# Iraq Needs $100 Billion to Rebuild Infrastructure



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Iraq says needs $100 bln to rebuild infrastructure *
By Haitham Haddadin 

KUWAIT, Oct 31 (Reuters) - Iraq needs around $100 billion over the next four to five years to rebuild its shattered infrastructure, a government spokesman said on Tuesday. 

"The situation in Iraq surpasses Iraq's ability to finance development projects," Ali al-Dabbagh told a news conference in Kuwait during a meeting of officials from donor nations and the United Nations on Iraqi reconstruction and economic reform. 

Iraq's infrastructure was ravaged by decades of sanctions and war during the rule of deposed President Saddam Hussein, and by the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and the violence that followed. 

Reconstruction has been hampered by insurgent attacks which forced many projects to be halted and diverted funds away from rebuilding and into increased security. 

The oil industry has been hit by frequent sabotage. 

"The Iraqi economy is a one-crop economy built on oil only and there are no other revenue sources... therefore oil exports are being spent on operational expenditure," Dabbagh said. 

"Until the oil sector can rise and assume its full role ... we need this sum for the infrastructure and for investment expenditure." 

The meeting was the last set of talks on the International Compact for Iraq, a roadmap for economic reform, which is expected to be adopted by a ministerial meeting in December. 

Dabbagh said the compact also included plans to build dialogue in Iraq and disband militias to try to halt violence. 

NEW U.S. PLEDGE 

U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt said Washington will commit to new pledges of aid to Iraq again. 

"I think the size of the pledges will be announced by the ministers at the ministerial meeting ...," Kimmitt added. 

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih said in a statement that his government has a tough timetable to push reforms that included a recently-passed investment law. The government set a target to cut unemployment by at least 15 percent, he said. 

"The International Compact represents a carefully-drafted roadmap to clarify how can Iraq, with the help of its international partners, achieve economic self-sufficiency in the medium term," Salih said. 

To succeed, Iraq needs progress in three areas -- "political reconciliation ... achieving security and stability in all regions ... and achieving economic growth and prosperity". But he said Iraq won't be able to achieve any of the goals under the compact without generous international support. 

Ashraf Qazi, the U.N. secretary general's special representative for Iraq, told the meeting that in coming weeks the United Nations will consult with countries and institutions which had shown interest in helping Iraq. 

Iraq's goals include winning relief on some $40 billion in debt owed to Gulf Arab states. Western states have already forgiven Iraq much of its debt but Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the biggest Gulf creditors, have made no firm commitments. 

Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammad al-Salem al-Sabah hinted that there was little movement on the issue of some $16 billion that Iraq owes it, reiterating that debt forgiveness is a matter for the Gulf country's parliament to decide on.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I guess this is mostly non-roadinfrastructure. I think they mean water, electricity, sewers, oil-pipelines etc. By the way, is there any railtransportation in that country?


----------



## Gilgamesh (Apr 1, 2005)

Doubt they will get it.


----------



## crossbowman (Apr 26, 2006)

If US are as honest as they claim and indeed want to help Iraq, they should pay the bill.
After all much of the damage was caused by them!


----------



## jacobboyer (Jul 14, 2005)

^^ FU we already spent all our money in iraq and did everything else for them why are we gonna foot the bill.


----------



## Anymodal (Mar 5, 2005)

jacobboyer said:


> ^^ FU we already spent all our money in iraq and did everything else for them why are we gonna foot the bill.


100 billion to *rebuild* whats been destroyed by the US.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague (Nov 19, 2005)

Anymodal said:


> 100 billion to *rebuild* whats been destroyed by the US.


How would Iraq have accumulated that much infrastructure to destroy? Starting in 1980 the Iran/Iraq War took everything they had and things did not improve after the war ended. A subway was begun for Baghdad and abandoned due to lack of funds. When you keep your economy on a wartime footing infrastructure does not get built.

Perhaps we can give them IOU's from the WW1 and WW2 war debts that were never paid back to the US.

