What are things like (economically) in Iraq these days?

Great Debates
1

In this thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6849216#post6849216 – smiling bandit asserted, “And in fact, things have gotten better there over most of the country [Iraq], statistically and materially.” Now, I’ve encountered this meme many times before, being bandied about as a well-established fact – and likewise with the contrary meme that, three years after the invasion, Iraq remains a dysfunctional society and crippled economy where nobody has clean water and you have to wait in line for hours or days to buy a tank of gasoline not a few miles from the world’s richest oilfields. What’s the truth? For instance, what’s the unemployment rate in Iraq at present? (It was as high as 70% just a year and a half ago, I think.) Can most people get clean water? A reliable supply of food? Access to health care? And what’s the incidence of crime? (I mean ordinary nonpolitical crimes of profit or passion, not insurgent actions or terrorism.)

I’m not asking about whether the new government is really democratic, or really effective, or perceived as legitimate, nor whether the new Iraqi security forces are up to their job yet, nor whether the insurgency is anywhere close to be being defeated – except as these matters impact on the daily lives of Iraqis not directly involved in politics.

Perhaps this thread belongs in GQ, but I’m sure it would be moved to GD before too long, so . . .

2

Another thing – what about electric power? Has it been restored to most areas?

3

I was listening to NPR an hour or so ago (think it was Market Place) and the commentator (head of a think tank I belive) said that the GDP of Iraq had doubled since its low point in 2003, making it the worlds fastest growing economy. Course that might not be saying much, since Iraq was basically a war zone in 2003, but its better then nothing, anyways.

Electricity wise, here’s a quote from this recent article:

Of course at least some of the short fall is because of an increase in demand due to economic growth, and so is not necessarily a bad sign.

4

Yeah, but a lot of that growth isn’t the sort of thing that will improve the average person’s life. There are a lot of contractors there doing a lot of stuff, but most of that contributes to a closed economy that doesn’t really involve people outside of that group.

5

There’s a ton of information on this site, which was referenced in the “National Srategy for Victory” document released today. You have to wade thru a lot of stuff to find what you want, but there are lots of very colorful graphs and charts! :slight_smile:

6

This is a good article in the LA Times

The Link to the Brookings Report is Here. I think this is probably the most comprehensive survey of the Iraq security and economic situation that’s publically available.

Not all the news is happy. It’s clear from the charts that Iraq has just gone through the worst period yet of the post-war period in terms of violence. However, the trend lines are all down over the past couple of months - not enough time to say it’s a real trend or just noise at this point. Some of the security indicators do show real improvement, though.

Unfortunately, the infrastructure numbers are pretty bad. Electricity, oil production, and other core indicators are all declining, no doubt due to the increase in violence. Some of these are back below pre-war levels.

But a lot of the economy is flourishing. There are a lot more consumer goods in the country now than there were before the war, and a free media that is really thriving. Satellite dishes, CD players, cars, TV’s, cell phones… All these staples of modern life are just streaming into the country. Unemployment is either stable or down slightly, depending on who you listen to. Somewhere between 28 and 40%.

I do believe that things will improve in the near term. We’re seeing a spike in violence in the run-up to the December elections, and as an attempt to cut Bush’s support at home when he’s weakest. The elections are crucial, because they’re long-term. Either we’re going to see an explosion of anger after those elections, or things will calm down a bit.

The insurgency is a long-term phenomenon, though. There will still be bombings and violence there long after the U.S. is gone. Just like there is violence in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, and there are terror attacks in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.

7

I can stipulate to Sam Stone’s argument. Without changing the entire Middle East, there will probably still be violence and terrorism for some time to come. Hopefully less in the future. Hopefully good economic growth building.

Of course, how would the violence now be different than in the past? The Middle East has basically been a hotbed of barbarity, murder, war, slaughter, and depravity since the dawn of human civilization. It has, at times, also been a home of civilization, prosperity, and enlightenment - often at the same time. And today, as through most all of history, it’s a very sectarian, tribal place. And now, the tribes have cars, bombs, guns, and the internet.

Radical Islam and Baathist Fascism are/were just two new uniforms in the old war. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

8

Well, not entirely. The Middle East/North Africa has enjoyed many long periods of peace – usually under the rule of an empire, such as Persia, Rome, Byzantium, the Abbasid Caliphate, or the Ottoman Sultans. (I wonder if the victorious powers of WWI made a mistake in forcing the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.)

Of course, all that happened in times when the rest of the world could mostly afford to ignore the MENA because nobody had much use for rock oil . . .

9

I am not sure that having the Ottoman empire rip itself to pieces would have been preferable to the European imposed dissolution. It may just come down to whether the organic process of bloodshed, then borders is more or less bloody than the imposed borders, then bloodshed process.

10

Considering the case of Africa, where the successor states to European colonies still have borders that mostly were negotiated a hundred years ago in European capitals and bear no relationship to actual ethnocultural divisions, I’d say the first is probably less bloody, or at any rate, produces more natural and stable results in the long run.

