralist agenda."

The clash on world poverty centers on the US policy of promoting growth and trade liberalization on the assumption that this will trickle down to the poor. But this will not stop children dying, the UN says. Growth alone will not reduce poverty so long as the poor are denied full access to health, education and other social provision. Among the world's poor, infant mortality is falling at less than half of the world average. To tackle that means tackling inequality - a message towards which John Bolton and his fellow US neocons are deeply hostile.

India and China, the UN says, have been very successful in wealth creation but have not enabled the poor to share in the process. A rapid decline in child mortality has therefore not materialized. Indeed, when it comes to reducing infant deaths, India has now been overtaken by Bangladesh, which is only growing a third as fast.

Poverty could be halved in just 17 years in Kenya if the poorest people were enabled to double the amount of economic growth they can achieve at present.

Inequality within countries is as stark as the gaps between
countries, the UN says. Poverty is not the only issue here. The death rate for girls in India is now 50 per cent higher than for boys. Gender bias means girls are not given the same food as boys and are not taken to clinics as often when they are ill. Fetal scanning has also reduced the number of girls born.

The only way to eradicate poverty, it says, is to target
inequalities. Unless that is done the Millennium Development Goals will never be met. And 41 million children will die unnecessarily over the next 10 years.

Decline in health care

Child mortality is on the rise in the United States

For half a century the US has seen a sustained decline in the number of children who die before their fifth birthday. But since 2000 this trend has been reversed.

Although the US leads the world in healthcare spending - per head of population it spends twice what other rich OECD nations spend on average, 13 per cent of its national income - this high level goes disproportionately on the care of white Americans. It has not been targeted to eradicate large disparities in infant death rates based on race, wealth and state of residence.

The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia.

High levels of spending on personal health care reflect America's cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. But the paradox at the heart of the US health system is that, because of inequalities in health financing, countries that spend substantially less than the US have, on average, a healthier population. A baby boy from one of the top 5 per cent richest families in America will live 25 per cent longer than a boy born in the bottom 5 per cent and the infant mortality rate in the US is the same as Malaysia, which has a quarter of America's income.

Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala.

The health of US citizens is influenced by differences in insurance, income, language and education. Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to give birth to a low birthweight baby. And their children are more likely to become ill.

Throughout the US black children are twice as likely to die before their first birthday.

Hispanic Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to have no health cover.

The US is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance system. Its mix of employer-based private insurance and public coverage does not reach all Americans. More than one in six people of working age lack insurance. One in three families living below the poverty line are uninsured. Just 13 per cent of white Americans are uninsured, compared with 21 per cent of blacks and 34 per cent of Hispanic Americans. Being born into an uninsured household increases the probability of death before the age of one by about 50 per cent.

More than a third of the uninsured say that they went without medical care last year because of cost.

Uninsured Americans are less likely to have regular outpatient care, so they are more likely to be admitted to hospital for avoidable health problems.

More than 40 per cent of the uninsured do not have a regular place to receive medical treatment. More than a third say that they or someone in their family went without needed medical care, including prescription drugs, in the past year because they lacked the money to pay.

If the gap in health care between black and white Americans was eliminated it would save nearly 85,000 lives a year. Technological improvements in medicine save about 20,000 lives a year.

Child poverty rates in the United States are now more than 20 per cent. Child poverty is a particularly sensitive indicator for income poverty in rich countries. It is defined as living in a family with an income below 50 per cent of the national average.

The US - with Mexico - has the dubious distinction of seeing its child poverty rates increase to more than 20 per cent. In the UK - which at the end of the 1990s had one of the highest child poverty rates in Europe - the rise in child poverty, by contrast, has been reversed through increases in tax credits and benefits.

Guardian | Right critique

Guardian | Right critique

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Ex-Iraqi defence minister wanted over $1bn fraud

Ex-Iraqi defence minister wanted over $1bn fraud

· Warrant issued after army left with old weapons
· Allawi regime blamed for lack of checks on ministry

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Tuesday September 20, 2005
The Guardian

Iraqi authorities are preparing an arrest warrant for the country's former defence minister in connection with a massive fraud case involving the "disappearance" of more than $1bn from ministry coffers.
Judge Raid al-Radhi, who is head of Iraq's commission on public integrity, said yesterday that he had given Iraq's central criminal court a dossier of evidence against Hazim Shaalan, who was minister of defence under the former government of Ayed Allawi.

"What Shaalan and his ministry were responsible for is possibly the largest robbery in the world. Our estimates begin at $1.3bn [£720m] and go up to $2.3bn," Judge Radhi, who is Iraq's senior anti-corruption official, told Reuters.

The "robbery" is believed to include the signing of multimillion-dollar deals with companies to supply equipment that was sometimes inappropriate for the new army or was years out of date. It is also alleged that the ministry paid huge premiums for some military hardware.

Judge Radhi said he expected the court to issue warrants over the next week to 10 days for Mr Shaalan and for other senior defence ministry officials. The judge said he had passed the file of evidence on the case to Iraqi authorities two months ago.

Mr Shaalan, who is understood to be living in Jordan, has denied complicity in the scandal, saying that his actions as defence minister were ultimately the responsibility of the US authorities in Iraq.

News of the warrant came after the Iraqi finance minister, Ali Allawi, claimed in an interview with the Independent newspaper that $1bn had been stolen from the defence ministry.

Mr Allawi said the rampant corruption and fraud at the defence ministry had left the new Iraqi army with second-rate weapons with which to confront the insurgency. "Huge amounts of money have disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal," Mr Allawi said.

Ayed Allawi's government was in power from the end of June 2004 until late February this year. The new Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has repeatedly complained about the legacy of administrative and financial corruption.

Judge Radhi said there was also evidence against the transport, trade, interior, public works and labour ministries, and that up to 50 officials could be brought to justice.

Allegations of corruption at the defence ministry have been swirling around Baghdad for some time, but the scale of the fraud has shocked many. A defence ministry source, who requested anonymity, told The Guardian yesterday that hundreds of millions of dollars had been wasted on unnecessary and overpriced equipment for Iraq's military.

"There appears to be no oversights and accountability in the procurement," he said. Investigators have been investigating weapons and equipment deals struck by the former procurement officer Ziad Cattan and other officials. The source said the most egregious case involved a $236m contract last December to equip the Iraqi army with helicopters and other material.

"The money was paid upfront to a Polish company before we'd even seen what we were buying. It was very fishy," he said. "The helicopters turned out to be years old and not up to the job we required them to do in Iraq." Another contract for US machine guns, at a cost of $3,500 each, bought Egyptian copies worth $200.

Judge Radhi said the ministry is alleged to have illegally signed contracts with intermediaries, rather than with foreign companies and governments, for the supply of defence equipment.

In other developments yesterday, the central Iraqi criminal court announced it had given a life sentence to a nephew of the former dictator Saddam Hussein, who was found guilty of funding the insurgency and bomb-making. Ayman Sabawi, the son of Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan, was arrested by Iraqi forces during a raid in May. His father, Al-Hassan, who served as a presidential adviser before the US-led invasion, was captured there two months earlier.

It was the first court decision against a family member of the former Iraqi ruler. The trial of Saddam is due to start on October 19.

Iraqi authorities had not announced that Sabawi's trial was under way but said he would face a second trial at the beginning of November for other, unspecified crimes to which he allegedly confessed during interrogation.

A government statement said the UN had indicated the Sabawi family stole "millions of dollars from the Iraqi people" under his uncle's rule.