I'd rather spend a hundred billion on our own infrastructure. Whenever I see Sadr all I can think of is the line "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" from "We won't get fooled again." Pete Townsend, I could swear you wrote the song about Whorge's Messedupatanian folly.


----------



## FallenGuard (Nov 2, 2006)

Frank J. Sprague said:


> I'd rather spend a hundred billion on our own infrastructure.


Indeed. But now that the USA has gotten into this Mess, it can't back out of it. That would mean a total loss of credibility, if they don't at least fix the damage their army caused.

Someone asked about Railway Systems, this is from the German wikipedia:



> Das irakische Schienennetz besteht aus drei in Bagdad zusammenlaufenden Hauptlinien und umfasst 2.339 km. Ein Großteil des sich in einem katastrophalen Zustand befindlichen Schienennetzes (von der Strecke Bagdad-Arbil ist z.B. oft nur noch die Trasse zu sehen, die Schwellen wurden zu Feuerholz verarbeitet und die Schienen verkauft) ist im Moment aber außer Betrieb, de facto ist nur die Strecke Bagdad-Basra in Betrieb. Benutzt wird die Bahn aber nur von Einkommensschwachen, da die Verlässlichkeit derart niedrig ist, dass Ankunftszeiten gar nicht erst angegeben werden. Eine Reisedauer von über einem Tag in die etwa 550 km entfernte südirakische Metropole ist nicht unüblich. Die neue irakische Regierung investiert jedoch viel in den Wiederaufbau, und man hofft, in einiger Zeit wieder einen regulären Bahnbetrieb aufnehmen zu können.


Says that there are three major Lines that conjunct in Bagdad with a total Length of 2339 km. Its in a desolate state, only the Bagdad-Basra Line is barely operational. The new Governement seems to have adressed this Problem, though.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt (Jun 25, 2006)

There's an unofficial website about railways in Iraq.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

The vast majority of destroyed infrastructure wasn't destroyed by the US... it was destroyed by insurgents, or (as some have pointed out) never built/finished in the first place. It's the insurgents who keep blowing up & sabotaging power, water, and communication lines over and over again, as fast as the US can rebuild them.

The insurgency is only partly about the US. A big part of it has to do with Iraq's Shiite majority and Al-Quaeda's hatred of them (Al-Zarqawi believed that Shiites were heretics who deserved to die). And I firmly believe lots of their funding comes from bitter Kuwaitis who want revenge on Iraq (who have nothing in particular against Americans, but will tolerate one or two dead American soldiers if a hundred Iraqis get killed along with them) and use Al-Quaeda terrorists (who hate Americans, but like killing Shiites too, and tolerate Sunni deaths by rationalizing that Sunnis who die are martyrs who'll go straight to heaven) as foot soldiers and "useful idiots".


----------



## Elsongs (Oct 18, 2006)

Hmmmm, I WONDER who's gonna be awarded the big contracts to build that infrastructure! Could it be...


----------



## Yardmaster (Jun 1, 2004)

Frank J. Sprague said:


> How would Iraq have accumulated that much infrastructure to destroy? Starting in 1980 the Iran/Iraq War took everything they had and things did not improve after the war ended. A subway was begun for Baghdad and abandoned due to lack of funds. When you keep your economy on a wartime footing infrastructure does not get built.
> 
> Perhaps we can give them IOU's from the WW1 and WW2 war debts that were never paid back to the US.
> 
> I'd rather spend a hundred billion on our own infrastructure. Whenever I see Sadr all I can think of is the line "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" from "We won't get fooled again." Pete Townsend, I could swear you wrote the song about Whorge's Messedupatanian folly.


An interesting statement. Iraq has about the same population as my own country. The figure quoted works out to about $5,000 per head. 

I'm loathe to reduce to eveything to financial terms- now where did that habit come from?- but I remember calculating recently that our national debt amounted (roughly) to $50,000 per head ... and we're meant to be an example of a successful economy! (That's what our Treasurer keeps telling us!)

I don't owe any money (apart from a $40 ISP bill) ... and I don't know anyone who is seriously in debt ... and both my State & Federal Governments repeatedly return surpluses, so who owes all this money? You may not watch us, but we watch you: how's your balance of trade going?

