http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3661588.stm

A cross-party committee of the US Congress has criticized the Bush administration for the slow progress of reconstruction in Iraq.
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed frustration that only $1bn out of a $18bn reconstruction fund approved last year had been spent.
The committee said the US was failing to make use of one of its most potent tools to influence Iraq's future.
Officials asked on Wednesday for funds to be diverted to improve security.
A classified US intelligence report on Iraq says the country will continue to suffer from instability through to the end of 2005, government officials have told the New York Times.
Effort 'embarrassing'
If Congress agrees to divert the funds, the change will mean nearly $3.5bn will be shifted away from long-term projects such as water and power and channelled instead to improving security, creating jobs and increasing oil production.
Senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican described the rebuilding effort in Iraq so far as "beyond pitiful".
"It's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," he said.
Ron Schlicher, from the Bureau of near Eastern Affairs, told the committee that projects had suffered from attacks by insurgents.
"We know that the provision of adequate security up front is requisite to rapid progress on all other fronts," he said.
But Senator Hagel said the shift in funds did not "add up... to a picture that shows that we're winning".
"It does add up to this: an acknowledgment that we are in deep trouble," he said.
Stability
Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, said as Iraqis prepare for elections, they are looking for signs of stability.
"Few signs of stability are more convincing than successful reconstruction projects that boost the economy, repair infrastructure and restore municipal services," he said.
Senators Hagel and Lugar have long said that the US government's plans for rebuilding Iraq were poor and based on the flawed assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators.
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration... that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Senator Lugar said.
"The lack of planning is apparent."
Congress had agreed the $18.4bn reconstruction fund in November as part of an $87bn package for Iraq and Afghanistan.
That pessimistic tone was echoed in a new intelligence report on Iraq, the first since October 2002, officials told the New York Times.
The document, commissioned in July, lists three possible outcomes for the country over the next year - the worst being civil war and the best being continuing instability.
The CIA has declined to comment.

________________

Why isn't the money being spent?

__________________
7th ID

'Bout time someone on the other side opened their eyes to reality.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

Security does not come first: it is a partner in the process of restabilization of Iraq. If people are without jobs or electricity, if the change of regime is seen to be doing nothing for them, and if outsiders are seen to be in charge of this situation, then you are adding fuel to the growing insurgency.

Strengthing security at the expense of reconstruction simply helps the terrorists message that the US is occupying Iraq and not assisting it. I am not saying you should short security, but it should not come at the expense of the other half of the equation. Why assume that more guns will solve every problem, Sextus?

**quote**
Why assume that more guns will solve every problem
**quote**

If i may Senax....


We, conservatives do not think that guns solve every problem. Actually we know that MONEY solves all problems....

BUT we conservatives understand that running water and electricity and free internet DOES NOT stop an islamic fascist from killing schoolchildren or blowing up a police headquarters... We understand that diplomacy does not defeat mad dog terrorists.. we understand that political correctness and "sensitivity" are not winning strategys in a war versus people that intend to target innocents...

My question to you is Why do you lefties always blame guns for problems OR why do you lefties think guns DON'T solve problems?

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

In Iraq there will have to be infrastructure building, democracy building, and Security forces. But keep in mind that many terrorists don't mind committing suicide to kill an Iraqi citizen or an American soldier. Killing them isn't always going to solve the problem. Keep in mind that terrorists hide among civilians knowing full well that if you take a group of them out with a missile, they're hoping for civilian casualties, and they usually get them. Keep in mind that they deliberately destroy infrastructure assets so that Iraqis can complain about how horrible things have become since there has been a U.S occupation. Given enough time the Iraqis may forget about the terrible Saddam regime and focus on whether we've become a danger to them. Every terrorist is hell bent on turning the Iraqis against U.S forces. That is part of their strategy. It's a mistake to think other wise. There is no doubt that insurgent forces have grown since when we first invaded. Our main goal in Iraq is NOT to fight terrorists. Our main goal is to be sure that the Iraqis themselves have the courage and strength to do the fighting. Can the Iraqis build their own effective security force, and establish unified democracy without fragmenting their nation. They owe us proof that they can do this and the American people will demand that proof over time. Our goal is not to fight terrorism in Iraq indefinitely. The Iraqis must proove that THEY can do the fighting.

I must be reading something wrong, winningsmile. I think that's the second time today that I've agreed with you. If you google the name Thomas Metz, you'll find that he's saying those same things.

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

I've never heard of Thomas Metz. Also had I known you were going to be gazing on this thread I wouldn't have repeated myself. I think some Bush supporters don't see the psychological aspects of this terrorist war. They don't understand how each act of violence committed on both sides can adversely affect how how the Iraqis view our presence in their country. They don't see how crucial it is to understand the cultural differences between us and them. Kerry's sensitivity statement appears to be girlyman to them. They also don't understand that unless we train the Iraqis to defend themselves quickly and do most of the fighting while at the same time keep Iraqi religious factions, infrastructure united things get harder for us never easier. The Problem is Bush keeps accentuating this concept that Iraq is terror central. But the fact is our priority better be to get the Iraqis to see their own army doing the fighting in a progressively Democratic country.

Well, I guess you didn't google Metz then. This really makes me wonder where you are getting your information. Lt Gen Metz is second in command in Iraq. He commands III Corps. I'm surprised you don't know this.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1158455.htm

TOM METZ: We want to put our energy into increasing the capacity of the Iraqi security forces, whether it be police, or national guard or Army. And what that does is put our offensive actions down about number four.

We're still capable of doing it, at the request of the Iraqis, but it kind of puts us all in a different set, and one we're comfortable in on most days, because we are action-oriented can-do soldiers. But we need to do it as a partner and at the request of Iraqis.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...8-arnews01.htm

Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz said that art comes in the delicate balance of reassigning resources for changing priorities, providing security, and working with the Iraqis to rebuild their infrastructure.

“For some of our troops the … transfer of power will not change their day-to-day mission, but for others it will be a very visible shift in focus,” he said. “We will definitely see an increase in our efforts to help Iraq become more secure and much of our effort will be behind the scenes. We’re looking to the Iraqi people to take the lead in many areas, but it’s not all going to happen by July 1. It’s a capacity that we will have to grow over the next several months.”

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

We've only spent 6% of the money congress put forward for rebuilding Iraq. Your war is failing. More people are dying. Its not getting better. And yet you weasels still try and defend. Anyone who defends the actions in Iraq I hold partly responsible for the events there. You claim to be peaceful and yet you're fine with other people around the world dying. People like you are te reason the peace process is constantly getting de-railed. Supporters of genocide and illegal wars. That is exactly what you are, and the blood will never come off your hands.

__________________
www.contraweb.tk
.: Digital Activism for the New Millenium :.