Meanwhile, in the relatively calm southern city of Basra, journalist Fakher Haider was found shot dead yesterday morning after being abducted from his house by four masked men claiming to be intelligence officers. Mr Haider worked in Basra as a stringer for the New York Times and occasionally for The Guardian. He was the second journalist to be killed in Basra in recent months. The US journalist Steven Vincent and his Iraqi translator was kidnapped and shot by an unknown gang in early August.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

Bush's Waterlogged Halo - New York Times

Bush's Waterlogged Halo - New York Times

Katrina, the Mississippi River and the Risks of the Coming Harvest - New York Times

Katrina, the Mississippi River and the Risks of the Coming Harvest - New York Times

Sleight of Budgeting - New York Times

September 21, 2005
Sleight of Budgeting
The decision by Congressional leaders to delay action on their tax-and-spending bills was most welcome. The bills' broad outlines were drawn up pre-Katrina, and were objectionable even then: spending cuts totaling $35 billion over five years in programs for low- and moderate-income families, and $70 billion in new tax breaks, mostly for the most affluent families. Counting interest, the bills would increase the deficit by $40 billion over five years.

Post-Katrina, those plans would be scandalous, highlighting the skewed priorities that have put the country into a tight financial spot as it copes both with hurricane damage, and with the social and economic rifts that Katrina has exposed.

Unfortunately, it's increasingly unclear why Congress imposed the delay. (The deadlines were shifted into October and early November.) Initially, it appeared that lawmakers needed time to recast their priorities - away from budget cuts that would reduce the aid for hurricane victims and other needy Americans, and away from high-end tax cuts that would needlessly starve the Treasury at a time of mounting rebuilding costs.

Now, however, it appears that postponement may be only a tactical move to recast Katrina as the event that requires Congress to hack away at existing programs to pre-empt unacceptably large deficits from reconstruction spending. That's false.

Katrina cannot and should not be paid for by cutting government programs, unless the goal is to end up with a government that's even less effective than it was before Katrina. True, there's fat that Congress should trim. But even if members of Congress were willing to rescind the porkiest of the pork spending they approved in the highway bill passed last summer, doing that would raise about $24 billion.

That would be a nice offset for the estimated $200 billion price tag for Katrina, but hardly enough. Bigger cuts that have been suggested, like delaying the start of the Medicare drug coverage plan, are not workable, not to mention political nonstarters for President Bush and for Republican leaders.

What is needed most is more revenue, and that requires Congress to stop cutting taxes.

But Congress appears to be angling to proceed with business as usual while disguising what it is doing. If all goes according to plan, Congress will take up the spending-cut bill weeks before the tax-cut bill.

That would be the first time lawmakers had split such deficit-bloating legislation into two separate bills, raising the suspicion that they're trying to hide the fact that $35 billion in spending cuts, heartless and misguided as they are, would be used to help pay for the $70 billion in new tax breaks - not for deficit reduction and certainly not for Katrina.

The lawmakers' only responsible course of action is to give up on tax cuts, but they are balking. Wedded to tax cuts himself, President Bush cannot lead them where they need to go. It's up to the American people to push their representatives in the right direction.


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Disney on Parade - New York Times

September 17, 2005
Disney on Parade

By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

The president, as he fondly recalled the other day, used to get well lit in New Orleans. Not any more.

On Thursday night, Mr. Bush wanted to appear casually in charge as he waged his own Battle of New Orleans in Jackson Square. Instead, he looked as if he'd been dropped off by his folks in front of a eerie, blue-hued castle at Disney World. (Must be Sleeping Beauty's Castle, given the somnambulant pace of W.'s response to Katrina.)

All Andrew Jackson's horses, and all the Boy King's men could not put Humpty Dumpty together again. His gladiatorial walk across the darkened greensward, past a St. Louis Cathedral bathed in moon glow from White House klieg lights, just seemed to intensify the sense of an isolated, out-of-touch president clinging to hollow symbols as his disastrous disaster agency continues to flail.

In a ruined city - still largely without power, stinking with piles of garbage and still 40 percent submerged; where people are foraging in the miasma and muck for food, corpses and the sentimental detritus of their lives; and where unbearably sad stories continue to spill out about hordes of evacuees who lost their homes and patients who died in hospitals without either electricity or rescuers - isn't it rather tasteless, not to mention a waste of energy, to haul in White House generators just to give the president a burnished skin tone and a prettified background?

The slick White House TV production team was trying to salvage W.'s "High Noon" snap with some snazzy Hollywood-style lighting - the same Reaganesque stagecraft they had provided when W. made a prime-time television address from Ellis Island on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. On that occasion, Scott Sforza, a former ABC producer, and Bob DeServi, a former NBC cameraman and a lighting expert, rented three barges of giant Musco lights, the kind used for "Monday Night Football" and Rolling Stones concerts, floated them across New York Harbor and illuminated the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop for Mr. Bush.

Before the presidential address, Mr. DeServi was surveying his handiwork in Jackson Square, crowing to reporters about his cathedral: "Oh, it's heated up. It's going to print loud."

As Elisabeth Bumiller, the White House reporter for The Times, noted in a pool report, the image wizards had put up a large swath of military camouflage netting, held in place by bags of rocks and strung on poles, to hide the president from the deserted and desolate streets of the French Quarter ghost town.

The president is still looking for a tiny spot of unreality in New Orleans - and in Iraq, where a violent rampage has spiked the three-day death tally to over 200.

The Oedipal loop-de-loop of W. and Poppy grows ever loopier.

With Karl Rove's help, Junior designed his presidency as a reverse of his father's. W. would succeed by studying Dad's failures and doing the opposite. But in a bizarre twist of filial fate, the son has stumbled so badly in areas where he tried to one-up Dad that he has ended up giving Dad a leg up in the history books.

As Mark Twain said: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

Of course, it's taken Junior only five years to learn how smart his old man was.

His father made the "mistake" of not conquering and occupying Iraq because he had the silly idea that Iraqis would resent it. His father made the "mistake" of raising taxes, not cutting them, and overly obsessing about the federal deficit. And his father made the "mistake" of hewing to the center, making his base mad and losing his bid for re-election.

Bush père did make a real mistake in responding slowly to Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but that blunder has been dwarfed by what the slothful son hath wrought. Because of his fatal tardiness, W. now has to literally promise the moon to fix New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast, driving up the federal deficit and embarking on the biggest spending bonanza and government public works program since F.D.R.

In his address from the French Quarter, the president sounded like such a spendthrift bleeding heart that he is terrifying the right more than his father ever did.

Read my lips: By the time all this is over, people will be saying that Poppy was the true conservative in the family.

E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company


Friday, September 16, 2005

Not the New Deal - New York Times

Not the New Deal - New York Times

Mr. Bush in New Orleans - New York Times

September 16, 2005
Mr. Bush in New Orleans
President Bush said three things last night that desperately needed to be said. He forthrightly acknowledged his responsibility for the egregious mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He spoke clearly and candidly about race and poverty. And finally, he was clear about what would be needed to bring back the Gulf Coast and said the federal government would have to lead and pay for that effort.

Once again, as he did after 9/11, Mr. Bush has responded to disaster with disconcerting uncertainty, then risen to the occasion later. Once again, he has delivered a speech that will reassure many Americans that he understands the enormity of the event and the demands of leadership to come.

But there are plenty of reasons for concern. After 9/11, Mr. Bush responded not only with a stirring speech at the ruins of the World Trade Center and a principled response to the Taliban in Afghanistan. He also decided to invade Iraq, and he tried to do it on the cheap - with disastrous results, for which the country continues to pay every day.

This time, Mr. Bush must come up with a more coherent and well-organized follow-through.

Clearly chastened by the outcry over his slow response to the disaster and his administration's bumbling performance, Mr. Bush said last night that he was prepared to undertake "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen." If he is sincere about his commitment to New Orleans and the other damaged localities, and to the displaced residents, he may have a fight on his hands in persuading Congress to support such an ambitious and necessary effort. Obviously, any official with even a minimal sense of responsibility would understand that this work will have to begin with a promise to give up on any more of the Republican Party's cherished tax cuts.