In Latin America, the republics that emerged after the end of Spanish rule formed their own borders – and, while they haven’t quite enjoyed unbroken peace with each other (or internally) ever since, they’ve certainly had a better time of it than the post-colonial Africans.

11

Partly true, but much of that was because those faraway imperial states were brutal if crossed (and could afford to be), even-handed in administration (they had no reason to play favorites), and powerful enough that no one wanted to challenge them. And of course, none of that is really applicable in the modern era.

And of course, no such empire is really a good idea right now. The only credible canidates at the present time are pretty bad philosophies or people to base even one nation on, much less an empire. Democracy may get them out of it (there are good signs) but it may yet fail if people decide they like the violence more than the peace.

12

Nonsense. Cite?

13

His post is my cite.

14

Take a look in a history book. Any relevant history book. I won’t say that the Middle East has always been more vicious than anywhere else. But on average, I think it has remained more violent than almost anywhere. More to the point, the violence has been more often systematic and widespread. Sure, in the Americas you have tribal small scale warfare, and in, say, Europe you had states going to war.

But in the Middle East, you have constant immigration from groups coming and conquering, and internal conflict from tribalistic quasi-nations. Meanwhile, Empires kept forming and battling with each other.

My point is not that the Middle East is composed of wicked human beings, but that culture and geography have not been kind to it. Just look at the 20th century: British, German, and French meddling. States forming out of the Ottomon breakup and colonial worries, Internal revolution is nearly every state, wars between half of them, Egypt and Syria versus Israel versus Iraq versus Iran versus pretty much everybody. And then you have twisted Middle-Eastern expats taking their evil ideas and transporting them into places like Afganistan. And that doesn’t even count internal repression, the worst in the world apart from the Communist and (briefly) fascist states.

It has been easier, because of relative population balance and tribalism, for bad men to take control in the Middle East because of technological superiority, going back all the way to the Assyrians. Those tyrants then had to maintain conbtrol, however, by other means; it doesn’t work. At best, the whole thing just breaks up after a while. Usually within a few generations. That was the basic problem: There’s nothing, geographically or really culturally, which can hold most of the core of the ME together. Iraq is closer to city-state than a modern nation.

Only the external nations, like Turkey and Egypt, have any identity (and I wouldn’t be so sure about Turkey, given how it pressed and continues to press upon its more visible minorities).

15

I asked for a cite for this statement:

You didn’t provide one - not even in the summary you put together, which I note veers away from the rather unequivocal quote above. I think you spoke in haste.

As for taking a look in a history book, having glanced through a couple is the very reason I requested support for the dubious item. Saying that the Middle East has been a hell-hole of barbarians since the dawn of human civilization is hardly defensible, particularly since we are talking about the cradle of civilization. And after the Islamic empire hit the scene, well, you might as well claim that ancient Rome and Greece were barbarous dens - for centuries leaders in arts and sciences, dominant economic and military powers, major civilizations.

Western tolerance, which today we view as an important indicator of how civilized a population is, only arose in the 17th and 18th centuries, but a precursor had been installed centuries earlier throughout the Middle East and Islamic lands. Barbaric? Murderous?

The primacy of the West in almost all aspects became clear over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which leads many to overlook what came before. As Bernard Lewis says in What Went Wrong?, “By all the standards that matter in the modern world - economic development and job creation, literacy and educational and scientific achievement, political freedom and respect for human rights - what was once a mighty civilization has indeed fallen low.”

The context is the second half of the 20th century, when many Middle Eastern populations looked around and asked themselves, “Who did this?” They did this in part, Lewis argues, thanks to the European import of of nationalism.

There’s been a lot of traffic and meddling in the region, between Turks, Arabs, Persians, Mongols, and more recently Imperialists, French, English, Americans, and whatnot. But no real single culprit can be pinpointed, and the collapse was a gradual slide that is (historically speaking) fairly recent - nothing near “dawn of time” scale. What is certain is that for most of the Middle Ages the region you referred to as barbaric, depraved, etc., was the seat of the world’s highest civilization. And a birthplace of civilization itself.

EvilCaptor, what on earth are you talking about? Or should I not bother?

16

Note, the quote I put above is the longer version. But s you wish it, I will begin assembling citations.

They will be, however, pointless. Lacking accurate records, I can never prove to your satisfaction that the ME was and is more violent than elsewhere; you can always say that it isn’t convincing or complete enough, or use a random example to say that there was violence elsewhere. I’m not sure why you expect I should bother, since I have no reason to think you will play fair about it.

That would be my point. Civilization carries with it its own violence and iniquity. The ME is probably unique in that it retained those of barbarity while gaining those of civlization, and has been bouncing back and forth between them.

17

I like that last part. “States going to war.” This is like saying “Pacific Ocean has a bit of water in it.”

