Be INFORMED

Sunday, April 22, 2007

An Resident Of Baghdad See's Things This Way..

    From Daily Kos

Letter from Baghdad

by Amory Blaine   Sat Apr 21, 2007

Mowfak is a Sunni, probably an ex Ba’athist.  He is a gentle man, polite, always smiling.  I have known him for a few years; yesterday, we had a long chat.  He is despairing.  He sees no solution for the disaster that has befallen his country.  He has sent his family to a neighboring Arab country, his big house in an upper middle class neighborhood of Baghdad abandoned.  The whole neighborhood is abandoned. 14 families on the street, 4 Sunni,10 Shia, all left together, driving across the desert in a convoy.  They all still live together, 14 families in one apartment building, on the outskirts of an Arab capital, recreating in exile their prewar neighborhood.

Mowfak’s father, a professor educated at a top western university, built the house back in the 1960s.  It was a neighborhood of academics. No one asked or cared if their neighbors were Sunni or Shia.  The 70s were a golden age in Baghdad.   The country was rich, flush with oil money.  The government invested in roads, education, infrastructure.  The Ba’athist regime, of course, was brutal, dictatorial, crushing of dissent but apolitical Iraqis saw their lives get better.  The future was bright.  The regime was explicitly secular, students received scholarships to study in the west and they happily brought their western knowledge, their western ways back to Iraq to build their country.

The golden age ended with the invasion of Iran. If you ask Iraqis why Saddam went to war, they look at you and tilt their heads.  If you say, "Do you think the Americans wanted Saddam to attack Iran?" they reply "Of course". This belief is not implausible.  America had just been humiliated by the fall of the Shah, the taking of the American embassy, the failed rescue attempt. And America had supported the Ba’ath Party in the 1960s when it competed with the Iraqi Communist Party for power.  We certainly backed Iraq during the war, as did Kuwait, as did Saudi Arabia.

The war was a disaster for Iraq. Not only did millions die but the oil money that had been going to improve the lives of rural and urban Iraqis now was being spent on armaments.  Kuwait had been sending money to support Iraq against the Persian (and Shia) threat but when the war ended, so did the subsidy.  Oil prices had fallen, Kuwait was drilling oil that Iraq thought was theirs. Iraq asked for $2 billion. Kuwait refused.  It is under this background that Saddam made his next great mistake.

He went to the American Ambassador April Gillespie and explained his objections to Kuwaiti policy.  She famously replied that the United States took no position on inter-Arab border disputes.  Saddam took that as a green light to invade.

And so the 90s were worse than the 80s for Iraq.  Sanctions starved the middle class, cut them off from the West that many of them identified with, that they saw as part of their cultural heritage.  The Ba’athist elite, of course, did not suffer as much.  By isolating the country, sanctions actually increased their power within Iraq.

In the days before the American invasion, many Iraqis thought it would improve their lives.  Few supported the regime; most were happy to see it fall.  A General told me, "Why do you think the invasion was so fast?  We did not fight.  We parked our tanks and pointed the turrets into the ground."  In Mansour, a neighborhood now under insurgent control, the American soldiers were indeed greeted with flowers.

Our mistakes are well known.  Let us list some of them anyway:

  1. Disbanding the army, leaving armed men with no way of making a living.
  1. Deba’athication, forcing the educated elite who would have happily administered the country for us out of their jobs.
  1. Not providing security during the anarchic days after the fall of Baghdad.
  1. Imposing a neo-liberal free trade regime on a country that had been isolated from the world economy, causing an upsurge of food and manufacturing imports from China and Iran thus devastating domestic industry and agriculture, dramatically raising unemployment.

Who has won? The fundamentalists, both Sunni and Shia.  Who has lost? The Westernized secular educated middle class, people like Mowfak, who had hoped we would bring prosperity to their country. The exile of the best and the brightest Iraqis will cost their country for a long time. I asked Mowfak if his friends would come back, if order were restored, if there were peace.  He said, "No, they will not return." He said  "What peace? There will be war here for a generation." He said, "When the Americans leave, then you will see a slaughter."

Mowfak is bitter.  He said the worst thing the American have done, the very worst thing, is that they have turned people like him, the educated elite, people who drank whiskey and read Shakespeare into fundamentalists.