The speech, as good as it was, marks only a moment of clarity. Mr. Bush's problem in dealing with Katrina has been, at bottom, the same one that has bedeviled the administration since 9/11. The president came to office with a deep antipathy toward big government that has turned out to be utterly inappropriate for the world he inherited. The result has not been less government, but it has definitely been inept government.

We have already seen what happened to the Federal Emergency Management Agency when it was taken over by an administration that didn't like large federal agencies with sweeping mandates. For Iraq, the White House asserted that open-ended and no-bid contracts doled out to big corporations run by people known to government officials would mean swifter, more efficient operations. What we got was gross inefficiency, which has run up costs while failing in many cases to do the jobs required.

Given this history, it's impossible not to worry about what will happen to the billions of dollars being committed to New Orleans, especially since the Army Corps of Engineers' top man in the reclamation effort was once the corps' top man overseeing contracts in Iraq.

The administration is staffed several levels deep with officials who share their leader's distrust of large, expensive federal undertakings. But it is now faced with an unprecedented task: housing hundreds of thousands of homeless people, making sure their children are educated over the short term and eventually getting them a start on a new life. There is no way to do that without a focused federal effort.

Last night, the president was particularly strong when discussing the nation's shocking lack of preparedness for disaster, and the stark fact - obvious to every television viewer around the globe - that the people left homeless and endangered by Katrina were in the main poor and black.

The entire nation, he said, saw the poverty that "has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America." Polls show that black Americans are far angrier and more skeptical than whites about the administration's actions since the storm. Mr. Bush's words could begin a much-needed healing process. But that will happen only if they are followed by deeds that are as principled, disciplined and ambitious as Mr. Bush's speech.


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Friday, September 09, 2005

Point Those Fingers - New York Times

September 9, 2005
Point Those Fingers

By PAUL KRUGMAN
To understand the history of the Bush administration's response to disaster, just follow the catchphrases.

First, look at 2001 Congressional testimony by Joseph Allbaugh, President Bush's first pick to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA, he said, would emphasize "Responsibility and Accountability" (capital letters and boldface in the original statement). He repeated the phrase several times.

What Mr. Allbaugh seems to have meant was that state and local government officials shouldn't count on FEMA to bail them out if they didn't prepare adequately for disasters. They should accept responsibility for protecting their constituents, and be held accountable if they don't.

But those were rules for the little people. Now that the Bush administration has botched its own response to disaster, we're not supposed to play the "blame game." Scott McClellan used that phrase 15 times over the course of just two White House press briefings.

It might make sense to hold off on the criticism if this were the first big disaster on Mr. Bush's watch, or if the chain of mistakes in handling Hurricane Katrina were out of character. But even with the most generous possible assessment, this is the administration's second big policy disaster, after Iraq. And the chain of mistakes was perfectly in character - there are striking parallels between the errors the administration made in Iraq and the errors it made last week.

In Iraq, the administration displayed a combination of paralysis and denial after the fall of Baghdad, as uncontrolled looting destroyed much of Iraq's infrastructure.

The same deer-in-the-headlights immobility prevailed as Katrina approached and struck the Gulf Coast. The storm gave plenty of warning. By the afternoon of Monday, Aug. 29, the flooding of New Orleans was well under way - city officials publicly confirmed a breach in the 17th Street Canal at 2 p.m. Yet on Tuesday federal officials were still playing down the problem, and large-scale federal aid didn't arrive until last Friday.

In Iraq the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran the country during the crucial first year after Saddam's fall - the period when an effective government might have forestalled the nascent insurgency - was staffed on the basis of ideological correctness and personal connections rather than qualifications. At one point Ari Fleischer's brother was in charge of private-sector development.

The administration followed the same principles in staffing FEMA. The agency had become a highly professional organization during the Clinton years, but under Mr. Bush it reverted to its former status as a "turkey farm," a source of patronage jobs.

As Bloomberg News puts it, the agency's "upper ranks are mostly staffed with people who share two traits: loyalty to President George W. Bush and little or no background in emergency management." By now everyone knows FEMA's current head went from overseeing horse shows to overseeing the nation's response to disaster, with no obvious qualifications other than the fact that he was Mr. Allbaugh's college roommate.

All that's missing from the Katrina story is an expensive reconstruction effort, with lucrative deals for politically connected companies, that fails to deliver essential services. But give it time - they're working on that, too.

Why did the administration make the same mistakes twice? Because it paid no political price the first time.

Can the administration escape accountability again? Some of the tactics it has used to obscure its failure in Iraq won't be available this time. The reality of the catastrophe was right there on our TV's, although FEMA is now trying to prevent the media from showing pictures of the dead. And people who ask hard questions can't be accused of undermining the troops.

But the other factors that allowed the administration to evade responsibility for the mess in Iraq are still in place. The media will be tempted to revert to he-said-she-said stories rather than damning factual accounts. The effort to shift blame to state and local officials is under way. Smear campaigns against critics will start soon, if they haven't already. And raw political power will be used to block any independent investigation.

Will this be enough to let the administration get away with another failure? Let's hope not: if the administration isn't held accountable for what just happened, it will keep repeating its mistakes. Michael Brown and Michael Chertoff will receive presidential medals, and the next disaster will be even worse.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

TorontoSun.com - Eric Margolis - U.S. the new Saddam

Sun, September 4, 2005

U.S. the new Saddam

By ERIC MARGOLIS

The most important news from Iraq last week was not the much ballyhooed constitutional pact by Shias and Kurds, nor the tragic stampede deaths of nearly 1,000 pilgrims in Baghdad.

The U.S. Air Force's senior officer, Gen. John Jumper, stated U.S. warplanes would remain in Iraq to fight resistance forces and protect the American-installed regime "more or less indefinitely." Jumper's bombshell went largely unnoticed due to Hurricane Katrina.

Gen. Jumper let the cat out of the bag. While President George Bush hints at eventual troop withdrawals, the Pentagon is busy building four major, permanent air bases in Iraq that will require heavy infantry protection.

Jumper's revelation confirms what this column has long said: The Pentagon plans to copy Imperial Britain's method of ruling oil-rich Iraq. In the 1920s, the British cobbled together Iraq from three disparate Ottoman provinces to control newly-found oil fields in Kurdistan and along the Iranian border.

London installed a puppet king and built an army of sepoy (native) troops to keep order and put down minor uprisings. Government minister Winston Churchill authorized use of poisonous mustard gas against Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq and Pushtuns in Afghanistan (today's Taliban). The RAF crushed all revolts.

It seems this is what Jumper has in mind. Mobile U.S. ground intervention forces will remain at the four major "Fort Apache" bases guarding Iraq's major oil fields. These bases will be "ceded" to the U.S. by a compliant Iraqi regime. The U.S. Air Force will police the Pax Americana with its precision-guided munitions and armed drones.

The USAF has developed an extremely effective new technique of wide area control. Small numbers of strike aircraft are kept in the air around the clock. When U.S. ground forces come under attack or foes are sighted, these aircraft deliver precision-guided bombs. This tactic has led Iraqi resistance fighters to favour roadside bombs over ambushes against U.S. convoys.

The USAF uses the same combat air patrol tactic in Afghanistan, with even more success. The U.S. is also developing three major air bases in Pakistan, and others across Central Asia, to support its plans to dominate the region's oil and gas reserves.

While the USAF is settling into West Asia, the mess in Iraq continues to worsen. Last week's so-called "constitutional deal" was the long-predicted, U.S.-crafted pact between Shias and Kurds, essentially giving them Iraq's oil and virtual independence. The proposed constitution assures American big business access to Iraq's oil riches and markets.

The furious but powerless Sunnis were left in the lurch. Sunnis will at least have the chance to vote on it in a Oct. 15 referendum, but many fear it will be rigged.

