State Department readies Iraq operation, its biggest since Marshall Plan

[SpartanDem]

Source: Washington Post

The State Department is racing against an end-of-year deadline to take over Iraq operations from the U.S. military, throwing up buildings and marshalling contractors in its biggest overseas operation since the effort to rebuild Europe after World War II.

While attention in Washington and Baghdad has centered on the number of U.S. troops that may remain in Iraq, they will be dwarfed by an estimated 16,000 civilians under the American ambassador — the size of an Army division.
...

The list of responsibilities the State Department will pick up from the military is daunting. It will have to provide security for the roughly 1,750 traditional embassy personnel — diplomats, aid workers, Treasury employees and so on — in a country that is still rocked by daily bombings and assassinations.

To do so, State is contracting a security force of about 5,000. They will not only protect the Baghdad embassy but two consulates, a pair of support sites at Iraqi airports and three police-training facilities.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-readies-iraq-operation-its-bi

[bemildred]

1. This is not going to turn out well. nt

[Robb]

10. On this, we agree, nt

[indepat]

2. Millions of the old, frail, and poor should gladly accept evisceration of their already-paid-for

benefits to pay for all those contractors to protect an embassy contingent probably egregiously larger that the size of the State Department contingent in most countries of similar size. Seemingly sheer madness in perpetuity. :patriot:

Edited to add last phrase

[CarmanK]

3. And how does this indicate that Hillary would do better as Prez??

This is really disappointing! I thought this type of operation would have more class with Hillary in charge. Instead it is the same ole solutions to new problems. Iraq is not post WWII Europe. More civilian security guards. Bet they are Xe, the successor company to BLACKWATER. And I really resent those thugs are still on the US taxpayer's payroll.

[KoKo]

4. We didn't know then...what we know now

about the Clintons. Well, some of us were slow to the wakening. Myself, included, which is why I didn't support Hillary.

But, it's the whole MIC and the PTB are both parties, it seems. Many of us still believed there was a least "some difference."

[totodeinhere]

16. Secretary Clinton reports to President Obama. If the president objected to this he could stop it in

a heartbeat. The buck stops with the president, not the secretary, and ultimately he shoulders the blame for it.

[juajen]

5. I don't like this either, but it was written large when the Embassy

there became a small city. Knew there was a reason. We have spent trillions of dollars in Iraq. Now we all need to do is guess why? Mmmmmm, could it be OIL?

[subterranean]

6. Will Eric Cantor demand spending cuts to offset this?

When it comes to fixing our own infrastructure, or even just cleaning up after natural disasters, we're flat broke. Can't afford it. But for overseas boondoggles like this, the money spigot flows freely. How many more trillions is Iraq going to cost us? At least it will make KBR, Blackstone and Bechtel stockholders happy.

[Supersedeas]

23. You betcha...the Shock Doctrine that caters to Defense Contractors

[bhikkhu]

7. Still much smaller, and preferable to, continued military involvement

though I have no prediction myself as to how well things will go...

[blueclown]

8. Why not just hire an additional 5000 Department of State workers?

Instead of spending more money to just contract them to a for-profit "security" company like Blackwater.

[SoapBox]

9. And what the HELL is this costing me????

...I'm sick of spending money like this.

Can I get the street out in front of my home fixed instead????

[chill_wind]

11. The monstrously huge embassy will expand

and skyrocket in costs.

The number of personnel under the authority of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq will swell from 8,000 to about 16,000 as the troop presence is drawn down, a State Department official told The Huffington Post. "About 10 percent would be core programmatic staff, 10 percent management and aviation, 30 percent life support contractors -- and 50 percent security," he said.

As part of that increase, the State Department will double its complement of security contractors -- fielding a private army of over 5,000 to guard the embassy and other diplomatic outposts and protect personnel as they travel beyond the fortifications, the official said. Another 3,000 armed guards will protect Office of Security Cooperation personnel, who are responsible for sales and training related to an estimated $13 billion in pending U.S. arms sales, including tanks, squadrons of attack helicopters and 36 F-16s.

(snip)

As the Department of Defense pulls out and its spending drops, the State Department is expecting its costs to skyrocket. State asked Congress for $2.7 billion for its Iraqi operations in fiscal year 2011, and got $2.1 billion. It wants $6.2 billion for next year. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee estimates that State's plans will cost $25 to $30 billion over the next five years.

Dan Froomkin

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/us-embassy-iraq-state-department-plan_n_965945.html
(2 pages)

[dipsydoodle]

13. Expand until its retitled

Iran.

[Taverner]

12. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss

I give up

[Muskypundit]

14. Yeah. because 20,000 civilians working for the state department

Is the same as hundreds of thousands of combat troops.

[Taverner]

15. Awesome. So the employees don't have to wear camo.

Otherwise, same same

[Muskypundit]

17. Camo doesnt equal soldier. Look at hunters.

20,000 is not equal to 200,000. U.S presence only in the green zone by the embassy is not equal to U.S forces everywhere in the country. Millions of dollars a month is not the same as bilions of dollars a month. Gate guard is not the same thing as combat patrols, search and seizures, search and destroy, cordon and search, and every other thing U.S forces DID and will no longer do. Nice try though.

[Angry Dragon]

19. Could you tell me why we need an embassy that is 1.5 miles square??

and which is cheaper marines or private soldiers??

[Muskypundit]

20. Because we still owe the Iraqi government a LOT of help in keeping their government stable

We have more responsibility there than we do anywhere else, save afghanistan. So we need a bigger office building than in any other country.

And part of the reason they use private soldiers is because it looks better to say we have no troops there. But.... I still hate those private soldiers. Being an iraqi vet I can tell you they cause a million more problems than they help to solve. No accountability, no professionalism.

[Angry Dragon]

21. Do we not owe more responsibility to this country??

How many years and dollars are we going to put in there??
If you got rid of the private soldiers and actually got corps in there to build things right
then Iraq would be up and running by now

I find it hard to believe anyone there has any idea of what they are doing

[Muskypundit]

22. Hopefully not too much more of either.

But this is a good first step to getting there.

And everyone has their opinion on how to win the war. Here is mine, from actually spending a year over there. If we didnt bomb literally every piece of infrastructure in the country, we might have had an easier time about things. Or maybe not, because everything we didnt get got got by the insurgents. Boom.

[PragmaticLiberal]

18. Its not the same.

Different mission....different objective.