The question of what to do about Iraq continues to dominate public and private discourse in the United States. Not surprisingly, there is an abundance of strong opinions but little consensus. The Democrats and the Republicans cannot agree. Nor apparently can the Departments of Defense and State, as the Washington Post reports:
Defense Skirts State in Reviving Iraqi Industry
Paul Brinkley, a deputy undersecretary of defense, has been called a Stalinist by U.S. diplomats in Iraq. One has accused him of helping insurgents build better bombs. The State Department has even taken the unusual step of enlisting the CIA to dispute the validity of Brinkley’s work.
His transgression? To begin reopening dozens of government-owned factories in Iraq.
Brinkley and his colleagues at the Pentagon believe that rehabilitating shuttered, state-run enterprises could reduce violence by employing tens of thousands of Iraqis. Officials at State counter that the initiative is antithetical to free-market reforms the United States should promote in Iraq.
The bureaucratic knife fight over the best way to revive Iraq’s moribund economy illustrates how the two principal players in the reconstruction of Iraq — the departments of Defense and State — remain at odds over basic economic and political measures. The bickering has hamstrung initiatives to promote stability four years after Saddam Hussein’s fall.
Under pressure from Congress to demonstrate progress on the ground, the military often favors immediate solutions aimed at quelling violence. That has prompted objections from some at State who question the long-term consequences of that expeditious approach.
In recent months, the two departments have squabbled over the degree to which Iraqi farmers should be aided by subsidies and tariffs. They also remain at odds over State’s desire to deploy reconstruction teams to two Shiite-dominated provinces in central Iraq. Defense officials are balking at providing robust security for the teams, preferring to deploy as many troops as possible in Baghdad. State contends that well-protected American civilians in those provinces will build relationships with future Shiite leaders.
“There has been a surprising degree of venom and hostility” between the departments, said a senior U.S. government official involved in Iraq policy. [full text]
If the powers that be in this country can be so divided more than four years after this neoconservative misadventure began, then what hope is there for curtailing the violence and restoring some semblance of stability in a deeply divided and devastated Iraq?
Kmareka.com 
These reports provide the reasons why this mismanaged and tainted effort in Iraq has been such a mess. The notion that jobs and income makes for a population more inclined to want the good life, seems to have escaped our State Department’ notice, but of course the bureaucrats in State can afford to ponder deeper meanings of a capitalism that never existed. No need for them toworry about raodside bombs or snipers or decapitations. Just imagine 500,000 folks going to work every day, picking up paychecks every week or month, making shoes or backpacks or anything that has market value, and just feeling as if there might be a tomorrow better than yesterday.
One can also ponder another option. If we have expended $600 billion dollars of American money differently, we likely could have just given every adult head of family in Iraq $600,000 (if there are 12 million heads of families in Iraq) with the understanding that each would be a good citizen! Surely, this would have had more positive results than this never ending and mismanaged effort. I just bet, if tomorrow, Congress appropriated just $100,000 for each family, instead of $600,000, we could bring the troops home in a month (it would take that long to pack). In this instance I would hold with those wise Roman dictators: good bribes make good friends. That certainly seems to be a lesson that so many in Congress and elsewhere in government have learned.