The U.S. reportedly offered the 15 Sunni delegates $5 million each to vote for the constitution -- but was turned down. No mention was made that a U.S.-guided constitution for Iraq would violate the Geneva Conventions.

Chinese Taoists say you become what you hate. In a zesty irony, the U.S. now finds itself in a similar position as demonized Saddam Hussein. Saddam had to use his Sunni-dominated army to hold Iraq together by fighting Kurdish and Shia rebels. His brutal police jailed tens of thousands and routinely used torture.

Today, Iraq's new ruler, the U.S., is battling Sunni insurgents, ("al-Qaida terrorists," in the latest Pentagon doublespeak), rebuilding Saddam's dreaded secret police, holding 15,000 prisoners and torturing captives, as the Abu Ghraib outrage showed.

Much of the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama National Guard were in Iraq last week week instead of at home. Meanwhile, the Kurds are de facto independent, the Shia are playing footsie with Iran, and large parts of Iraq resemble the storm-ravaged U.S. Gulf Coast -- or vice versa.


Copyright © 2005, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved.
Proprietor and Publisher - Sun Media (Toronto) Corporation, 333 King St. E., Toronto, ON, M5A 3X5

Monday, September 05, 2005

A Failure of Leadership - New York Times

A Failure of Leadership - New York Times

United States of Shame - New York Times

United States of Shame - New York Times

Killed by Contempt - New York Times

Killed by Contempt
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 5, 2005
Each day since Katrina brings more evidence of the lethal ineptitude of federal officials. I'm not letting state and local officials off the hook, but federal officials had access to resources that could have made all the difference, but were never mobilized.

Here's one of many examples: The Chicago Tribune reports that the U.S.S. Bataan, equipped with six operating rooms, hundreds of hospital beds and the ability to produce 100,000 gallons of fresh water a day, has been sitting off the Gulf Coast since last Monday - without patients.

Experts say that the first 72 hours after a natural disaster are the crucial window during which prompt action can save many lives. Yet action after Katrina was anything but prompt. Newsweek reports that a "strange paralysis" set in among Bush administration officials, who debated lines of authority while thousands died.

What caused that paralysis? President Bush certainly failed his test. After 9/11, all the country really needed from him was a speech. This time it needed action - and he didn't deliver.

But the federal government's lethal ineptitude wasn't just a consequence of Mr. Bush's personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good. For 25 years the right has been denigrating the public sector, telling us that government is always the problem, not the solution. Why should we be surprised that when we needed a government solution, it wasn't forthcoming?

Does anyone remember the fight over federalizing airport security? Even after 9/11, the administration and conservative members of Congress tried to keep airport security in the hands of private companies. They were more worried about adding federal employees than about closing a deadly hole in national security.

Of course, the attempt to keep airport security private wasn't just about philosophy; it was also an attempt to protect private interests. But that's not really a contradiction. Ideological cynicism about government easily morphs into a readiness to treat government spending as a way to reward your friends. After all, if you don't believe government can do any good, why not?

Which brings us to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In my last column, I asked whether the Bush administration had destroyed FEMA's effectiveness. Now we know the answer.

Several recent news analyses on FEMA's sorry state have attributed the agency's decline to its inclusion in the Department of Homeland Security, whose prime concern is terrorism, not natural disasters. But that supposed change in focus misses a crucial part of the story.

For one thing, the undermining of FEMA began as soon as President Bush took office. Instead of choosing a professional with expertise in responses to disaster to head the agency, Mr. Bush appointed Joseph Allbaugh, a close political confidant. Mr. Allbaugh quickly began trying to scale back some of FEMA's preparedness programs.

You might have expected the administration to reconsider its hostility to emergency preparedness after 9/11 - after all, emergency management is as important in the aftermath of a terrorist attack as it is following a natural disaster. As many people have noticed, the failed response to Katrina shows that we are less ready to cope with a terrorist attack today than we were four years ago.

But the downgrading of FEMA continued, with the appointment of Michael Brown as Mr. Allbaugh's successor.

Mr. Brown had no obvious qualifications, other than having been Mr. Allbaugh's college roommate. But Mr. Brown was made deputy director of FEMA; The Boston Herald reports that he was forced out of his previous job, overseeing horse shows. And when Mr. Allbaugh left, Mr. Brown became the agency's director. The raw cronyism of that appointment showed the contempt the administration felt for the agency; one can only imagine the effects on staff morale.

That contempt, as I've said, reflects a general hostility to the role of government as a force for good. And Americans living along the Gulf Coast have now reaped the consequences of that hostility.

The administration has always tried to treat 9/11 purely as a lesson about good versus evil. But disasters must be coped with, even if they aren't caused by evildoers. Now we have another deadly lesson in why we need an effective government, and why dedicated public servants deserve our respect. Will we listen?

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

TomDispatch - Tomgram: Iraq in America

a project of the
Nation Institute compiled and edited
by Tom Engelhardt


Tomgram: Iraq in America

At the Front of Nowhere at All

The Perfect Storm and the Feral City
By Tom Engelhardt
The headline was: "Direct hit in New Orleans could mean a modern Atlantis," and the first paragraph of the story read: "More than 1.2 million people in metropolitan New Orleans were warned to get out Tuesday as [the] 140-mph hurricane churned toward the Gulf Coast, threatening to submerge this below-sea-level city in what could be the most disastrous storm to hit in nearly 40 years." That was USA Today and the only catch was -- the piece had been written on September 14, 2004 as Hurricane Ivan seemed to be barreling toward New Orleans.

I commented at the time: "When ‘Ivan the Terrible' threatened New Orleans, correspondents there had a field day discussing whether the city might literally disappear beneath the waves -- this was referred to as the ‘Atlantis scenario.'" I was then trying to point out that we might indeed be entering a new, globally warmed world of Xtreme weather and no connections whatsoever were being made in the media. At the time, global warming, if discussed at all, was a captive of the far north (melting glaciers, unnerved Inuit, robins making miraculous appearances in Alaska), and "Atlantis scenarios" were the property of distant islands like the atolls that make up the tiny South Pacific nation of Tuvalu, threatened with abandonment due to rising ocean waters and ever fiercer, ever less seasonal storms And yet just short of a year ago, not only was it well known that New Orleans' levees weren't fit for a class 5 hurricane or that the Bush administration was slashing the budget of the Army Corps of Engineers, but the "Atlantis scenario" was already somewhere on the collective mind. Now, it has been upon us for almost a week.

Much of New Orleans has become the Atlantis from hell, a toxic sludge pool of a looted former city, filled with dead bodies, burning in places, threatened with diseases like cholera and typhus that haven't visited the Big Easy since early in the last century, and with thousands upon thousands of the black poor and a few of the stranded better-to-do like doctors, nurses, and a few local officials left for days on end with next to no way out. It is, in short, the feral city that thirty years of science fiction films (and post-apocalyptic novels) have delivered to the American public as entertainment as well as prophesy. (Think, Escape from New York).

Now, try this passage: "The evacuation of New Orleans in the face of [the] hurricane... looked sinisterly like Strom Thurmond's version of the Rapture. Affluent white people fled the Big Easy in their SUVs, while the old and car-less -- mainly Black -- were left behind in their below-sea-level shotgun shacks and aging tenements to face the watery wrath." Admittedly a vivid description, but certainly commonplace enough at the moment -- except that it, too, was written back in September 2004 by Mike Davis, also for Tomdispatch, and prophetically labeled, "Poor, Black, and Left Behind." It, too, concerned not Katrina's but Ivan's approach to New Orleans. So there we are. It was possible to know then the fundaments of just about everything that's happened now -- and not just from Tomdispatch either.