F. J. Sprague may question the value of the infrastructure of Iraq, and it may no doubt be somewhat less than here in Australia. It's also substantially less than what is was before "Operation Shock and Awe": which you broadcast all over the world to demonstrate how you could level a city. Insurgents may have killed hundreds- indeed thousands- since, and punctured a few oil-pipes, but don't blame them for turning Iraq into rubble. You did it, you broadcast it, back in 2003, and everyone knows by now you're the absolute masters of that sort of thing.

Getting back to the infrastructure value question ... well I know what what my personal assets are worth, indeed I'm taxed on a significant part of them: so it's not my valuation, it's society's. There's also public infrastructure, some part of which, arguably, I lay joint claim to. I never thought of that before, but what I claim publically- with my fellow citizens, their children, our flora and our fauna- amounts to a great deal more than anything on paper. Iraq had a rich heritage too, which was partly destroyed by "Operation Shock & Awe".

I won't declare my assets here, but $5000 per head is a very small portion in even a relatively impoverished country like Iraq ... and to be quite honest, I'm not sure what the US ever did to benefit the people of Iraq (or Mesopotamia) in either WWI or WWII.


----------



## diz (Nov 1, 2005)

Anymodal said:


> 100 billion to *rebuild* whats been destroyed by the US.


The US is already in debt... I don't think they will.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I have to admit, that $100bn could be used to help our own aging infrastructure.

Hopefully, there will be a time when Iraq becomes more self-sufficent to rebuild it without constant aid.


----------



## Frank J. Sprague (Nov 19, 2005)

Yardmaster said:


> An interesting statement. Iraq has about the same population as my own country. The figure quoted works out to about $5,000 per head.
> 
> I'm loathe to reduce to eveything to financial terms- now where did that habit come from?- but I remember calculating recently that our national debt amounted (roughly) to $50,000 per head ... and we're meant to be an example of a successful economy! (That's what our Treasurer keeps telling us!)
> 
> ...


My point still stands, Iraq under Saddam spent a fortune on the Iran-Iraq War, from 1980 to 1988, that means there was not much money for infrastructure. They had planned on a subway in Baghdad but could not afford it, also in this timeframe the price of oil dropped steeply which dried up his revenue as the war cost more and more. He ended the war deeply in debt and this was a strong factor in the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

That war was far harder on Iraq's infrastructure since there was a lengthy air campaign to soften up Iraq prior to the invasion. Following the war Iraq was under sanctions, even with that she was able to repair a great deal of damage from the war, e.g. repair and replacement of downed bridges.

In the current war Iraq's infrastructure was not targets for the most part since the US needed things like bridges and runways to facilitate the invasion. If you have Google Earth you can see for yourself, about the only damage I have noted were hardened aircraft bunkers destroyed in the first Gulf War, One sees no downed bridges or obliterated power plants. Also labor is much cheaper in that part of the world, you can see this in the elaborate stonework that would be unaffordable for most projects in America. In Dubai I have seen with my own eyes even the most modest restaurant will have beautiful marble floors.

For the record I myself was opposed to the invasion, and I do not regret my position. So far 300 billion has been poured into Iraq, with another 170 billion on the way to be flushed down the toilet. The US would have been far better to have invested the money in energy independence projects such as mass transit, railway electrification and synthetic oil plants.

I think the US needs to put America first instead of trying to right all the worlds wrongs. Saddam Hussein was the government Iraq deserved, I'd rather see him back in power than executed. I suppose at least that the episode will have the effect of turning America inward and not concern herself so much with the worlds troubles. The money poured into Egypt and Israel following the Camp David accord would pay for the electrification of our railway system, witha great deal left over for multiple tracks, cab signaling and grade separation/realignments. But we waste the money in part to help keep the Suez Canal open, which is not even needed by the US.

Ask not what America can do for the rest of the world, ask what America can do for Americans.


----------



## Birra Tirana (Dec 15, 2006)

this is what happens when bush is president, although, saddam is no longer leader of that country


----------

