Who has committed greater military problems in the world: the United States or Iran?

[Jekyll]

I'm aware that that the US is not colonising Afganistan.

However I doubt that destroying a country's infrastructure by invading and then rebuilding it is the either the fastest or most efficent method of revitalising an economy.

Japan had a lot more going for it then just US support and it would be increadbly unreasonable to expect other countries to respond as well as it did.

I am not convinced that Iraq or Afganistan has been 'liberated' yet, despite the money being spent. Would you say that the quality of life has significantly improved or are they safer then under the previous goverment?

[Leodom]

Not having lived there, I cannot say for certain. Neither can anyone else who hasn't lived in both circumstances. I do believe, however, that the majority of Iraqis are safer and free-er now than they were under Saddam Hussein. I am certain that Afghanis are now safer and free-er than they were under the Taliban.

[jubei33]

well, women do seem to have more say in the politics in both countries.
as compared with before....

[DANINJA]

Large number of Iraqis have died this week-the violence in Iraq is returning to pre election levels


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4259487.stm

how is life better for Iraqis?

as for reconstruction:

Iraq reconstruction takes a back seat
By Ben Duncan in Washington DC

While the move to bolster security in Iraq by shifting reconstruction funds has received widespread support from US lawmakers, some experts are pointing out potential pitfalls of taking money away from basic civic-service projects.


Almost one year ago, the US Congress authorised $18.4 billion for the reconstruction of post-war Iraq.

The funds were intended for large-scale projects such as rebuilding the country's oil and electricity infrastructure, fixing damaged sewage systems and galvanising Iraq's shattered economy.

Yet 11 months later, only $1.14 billion of the money has been disbursed and the Bush administration is receiving bipartisan criticism for its failure thus far to accelerate the process.

Of the $4.2 billion allocated for water and sanitation projects, only $16 million has been spent, as first reported by The Washington Post.

While $786 million was intended for health projects, only $2 million has been spent and just $7 million has been used from the $367 million approved to rebuild roads and bridges.

Serious doubt

Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress have sharpened their attacks on Bush officials recently, casting serious doubt on the state of reconstruction activities and efforts to quell the insurgency that continues to plague US forces on the ground.

"I think we're at the end of our rope here unless we get smart real quick," said Democratic Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The security situation has degenerated to the point where the administration recently announced plans to shift $3.5 billion from the reconstruction budget to improve Iraqi police training and other areas of concern such as unemployment.

The money will be diverted primarily from sewage and electricity projects.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska called the decision a "clear acknowledgement that we are not holding ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we are winning".

Getting worse

The administration announced the proposed shift in funds just days before several news organisations reported the existence of a new National Intelligence Estimate that suggests the problems in Iraq are getting worse.

The new funding plan would set aside $1.8 billion for security purposes, most of which would go towards beefing up Iraqi police and military forces.

Government officials and military experts say the problems encountered in disbursing the reconstruction money are primarily attributable to the lack of security in parts of Baghdad, Falluja and other hotspots across the country.

"Violence, and the threat of violence, has slowed down the rate of progress on reconstruction," Ronald L Schlicher, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Iraq, told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Projects throughout Iraq have suffered from attacks by insurgents."

Biden said "the insurgency is growing" in Iraq, citing the fact that attacks against US forces jumped from roughly 700 in March to nearly 2700 in August.

Diversion pitfalls

US lawmakers have generally been supportive of the move to focus on stabilising the security situation first, but they are worried about the political consequences of reduced funding for water, sewage and electricity sectors.

Biden himself cited one US commander in Iraq who said violent attacks in Sadr City had increased as sewage piled up higher in the streets. The administration's plan would divert $1.94 billion away from water and sewage projects.

At a press briefing announcing the new strategy, Marc Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said there would still $2.2 billion left for the rebuilding of water and sewage infrastructure.

"So we don't want anybody to walk away thinking that there won't be any money in these accounts left," Grossman said.

The fallout from decreasing the funds for various social service projects could be overcome by downsizing the scope of certain tasks and focusing on smaller projects controlled by local Iraqi groups, said Frederick Barton, co-director of a new study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) titled, "Progress or Peril? Measuring Iraq's Reconstruction Progress".

"It probably will be a problem, but you can minimise the problem by moving away from these large-scale public works projects to smaller community-driven projects," Barton said.

Local coffers

The US could expedite the disbursal of reconstruction funds by decentralising the process and putting more of the money directly into the coffers of local governing councils, instead of going through large US companies and the Iraqi interim government.

The CSIS report also focused on the overall lack of progress in creating jobs for ordinary Iraqis, a problem it said had fuelled attacks against US forces.

"The high unemployment has compounded security problems in Iraq," the report said. "In some cases, frustrated, unemployed Iraqis have joined the ranks of the insurgency."

Part of the proposed funding realignment would provide an additional $380 million for economic development and $286 million to accelerate Iraqi employment.

In addition, $450 million would go towards oil infrastructure improvements, $360 million towards forgiving Iraq's $4 billion debt to the US and $180 million would be used for democracy-building efforts.

[DANINJA]

women rights have improved in Kabul

But outside Kabul there is no security,warlords and lawlessness.Also opium trade has INCREASED

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/...-women-2k2.htm

[Xango]

Hard call, PeeDee. Xerxes was a bad ************.

[nasty_totoro]

irrelevant ...

[IzzyDaHedgehog]

Here's another good question: Which country has done the most positive in the world militarily?

WWI, WWII, Liberated Kuwait, Liberated Afghanistan, Liberated Iraq.

In each of these cases, the United States could have taken a "To the winner belongs the spoils" attitude as has been the precedent throughout history. In each case, however, the country that was defeated and/or liberated came out of the encounter in a stronger economic position than before. Hell, the quickest way for some third world country to become an economic powerhouse would be to be defeated in a war against the United States. We'd then spend billions re-building their infra-structure and economy. The greatest example of this is Japan after WWII.

The United States may have taken a benevolent stance towards Germany after WWI, but Germany did NOT come out of it economically stronger than it was before. The Treaty of Versailles was so hard on Germany that one might argue that it caused WWII.

Afghanistan and Iraq will NEVER be economic powerhouses, they don't have the resources. Third-world countries are mostly third-world for a reason.

Just nitpicking a little bit, ignore me.

EDIT: I forgot about the great Muslim empire (Abbasid Caliphate? The name escapes me.) whose seat of power was in Baghdad. Maybe Iraq could be a power then.

[Xango]

'Iraq' has been a world power more often than not.

[Leodom]

The United States may have taken a benevolent stance towards Germany after WWI, but Germany did NOT come out of it economically stronger than it was before. The Treaty of Versailles was so hard on Germany that one might argue that it caused WWII.

Conceded. Perhaps this is why the US worked so hard to help Japan after WWII. Apparently we CAN learn from past mistakes.