In the last week, we've seen many of the black poor of New Orleans not only left behind in a new Atlantis, but thousands upon thousands of them -- those who didn't die in their wheelchairs, or on highway overpasses, or in the ill-fated convention center, or unattended and forgotten in their homes -- sent off on what looked very much like a new trail of tears. Right now, above all, New Orleans and the Mississippi coast, as so many reporters have observed with shock, are simply the Bangladesh of North America (after a disastrous set of monsoons), or a Kinshasa (without the resources). Soon, if Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has anything to do with it, the city may simply be consigned to the slagheap of history or a lot of it, as he so delicately put it to a suburban weekly in Illinois (where a few farmers who need the crucial deep water port of New Orleans to send their upcoming crops onto the global market may take umbrage), perhaps "bulldozed." Someday, Katrina may be seen as the "perfect storm," the harbinger of a future for which we remain far more adamantly, obdurately unwilling to prepare than even the Bush administration was for this localized "Atlantis scenario."

Iraq in America: Parallels and Connections

New Orleans is not the only toxic sludge pool in sight. Let's not forget the toxic sludge pool of Bush administration policy which came so clearly into view as Katrina ripped the scrim off our society, revealing an Iraqi-style reality here at home. Unlike conquered and occupied Iraq, the strip-mining of this country in recent years has taken place largely out of sight. While Baghdad was turned into some kind of dead zone of insecurity, lack of electricity, lack of gas, lack of jobs, lack of just about everything a human being in a modern city has come to expect, American cities -- until last week -- stood seemingly untouched in what was still proudly called "the world's last superpower." But just out of sight, the coring, gutting, and dismantling of the civilian governmental support system of the United States, that famed "safety net," was well underway. Bush administration proponents and conservative ideologues had long talked about "starving the beast"; but, until Katrina hit, it remained for many Americans at best a kind of political figure of speech.

Now we know for real. The beast has been starved; or rather, the beasts have been fed and the much-maligned part of the state that protected its citizens with something other than guns has been starved. What Katrina's course through Mississippi and Louisiana revealed was the real meaning of starvation. It seems we no longer have the capacity for a full-scale civilian response to a major disaster. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security and led by an incompetent who had been fired from his previous job as head of the International Arabian Horse Association, has had "its ties to state emergency programs… weakened, and… has reduced spending on disaster preparation." In the same way, we now know that the Army Corps of Engineers was financially reined in on crucial levee work in New Orleans. Much of this sort of thing was done under the guise of preparing for, or fighting, or funding the war on terror at home and abroad. Many pundits, for instance, have remarked on the obvious fact -- which had previously worried the governors of many states -- that significant chunks of the National Guard and, just as important for disaster relief, its heavy equipment are to be found in Iraq, not here to be called upon in an emergency. (And when the avian flu, or the next health disaster, suddenly hits our country, consider it a guarantee -- the media will again be filled with the same sort of shock about the civilian response to the crisis, because our public health system has also been gutted and de-funded under the guise of the war on terrorism.)

Over the last years, just about everything of a helping nature that is governmental, other than the military, has begun to be starved or stripped by the looters of this administration -- set loose in Washington rather than Baghdad or New Orleans. If you want a signal of this, we should all be wincing every time the President gets up, as he did the other day in the presence of his father and Bill Clinton, and shakes the tin cup, urging "the private sector" and generous citizens to fill in -- an impossibility -- for what his administration won't pony up.

The Bush people undoubtedly thought that they would be able to slip out of town in 2008 without paying the price. But when Katrina roared onto the vulnerable coasts of Mississippi and Louisiana, it swept all of the Bush administration's devastating policies -- environmental, fiscal, energy, and military, as well as its plans for the unraveling of the civilian infrastructure -- into a perfect storm of policy catastrophe that, ironically, may threaten the administration itself. By the time motorists in non-disaster states return from a Labor Day with $3-4 a gallon (or more) gas (and possibly long lines) to an ongoing catastrophe which will take months, if not our lifetime, to fully unfold, it's possible that the levees of the President's base of support -- that 40% which still approved of his administration in the latest Gallup Poll, conducted the week before Katrina hit -- will have been breached for the first time.

Think of our last two years in Iraq, which has left the world's most powerful military running on baling wire and duct tape, as a kind of coming attractions for Katrina. In fact, so many bizarre connections or parallels are suggested by the Bush administration's war in Iraq as to stagger the imagination. Here are just six of the parallels that immediately came to my mind:

1. Revelations of unexpected superpower helplessness: A single catastrophic war against a modest-sized, not particularly dramatically armed minority insurgency in one oil land has brought the planet's mightiest military to a complete, grinding, disastrous halt and sent its wheels flying off in all directions. A single not-exactly-unexpected hurricane leveling a major American city and the coastlines of two states, has brought the emergency infrastructure of the world's mightiest power to a complete, grinding, disastrous halt and sent its wheels flying off in all directions.

2. Planning ignored: It's now notorious that the State Department did copious planning for a post-invasion, occupied Iraq, all of which was ignored by the Pentagon and Bush administration neocons when the country was taken. In New Orleans, it's already practically notorious that endless planning, disaster war-gaming, and the like were done for how to deal with a future "Atlantis scenario," none of which was attended to as Katrina bore down on the southeastern coast.

3. Lack of Boots on the ground: It's no less notorious that, from the moment before the invasion of Iraq when General Eric Shinseki told a congressional committee that "several hundred thousand troops" would minimally be needed to successfully occupy Iraq and was more or less laughed out of Washington, Donald Rumsfeld's new, lean, mean military has desperately lacked boots on the ground (hence those Louisiana and Mississippi National Guards off in Iraq). Significant numbers of National Guard only made it to New Orleans on the fifth and sixth days after Katrina struck and regular military boots-on-the-ground have been few and far between. No Pentagon help was pre-positioned for Katrina and, typically enough, the Navy hospital ship Comfort, scheduled to help, had not left Baltimore harbor by Friday morning for its many day voyage to the Gulf.

4. Looting: The inability (or unwillingness) to deploy occupying American troops to stem a wave of looting that left the complete administrative, security, and even cultural infrastructure of Baghdad destroyed is now nearly legendary, as is Donald Rumsfeld's response to the looting at the time. ("Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here." To which he added, on the issue of the wholesale looting of Baghdad, "Stuff happens.") In New Orleans, the President never declared martial law while, for days, gangs of armed looters along with desperate individuals abandoned and in need of food and supplies of all kinds, roamed the city uncontested as buildings began to burn.

What, facing this crisis, did the Bush administration actually do? The two early, symbolic actions it took were typical. Neither would have a significant effect on the immediate situation at hand, but both forwarded long-term administration agendas that had little to do with Katrina or the crisis in the southeastern United States: First, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it was relaxing pollution standards on gasoline blends in order to counteract the energy crisis Katrina had immediately put on the table. This was, of course, but a small further step in the gutting of general environmental, clean air and pollution laws that strike hard at another kind of safety net -- the one protecting our planet. And second, its officials began to organize a major operation out of Northcom, Joint Task Force Katrina, to act as the military's on-scene command in "support" of an enfeebled FEMA. The U.S. Northern Command was set up by the Bush administration in 2002 and ever since has been prepared to take on ever larger, previously civilian tasks on our home continent. (As the Northcom site quotes the President as saying, "There is an overriding and urgent mission here in America today, and that's to protect our homeland. We have been called into action, and we've got to act.")

There were to be swift boats in the Gulf and Green Berets at the New Orleans airport, and yet Donald Rumsfeld's new, stripped-down, high-tech military either couldn't (or wouldn't) deploy any faster to New Orleans than it did to Baghdad, perhaps because it had already been so badly torn up and stressed out in Iraq (and had left most of its local "first responders" there).