Every time I come to Iraq, it is worse than the time before.  In all likelihood, it will continue to get worse.  Iraqis now fear that when the Americans leave, the Turks, the Saudis, and the Iranians will invade.

   Tags:

 

Ads by AdGenta.com

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Bribes And Profit Student Loan Lenders

   With the college student loan scandal ever widening, it is time that we take a look at some of the players in this crime spree. Yes sir! More of the Bush Crime Family ethics tour.

    Robert Kuttner does this for us at CommonDreams.

 

Published on Saturday, April 21, 2007 by

Privatizing and Profiteering

by Robert Kuttner

The Deepening college loan scandal is a classic case of what can happen when government uses private companies as middlemen to carry out public goals. Lately, investigations by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, US Senator Edward Kennedy, and others have revealed a number of problems:

  • Bribes paid by loan companies to colleges and universities. For example, Drexel University in Philadelphia was promised $250,000 in exchange for designating Education Finance Partners as its sole “preferred lender.” Since 2005, according to Cuomo’s office, Drexel has steered more than $16 million in loans to the company, costing students more than available alternatives.
  • Personal conflicts of interests by some college student aid officials. At Columbia University, an associate dean owned substantial stock in a “preferred lender.” At Johns Hopkins, a financial aid officer got consulting fees and had her graduate school tuition paid by Student Loan Xpress, one of the worst offenders.
  • Self-dealing by US Department of Education officials. Matteo Fontana, a senior department official held at least $100,000 in stock of one loan company he was overseeing. Several other Bush officials in charge of student aid come from the industry.
  • Exorbitant profiteering in this industry, which is subsidized by taxpayers. The biggest private student loan company, Sallie Mae, is being sold for $25 billion. Its former chairman, Albert L. Lord, got $228 million in salary and stock options in 2005, according to The New York Times.In response, Cuomo is promoting a code of conduct, and Kennedy has proposed legislation that would prohibit bribes, conflicts of interest, and kindred abuses. But, as Kennedy points out, the problems go much deeper.The private student loan industry exists side-by-side with a more efficient and corruption-free direct loan program run by the federal government. This program, whose origins date back to 1958, passes along the government’s own low borrowing rate. Congress added the subsidized private loan program as an alternative in 1965.

    The oddity of having two programs side by side has been repeatedly criticized by the Government Accountability Office. The proliferation of private student loan programs adds complexity as well as cost. Filling out student loan applications is literally more complex than doing your taxes — in this case the complexity is brought to you by the private sector.

    The private lending industry adds nothing of value and takes no real risk, since loan repayment is guaranteed by the government. It simply skims off exorbitant profit at taxpayer expense — and then adds further costs of marketing and bribing college officials. According to government figures tabulated by US News & World Report, the direct loan program does better than break even, while the private loan program costs taxpayers $12.80 for every $100 borrowed. Most of those extra costs go for company profits. If all reduced-rate loans had been made through the direct loan program, Kennedy reports, we would have saved $30 billion since 1994, the year Congress revised and expanded the federal program.

    Over time, the private student lending industry has become a major lobbying force, using political connections and campaign contributions to hobble its more efficient direct government competitor and block limits on its own profits. The industry succeeded in rigging the rules so that the more efficient public program is losing market share. One provision rammed through the Republican Congress prohibits the public program from marketing itself. Another kept Congress from reducing the maximum interest rates private lenders could charge.

    In the 2004 and 2006 election cycles, Sallie Mae donated at least $877,000 to the election campaigns of President Bush and Republican candidates; $122,470 went to the PAC of Representative John Boehner , then head of the House education committee, according to the group Campaign for America’s Future. To add insult to industry, the Republican Congress and the Bush administration have cut funding for Pell grants, so that students and parents are more reliant on the tender mercies of private lenders.

    The private student loan industry adds nothing of value. The policy of subsidizing private lenders to serve public purposes (and to corrupt our colleges and universities) should be scrapped in favor of the direct federal loan program.

    If this saga sounds familiar, it exactly parallels the privatized Medicare drug program and the efforts by the insurance industry to turn the rest of Medicare into a taxpayer subsidy for private industry. Though three decades of government-bashing have left many politicians reluctant to draw the obvious conclusion, it is often more efficient and less corrupting for government to do the public’s business directly.


    Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos. His column appears regularly in the Globe.

    © Copyright

    2007

    2007 The Boston Globe                                                                           Tags:  

  •