Gerald at Turn Maine Blue has a good post up recounting how lack of Congressional oversight of the construction of the massive US embassy in Iraq has led to terrible mismanagement, corrupt contracting, and shoddy construction. Guess who has been for many years now either chair of or ranking member of a key senate committee charged with oversight of all manner of government contracts? Why, US Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, of course!
Gerald's essential point is that, "The situation in Iraq couldn't be more f'd up, and now we expect our diplomats to live and work in a situation like this. Why do I have the feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg."
Yes, but I want to take a slightly different tack. First and foremost, the embassy is a huge insult to the entire Iraqi population. The entire boondoggle and its symbolism was described in a recent In These Times article. Here, I'll pull an excerpt from down in the article (after a very detailed description of the failures associated with its construction) that summarizes the true function of the embassy:
Empire’s Architecture
Should it ever be finished, the U.S. embassy in Iraq will stand as a colossal monument to the Bush administration’s failures - By Allen McDuffee - In These Times - January 2, 2008
Empire’s cornerstoneNow let's remember these US vs Iraqi proportions in Iraqi governance and then consider the Democratic debate in Nevada last night. Here is Barack Obama, but Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all say approximately the same thing with regard to the embassy:
The grandiose embassy, with all its problems, highlights the United States’ ambiguous role in Iraq—its imperial ambitions, as well as the shortcomings to such delusions of grandeur.
...
Alongside more than a dozen permanent military bases in Iraq, the U.S. government is building this permanent symbol of empire by imperial design. With only 275 Iraqi parliamentarians and an Iraqi cabinet of less than 40 ministers, American embassy employees outnumber those who ostensibly govern the Iraqi people by more than three to one. This being the case, it’s hard to believe the United States is interested in diplomacy, promoting democracy or even full sovereignty.
During a May 2007 hearing, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said to Condoleezza Rice: “Having said over and over again that we don’t want to be seen as an occupying force in Iraq, we’re building the largest embassy that we have. … And it just seems to grow and grow and grow. Can we just review who we really need and send the rest of the people home?”
Leahy was partially right. The United States doesn’t want to be seen as an occupying force. But that doesn’t mean occupation isn’t what the United States desires. The International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based non-governmental organization, argues that the Iraqi government is both neighbored and dwarfed by the embassy, which “is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country.” Indeed, Iraqis have nicknamed the compound “George W.’s Palace.”
Obama: ...could I guarantee all troops would be out of Iraq? I have been very specific in saying that we will not have permanent bases there. I will end the war, as we understand it, in combat missions, but that we are going to have to protect our embassy. We’re going to have to protect our civilians. We’re engaged in humanitarian activity there. We are going to have to have some presence that allows us to strike if al-Qaeda is creating bases inside of Iraq.There is no discussion, or even the slightest sense of how dominating the US presence in Iraq will be should Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, or any leading Republican for that matter become president and continue "protection" of the embassy colossus, "George W's Palace". This is a colonial edifice that Iraqis are sure to resent for a long, long time.
Posted by The Owl at 15:24. Filed under: War and peace
Comments