5. Nation-building: As practically nobody remembers, George Bush in his first run for the presidency humbly eschewed the very idea of "nation-building" abroad. That was only until he sent the Pentagon blasting into Iraq. Over two years and endless billions of dollars later -- the Iraq War now being, on a monthly basis, more expensive than Vietnam -- the evidence of the administration's nation-building success in its "reconstruction" of Iraq is at hand for all to see. That country is now a catastrophe beyond imagining without repair in sight. (For Baghdad, think New Orleans without water, but with a full-scale insurgency.) So as the Pentagon ramps up in its ponderous manner to launch a campaign in the United States and as the Marines finally land in the streets of New Orleans, don't hold your breath about either the Pentagon's or the administration's nation-building skills in the U.S. (But count on "reconstruction" contracts going to Halliburton.) If Rumsfeld's Pentagon -- where so much of our money has gone in recent years -- turns out to be even a significant factor in the "reconstruction" of New Orleans, we'll never have that city back.

6. Predictions: Given the last two years in which the President as well as top administration officials have regularly insisted that we had reached the turning point, or turned that corner, or hit the necessary tipping point in Iraq, that success or progress or even victory was endlessly at hand (and then at hand again and then again), consider what we should think of the President's repeated statements of Katrina "confidence," his insistence that his administration can deal successfully with the hurricane's aftereffects and is capable of overseeing the successful rebuilding of New Orleans. ("All Americans can be certain our nation has the character, the resources, and the resolve to overcome this disaster. We will comfort and care for the victims. We will restore the towns and neighborhoods that have been lost in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. We'll rebuild the great city of New Orleans. And we'll once again show the world that the worst adversities bring out the best in America.")

Feral Continent?

As an aside, one great difference between the American public's experience of the Iraqi War and of the aftermath of Katrina shouldn't be overlooked. This time, our reporters weren't embedded with the troops, and so weren't experiencing mainly the administration's artificially-created version of reality. Instead, they made it to the distressed areas of the southeastern U.S. way ahead of the troops, remained in their absence, saw unreconstructed, unspun reality for themselves, and were generally outraged. So, for instance, when Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff made ridiculous claims about what the government had accomplished, reporters were able to say, emphatically, that his version was a lie and other Americans knew it was so, because they had seen it for themselves.

And don't even get me started on comparisons to Bush administration behavior from the moment, also in Crawford in August 2001, that the President and his advisors ignored the infamous CIA daily intelligence briefing on Osama bin Laden ("Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."), delivered at a length and with a simplicity that even George Bush should have been able to absorb. Speaking of déjà vu all over again, his recent behavior re: Katrina echoed strangely his 9/11 behavior. After all, on 9/11, he first sat paralyzed in a classroom in Florida, then boarded Air Force One and headed not for Washington but (gulp…) for Louisiana. It was an act of panic if not cowardice that was quickly covered over when he finally did make it to Washington and later New York City, talking tough and launching his war against Evil.

When Katrina hit, he sat in Crawford; then (perhaps -- to have a thoroughly unkind thought -- continuing his flight from Cindy Sheehan), he boarded his plane and headed in the wrong direction, for San Diego where he stood against the backdrop of an aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan (don't these people ever learn?), and pretended it was actually World War II and we were occupying Japan. By this time, every excuse for his war in Iraq having peeled away (the al-Qaeda connection, the wmds, even "freedom"), he finally arrived at a new explanation for why we were there. It was... oil -- or to be more exact, an oil fantasy. ("If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition.")

Maybe he should send David Kay, who headed his fruitless weapons-of-mass-destruction search team, back to Iraq to look for oil, since it's been in short supply there, and now is about to be here. Only then did our President get on a jet heading in the right direction -- towards Louisiana, where he had the pilot swoop down to 1,700 feet (as if that were something daring) for a close look -- on his way to Washington. Nobody in the administration, it seems, thought to put boot to the soil of Mississippi or Louisiana in the first crucial days of this crisis. (If you want the details -- Vice-President Cheney remained on vacation in Wyoming and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in New York buying shoes by the scads while offers of aid poured in from such disparate countries as Australia, Israel, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela -- check out Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times blast, United States of Shame.) The one constant of this President and his administration is that their most essential impulse is never to head for the frontlines themselves -- not in war, not in disaster, not for our safety or our planet's safety, not even on the campaign trail. They are invariably at the front of nowhere at all, and more than happy to be there. The old "chickenhawk" label has a deeper meaning than we ever realized.

In the meantime, what we know from Katrina is that, in George Bush's new America, we are no longer capable, as a civilian society, of rescuing ourselves. Even the more civilian part of our military is gone. The Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard, after all, are mainly in Iraq, feeling, I'm sure, mighty helpless right now, while chaos reigns in their home cities. Thank you, George. Mission Accomplished!

Before the Iraq War, it was already evident that the State Department -- the foreign policy equivalent of a civilian effort -- was atrophying. (Administration officials were, after all, starving that beast too.) "Diplomacy," such as it was, was being conducted with other nations ever more regularly by our military proconsuls like our Centcom commander in the Middle East on a military-to-military basis. A grim wag suggested to me recently that the only way New Orleans would have gotten some quick action was if the administration had renamed Katrina "Osama," claimed it left behind weapons of mass destruction (as it may, in fact, have), and then invaded the city.

When an administration which has long believed that the resort to force should be the initial impulse behind any policy finally acts, force is unsurprisingly all it knows. If what we've observed in the last week is the response of the Bush administration to an essentially predictable civilian catastrophe, then imagine how prepared it is, after these four years of "homeland security," for an unpredictable one. Or what about, for instance, just another massive hurricane in this age of Xtreme weather? After all, though you can't find a word in the papers about it at the moment, we are only halfway through the fiercest, longest hurricane season in memory. We should be scared. Very scared.

In the end, this country remains in a powerful state of denial on two major matters which help explain why the elevation of George Bush and his cronies was no mistake. We are now a highly militarized society in all sorts of ways that any of us could see, but that is seldom recognized or discussed (except when the threat of base closings sends specific communities into a panic). Unrecognized and unconsidered, the militarized nature of our society is likely in the future to prove both dangerous and highly destructive. Right now, we are a weakened superpower wired for force and force alone -- and if Iraq has shown us one thing, it's that, when it comes to solving human problems of any sort, military force is highly overrated.

And of course, we are as a society in denial over the toxic sludge pool where climate change (or global warming) meets Middle Eastern energy dependence. On this, our future rests. If someone doesn't get to the frontlines of planetary security soon, we may be living not just with one feral city, but on a feral continent, part of a feral world.

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War.

[Note: Thanks, as ever, to the indefatigable Nick Turse for research aid. Make sure you go back and read the prophetic Mike Davis 2004 piece about New Orleans, "Poor, Black, and Left Behind." It will take your breath away. On Tuesday, environmental writer Bill McKibben will continue Tomdispatch's discussion of our post-Katrina world.]

Copyright 2005 Tom Engelhardt

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
posted September 4, 2005 at 12:49 am




Tomdispatch.com is researched, written and edited by Tom Engelhardt (bio), a fellow at the Nation Institute, for anyone in despair over post-September 11th US mainstream media coverage of our world and ourselves. The service is intended to introduce you to voices from elsewhere (even when the elsewhere is here) who might offer a clearer sense of how this imperial globe of ours actually works.

An editor in publishing for the last 25 years, Tom is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War era. He is at present consulting editor for Metropolitan Books, a fellow of the Nation Institute, and a teaching fellow at the journalism school of the University of California, Berkeley.

Write to Tom Engelhardt.









Sunday, September 04, 2005

A Balanced Life, by Ralph Nader

Subject: by Ralph Nader, 'A Balanced Life'

Published on Saturday, September 3, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
'A Balanced Life'
by Ralph Nader

For over two years I have been saying that the Mayor of Baghdad, George W. Bush, should be paying attention to America, including its massively unmet public works needs. But the President, who scheduled five weeks in Crawford, Texas, to assure "a balanced life," is now finding his political status unbalanced and hanging by fewer and fewer threads.