Actually, what you had in Europe was states engaging in almost all of the bloodiest wars in the history of the human race, in a cycle of violence that has continued more or less unabated since the dawn of civilization with only a few periods of relative calm, and then in the 16th century getting into the business of exporting that violence to foreign lands.

How in the name of Christ could you possibly suggest Europe has been more peaceful than the Middle East?

And this is different from Europe how?

18

We do not support our contentions. Instead we resort to making careless claims and when they are challenged we tell people to hit the history books, though we do not actually reference any. As it becomes more difficult to defend a claim, we must not forget to hand wave and suggest that opponents do not play fair.

RickJay, I think it may be somewhat of an exaggeration to say the “cycle of violence that has continued more or less unabated since the dawn of civilization with only a few periods of relative calm”. But the general sentiment is certainly not inaccurate. Indeed, such frequent bloody competition may be the very reason that European states evolved into dominant global powers, as Cecil explained in How come Europeans dominated the rest of the world and not vice versa?

I would like to point out as an item of interest that

This is similar to the factors that the smiling bandit (and others) propose had a severe deleterious impact on the Middle East. He (and they) ain’t necessarily wrong on this, but as I said earlier it is not quite as simple to account for the decline of the Middle East as it is to account for the competitive drive of Europe. Certainly the previously-cited Bernard Lewis doesn’t seem think so in his book on this very topic.

19

[Sorry this took me so long. This is only part one. The cites follow in part 2.]

The Middle East is probably the most violence-prone region on Earth (though, at this particular moment, thankfully not actually the most violent). Although WWI&II, the organized repression of Fascism and COmmunism, and the tribal flare-ups of Africa are certainly violent and did more damage, the first were all primarily caused by political actors; sans a small political group which promoted, created the conditions for, and believed they would benefit from war and repression, it would not have happened. Tribal warfare, as seen in Africa, is less damaging and rarely creates the kind of mass-death or deportation conditions. It is primarily a form of raiding, not war as such. The Middle may be unique in combining the two, and in doing so in both the modern world and the ancient.
The Middle East so violence-prone because of the failure of any one power or powers to establish and maintain a long-term dominance, either culturally, politically, or militarily. In other locations around the world, conflicts do not tend to go on forever. This has been precisely the experience of the Middle East. Indeed, several conflicts present before the Roman Empire conquered it are still ongoing.

Part of the cause is the Assyrian-caused dispora (see other post for cite), which forced numerous groups to spread into area controlled by others. This may have brought groups into conflict with one another, but even without that, it tended to make them relatively “immortal” by introducing redundancy.

Compare this to other regions of the world: Europe, despite being organized by and for a warrior elite from the fall of Rome almost to the Industrial revolution, has seena trend towards fewer, better organized, and “politer” (more distinction between civlian and non-civilian, and more rights granted to POW’s and so forth) wars, even during the heyday of the feudal period. Chivalry, though sometimes ignored, was nevertheless a real factor in behavior.

The United States fought a near-constant battle with Native Americans from before it even was the United States until around 1900. The conflict consumed a subtantial portion of the attention of our national leaders. Today, however, there are a great number of Native Americans and the wars are almost forgotten. The idea of having a war between “whites” and “Indians” is ridiculous.

Witness China. China has the dirty little secret that it isn’t one homogenous mass; there are a great many ethnic minorities, quite a few of which live in the poor sections. And that discounts those which are not even considered Chinese by the Party, like Tibetans, the native inhabitants of Xinjiang, and Koreans in Manchuria. Nevertheless, these groups don’t go to war with each other, however much they might like it. The Men of Han won, and that’s unlikely to change anytime soon.

And that’s what’s so unusual about the Middle East: without any lack of viciousness, depravity, or ill-feeling, they nevertheless failed to bring violence to a close, either through superior firepower, cultural dominance, or political quietude. And because of that, because they did not agree to disagree peacefully, and because they chose not to create either wholly inclusive or exclsuive state actors, they remain trapped in violence.

A note about Islam is probably warranted here. Islam, per se, is not actually the problem (though several problems past and present were and are linked to Islam). Rather, Islam tended to encourage existing problems in the long (but not short) haul. One event which happened repeatedly in Middle Eastern history is that a band of barbarians - the Turks in Anatolia, nomadic Arabs several times, or whatever - convert to Islam, and begin to conquer a wealthier and more settled society. Generally speaking, the rulers of said society were more tolerant, cosmopolitan, and educated. It may well be that absent this force, the Middle East might have stabilized under several powers. I don’t usually like to play the what-if game, but this observation bears directly on my argument.

[Actually, I agree with your Bosnia argument. That’s exactly like what I’m talking about. The Middle East isn’t the only such place in the world; but it is the most notable and most consistent, IMHO.]

20

What the hell is this? In the Americas, you had great mega-states in constant warfare to appease their blood-drinking gods, culminating in the human sacrifice of tens of thouands of prisoners.