The new estimate comes at a time when little progress has been made in increasing Iraq's oil production, which represents more than 90 percent of the country's income. With production slowed to a near halt by insurgent attacks, Iraq now spends about $6 billion annually to import oil.
Iraq must increase oil exports from their current level of about 1.6 million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day, said Daniel Speckhard, director of the U.S. Iraq Reconstruction Management Office.
The deputy finance minister said Iraq needs foreign investment to lift exports to 3 million barrels a day. That would equal the oil exports achieved by Iraq in the 1980s. Oil production today is far below prewar levels.
According to the Pentagon's prewar planning, oil production was supposed to provide the funds for Iraqi reconstruction. Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials emphasized this point repeatedly in their pre-war effort to justify the U.S. invasion.
Also facing the country is a massive rebuilding of infrastructure. Lack of security has stymied efforts to rebuild electrical, sewer and water systems. A report last month by the special U.S. inspector general overseeing reconstruction said so much money was being spent on security that most sewer, irrigation and drainage projects had been canceled.
Production by Iraq's national electrical grid remains at 4,000 megawatts, 400 megawatts below pre-war levels, with the average Iraqi receiving less than 12 hours of power a day. The shortfall has been attributed mainly to sabotage by insurgents.
Approximately 16 percent to 22 percent of each reconstruction dollar spent by the U.S. has gone to protect projects and contractors.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because he is involved in the current Iraqi political process, a leading Middle East expert told IPS, "Because the U.S. did understand Iraqi culture, it did not anticipate the insurgency. Because it did not anticipate the insurgency, it could not have planned for the huge sums that would have to be spent on security."
Critics of the Bush administration see the end of U.S. reconstruction funding as vindicating this position. Typical is Professor Beau Grosscup, professor of international relations at California State University at Chico.
He told IPS, "Having destroyed Iraq, the U.S. now refuses to put it back together again. This decision reflects the disastrous reality of the U.S. occupation for the Iraqi people as it is obvious there won't be peace until the U.S. leaves. Meanwhile, the makeover of the Iraqi economy has been completed."
But the Pentagon defends the reconstruction project as the best that could be achieved under very difficult and dangerous security conditions.
With the billions of dollars appropriated by the U.S. for Iraqi reconstruction almost all spent, other nations and multinational institutions will be asked to shoulder the burden for funding the large number of unfinished projects.
Speckhard said the U.S. aid program sought to "kick-start the economy" and "lay a foundation" that Iraq could build on. He added, "That kick-starting process has occurred."
However, the extent of U.S. commitment to reconstruction has always been somewhat murky.
"The U.S. never intended to completely rebuild Iraq," Brig. Gen. William McCoy, the Army Corps of Engineers commander overseeing the work, told reporters at a recent news conference. In an interview, McCoy reportedly told The Washington Post newspaper, "This was just supposed to be a jump-start."
But McCoy's assertion seems to be at odds with previous administration statements. For example, in a speech on Aug. 8, 2003, President Bush said, "In a lot of places, the infrastructure is as good as it was at prewar levels, which is satisfactory, but it's not the ultimate aim. The ultimate aim is for the infrastructure to be the best in the region."
That view seems to contradict a report submitted the same year by the prime consulting contractor hired by the Pentagon to lay out the future of Iraq's economy.
The company, BearingPoint Inc. of McLean, Va., said, "The reconstruction of Iraq has begun. Not the reconstruction of vital public services such as water, electricity or public security, but rather the radical reconstruction of its entire economy."
Clearly, this has not happened. And the administration's recent decision not to ask Congress for additional funding for reconstruction suggests it is not likely to happen any time soon.
With many of Iraq's key ministries in disarray and some dogged by persistent corruption, and with no permanent government in place, observers say it is doubtful that the country's government will have either the resources or the expertise to manage the large-scale reconstruction projects that remain unfinished.
Relatively little of the $30 billion allocated for reconstruction since the invasion remains to be spent, and spending authority is scheduled to run out in June 2007.
According to a recent report by the U.S. special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (IG), officials cannot say how many planned projects they will complete, and there is no clear source for hundreds of millions of dollars a year needed to operate the projects that have been finished.
Some funds were diverted to other types of projects, primarily security-related, and the reconstruction efforts have been plagued by substantial corruption and overcharging by contractors.
The cost of security has eaten up as much as 25 percent of each project, according to the IG. A U.S. congressional report last October forecast that many reconstruction projects were unlikely to get off the ground because of security costs.
Iraqi authorities estimate that $10 billion is needed for the health sector alone, to build or rehabilitate and provide equipment for hospitals and clinics.
Comments? Send a letter to the editor.
April 5, 2006 (http://www.albionmonitor.com)
All Rights Reserved.
Contact email@example.com for permission to use in any format.