The unfolding megadisasters in New Orleans, Mississippi and Alabama have torn the propaganda curtain away from this arrogant President and is showing the American people just what results for their daily livelihoods from an administration obsessed with the fabricated Iraq war and marinated with Big Oil.

"No one can say they didn't see it coming. Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation," writes the conservative New Orleans daily newspaper-The Times-Picayune. Nearly one dozen articles in 2004 and 2005 came out of this constantly warning local newspaper, citing the Iraq war budget as a training diversion for the lack of hurricane and flood-control dollars, according to Will Bunch of Philadelphia Daily News.

A hurricane like Katrina was forecast for the Gulf lowlands and New Orleans more than any predicated natural disaster in American history. No hindsight is involved. This is Bush country and he paid no attention to the warnings, official and unofficial, except to cut the Army Corps of Engineers budget for the New Orleans area by $71 million this past year, except to weaken FEMA and steer it and the Department of Homeland Security to a dangerous tilt toward terrorist risks and away from the officially predicted onset of a prolonged period of ferocious hurricanes now and in the next twenty years.

Will this no-fault ruler in the White House ever be held responsible for the consequences of his inattentions, his negligence and his boorish refusal to listen to anyone other than his cronies and patrons? Mr. Perfecto can't even admit to any mistakes, although many, many innocents have paid for them on both the American and Iraqi sides. Let's look at one area of escape from responsibility-the large and ever merging oil giants whose network has provided Bush with 41 high administration officials. Reaping profits beyond their dreams of avarice, the ExxonMobils virtually won the Bush regime, wrote his energy legislation full of subsidies and more tax breaks for this pampered breed, and hover over the Congress showering their campaign money over their keystone legislators.

Gasoline was averaging $1.36 per gallon on January 3, 2000, and is now racing towards $4 a gallon, having soared over $3 per gallon in many localities this week. Oil analysts are not reporting any shortages of supply worldwide, until the rigs and refineries were hurricaned last week in the Gulf of Mexico region raised such specters. OPEC has been pumping oil at record levels. There has been no sudden spike in demand. But OPEC is no longer the only price-fixer factor in the price of oil. Oil futures in the New York Mercantile Exchange is now where the financial action resides. Oil has now become a speculative commodity big time. So when you hear about the barrel of oil's price going up, think of the Mercantile Exchange. How does the Bush Government dampen such speculation? One way is to raise margin levels to make borrowing by the speculating traders more difficult. Nothing heard from Bush or the SEC on this point.

If the price of wheat suddenly doubled, why would the loaves of bread in your supermarkets suddenly be marked up or the loaves on their way in transit? The price hike for wheat would not have reached them. Then why does the price of oil and gasoline spike up when these supplies were already purchased at previously lower prices?

A concise answer to this question came from an unlikely source during the state of Hawaii's antitrust suit settled in 2002. Maxwell Blecher, attorney for defendant Tosco Corp. (now Phillips Petroleum) declared in court "High gas prices in Hawaii are the result of a lack of competitive market forces, not collusion. Once you decide it's an oligopoly, you've got an explanation for the phenomenon of the high prices, the high margins, the high profits, the lack of vigorous price competition. That explains it all." A compelling report by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (www.consumerwatchdog.org) described the ever growing joint ownership of production, refining and distribution facilities including pipelines, by the large oil companies that people believe are competing with one another. The Bush and Clinton Administrations' antitrust cops did nothing to stop this merged, joint venture mockery of classical competitive systems.

Nor did Clinton and Bush do anything about the gas guzzling vehicles lumbering on the highways. Worse, they sat by and watched the average decline in fuel efficiency of the motor vehicle fleet in our country go down, not up, compared to the levels in the 1980's. To make matters worse, Bush successfully opposed a bill in the Senate by Senators John McCain and John Kerry in 2002 to require a one mpg increase in average fuel efficiency for the next 15 years. Now the people at the pump are paying the price and the winter heating oil season is around the corner. Consumer Federation of America reports that if vehicle fuel efficiency in the last fifteen years had increased at the same rate as it had in the 1980s, "our nation would consume one-third less gasoline." Every penny increase in the price of gasoline takes out $1.5 billion dollars from consumers.

In our nation's past, excessive profiteering by oil companies has led to an excess profits tax. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights recommends a "windfall profits rebate."

Tight refinery capacity has been viewed by officials and industry insiders as a factor in higher gasoline and heating oil prices. Why have the oil companies closed down about two dozen refineries in the past twenty years and not built new, cleaner ones on the same sites? Partly because they prefer importing cheaper refined products from abroad, which spell bigger profits.

The oil companies have longer term contracts with the oil producers like Saudi Arabia at a fixed price. How extensive are these contracts? And why, if ExxonMobil is getting crude at lower prices from these earlier contracts, is their price going up as if they are paying nearly $70 per barrel for all their crude oil?

Such questions are not on the minds of Bush and Cheney, who hail from the oil world. Imagine - experts in the industry that is gouging America that they are, and they keep leaving America and Americans defenseless.

Maybe Bush and Cheney will be defeated at the gas pumps where they cannot hoodwink so many people, as they did with their cover-ups and distractions during the election of 2004.

New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize - News Archive - Stratfor



"Able to uncover the globe's best kept secrets and predict world-changing events in ways that no one else can," ABC News, on STRATFOR



"Relied Upon by Multinational Corporations, Private Investors, Hedge Funds, and even Government's Own Spy Agencies" Fortune Magazine, on STRATFOR
New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize

By George Friedman
September 01, 2005 22 30 GMT -- The American political system was founded in Philadelphia, but the American nation was built on the vast farmlands that stretch from the Alleghenies to the Rockies. That farmland produced the wealth that funded American industrialization: It permitted the formation of a class of small landholders who, amazingly, could produce more than they could consume. They could sell their excess crops in the east and in Europe and save that money, which eventually became the founding capital of American industry.
But it was not the extraordinary land nor the farmers and ranchers who alone set the process in motion. Rather, it was geography -- the extraordinary system of rivers that flowed through the Midwest and allowed them to ship their surplus to the rest of the world. All of the rivers flowed into one -- the Mississippi -- and the Mississippi flowed to the ports in and around one city: New Orleans. It was in New Orleans that the barges from upstream were unloaded and their cargos stored, sold and reloaded on ocean-going vessels. Until last Sunday, New Orleans was, in many ways, the pivot of the American economy.
For that reason, the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815 was a key moment in American history. Even though the battle occurred after the War of 1812 was over, had the British taken New Orleans, we suspect they wouldn't have given it back. Without New Orleans, the entire Louisiana Purchase would have been valueless to the United States. Or, to state it more precisely, the British would control the region because, at the end of the day, the value of the Purchase was the land and the rivers - which all converged on the Mississippi and the ultimate port of New Orleans. The hero of the battle was Andrew Jackson, and when he became president, his obsession with Texas had much to do with keeping the Mexicans away from New Orleans.
During the Cold War, a macabre topic of discussion among bored graduate students who studied such things was this: If the Soviets could destroy one city with a large nuclear device, which would it be? The usual answers were Washington or New York. For me, the answer was simple: New Orleans. If the Mississippi River was shut to traffic, then the foundations of the economy would be shattered. The industrial minerals needed in the factories wouldn't come in, and the agricultural wealth wouldn't flow out. Alternative routes really weren't available. The Germans knew it too: A U-boat campaign occurred near the mouth of the Mississippi during World War II. Both the Germans and Stratfor have stood with Andy Jackson: New Orleans was the prize.
Last Sunday, nature took out New Orleans almost as surely as a nuclear strike. Hurricane Katrina's geopolitical effect was not, in many ways, distinguishable from a mushroom cloud. The key exit from North America was closed. The petrochemical industry, which has become an added value to the region since Jackson's days, was at risk. The navigability of the Mississippi south of New Orleans was a question mark. New Orleans as a city and as a port complex had ceased to exist, and it was not clear that it could recover.
The ports of South Louisiana and New Orleans, which run north and south of the city, are as important today as at any point during the history of the republic. On its own merit, the Port of South Louisiana is the largest port in the United States by tonnage and the fifth-largest in the world. It exports more than 52 million tons a year, of which more than half are agricultural products -- corn, soybeans and so on. A larger proportion of U.S. agriculture flows out of the port. Almost as much cargo, nearly 57 million tons, comes in through the port -- including not only crude oil, but chemicals and fertilizers, coal, concrete and so on.
A simple way to think about the New Orleans port complex is that it is where the bulk commodities of agriculture go out to the world and the bulk commodities of industrialism come in. The commodity chain of the global food industry starts here, as does that of American industrialism. If these facilities are gone, more than the price of goods shifts: The very physical structure of the global economy would have to be reshaped. Consider the impact to the U.S. auto industry if steel doesn't come up the river, or the effect on global food supplies if U.S. corn and soybeans don't get to the markets.
The problem is that there are no good shipping alternatives. River transport is cheap, and most of the commodities we are discussing have low value-to-weight ratios. The U.S. transport system was built on the assumption that these commodities would travel to and from New Orleans by barge, where they would be loaded on ships or offloaded. Apart from port capacity elsewhere in the United States, there aren't enough trucks or rail cars to handle the long-distance hauling of these enormous quantities -- assuming for the moment that the economics could be managed, which they can't be.
The focus in the media has been on the oil industry in Louisiana and Mississippi. This is not a trivial question, but in a certain sense, it is dwarfed by the shipping issue. First, Louisiana is the source of about 15 percent of U.S.-produced petroleum, much of it from the Gulf. The local refineries are critical to American infrastructure. Were all of these facilities to be lost, the effect on the price of oil worldwide would be extraordinarily painful. If the river itself became unnavigable or if the ports are no longer functioning, however, the impact to the wider economy would be significantly more severe. In a sense, there is more flexibility in oil than in the physical transport of these other commodities.
There is clearly good news as information comes in. By all accounts, the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, which services supertankers in the Gulf, is intact. Port Fourchon, which is the center of extraction operations in the Gulf, has sustained damage but is recoverable. The status of the oil platforms is unclear and it is not known what the underwater systems look like, but on the surface, the damage - though not trivial -- is manageable.
The news on the river is also far better than would have been expected on Sunday. The river has not changed its course. No major levees containing the river have burst. The Mississippi apparently has not silted up to such an extent that massive dredging would be required to render it navigable. Even the port facilities, although apparently damaged in many places and destroyed in few, are still there. The river, as transport corridor, has not been lost.
What has been lost is the city of New Orleans and many of the residential suburban areas around it. The population has fled, leaving behind a relatively small number of people in desperate straits. Some are dead, others are dying, and the magnitude of the situation dwarfs the resources required to ameliorate their condition. But it is not the population that is trapped in New Orleans that is of geopolitical significance: It is the population that has left and has nowhere to return to.
The oil fields, pipelines and ports required a skilled workforce in order to operate. That workforce requires homes. They require stores to buy food and other supplies. Hospitals and doctors. Schools for their children. In other words, in order to operate the facilities critical to the United States, you need a workforce to do it -- and that workforce is gone. Unlike in other disasters, that workforce cannot return to the region because they have no place to live. New Orleans is gone, and the metropolitan area surrounding New Orleans is either gone or so badly damaged that it will not be inhabitable for a long time.
It is possible to jury-rig around this problem for a short time. But the fact is that those who have left the area have gone to live with relatives and friends. Those who had the ability to leave also had networks of relationships and resources to manage their exile. But those resources are not infinite -- and as it becomes apparent that these people will not be returning to New Orleans any time soon, they will be enrolling their children in new schools, finding new jobs, finding new accommodations. If they have any insurance money coming, they will collect it. If they have none, then -- whatever emotional connections they may have to their home -- their economic connection to it has been severed. In a very short time, these people will be making decisions that will start to reshape population and workforce patterns in the region.
A city is a complex and ongoing process - one that requires physical infrastructure to support the people who live in it and people to operate that physical infrastructure. We don't simply mean power plants or sewage treatment facilities, although they are critical. Someone has to be able to sell a bottle of milk or a new shirt. Someone has to be able to repair a car or do surgery. And the people who do those things, along with the infrastructure that supports them, are gone -- and they are not coming back anytime soon.
It is in this sense, then, that it seems almost as if a nuclear weapon went off in New Orleans. The people mostly have fled rather than died, but they are gone. Not all of the facilities are destroyed, but most are. It appears to us that New Orleans and its environs have passed the point of recoverability. The area can recover, to be sure, but only with the commitment of massive resources from outside -- and those resources would always be at risk to another Katrina.
The displacement of population is the crisis that New Orleans faces. It is also a national crisis, because the largest port in the United States cannot function without a city around it. The physical and business processes of a port cannot occur in a ghost town, and right now, that is what New Orleans is. It is not about the facilities, and it is not about the oil. It is about the loss of a city's population and the paralysis of the largest port in the United States.
Let's go back to the beginning. The United States historically has depended on the Mississippi and its tributaries for transport. Barges navigate the river. Ships go on the ocean. The barges must offload to the ships and vice versa. There must be a facility to empower this exchange. It is also the facility where goods are stored in transit. Without this port, the river can't be used. Protecting that port has been, from the time of the Louisiana Purchase, a fundamental national security issue for the United States.
Katrina has taken out the port -- not by destroying the facilities, but by rendering the area uninhabited and potentially uninhabitable. That means that even if the Mississippi remains navigable, the absence of a port near the mouth of the river makes the Mississippi enormously less useful than it was. For these reasons, the United States has lost not only its biggest port complex, but also the utility of its river transport system -- the foundation of the entire American transport system. There are some substitutes, but none with sufficient capacity to solve the problem.
It follows from this that the port will have to be revived and, one would assume, the city as well. The ports around New Orleans are located as far north as they can be and still be accessed by ocean-going vessels. The need for ships to be able to pass each other in the waterways, which narrow to the north, adds to the problem. Besides, the Highway 190 bridge in Baton Rouge blocks the river going north. New Orleans is where it is for a reason: The United States needs a city right there.
New Orleans is not optional for the United States' commercial infrastructure. It is a terrible place for a city to be located, but exactly the place where a city must exist. With that as a given, a city will return there because the alternatives are too devastating. The harvest is coming, and that means that the port will have to be opened soon. As in Iraq, premiums will be paid to people prepared to endure the hardships of working in New Orleans. But in the end, the city will return because it has to.
Geopolitics is the stuff of permanent geographical realities and the way they interact with political life. Geopolitics created New Orleans. Geopolitics caused American presidents to obsess over its safety. And geopolitics will force the city's resurrection, even if it is in the worst imaginable place.

Sign Up for FREE Weekly Intelligence Reports!
STRATFOR now has three FREE weekly reports to provide subscribers an inside look into the broad scope of issues monitored by our team of analysts in the areas of global geopolitics, security, and public policy.
In addition to the Geopolitical Intelligence Report written by STRATFOR founder Dr. George Friedman, STRATFOR also offers the Terrorism Intelligence Report by Fred Burton, STRATFOR's Vice President of Counterterrorism and Corporate Security, and the Public Policy Intelligence Report by Vice President of Public Policy Bart Mongoven. Sign up here to have these sent directly to your inbox each week.

© 2005 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy