The reconstruction of "Oraq"

Tom Englehardt and Nick Turse discuss the corporate boonfall of reconstructing both Iraq and New Orleans (what they call "Oraq").

Please revisit my Works Projects idea in two posts below, at the end of 1, and then 2. Why not a new "Oraq" Works Projects Administration? Max Sawicky (and he has a good piece here on N.O.) told me in an email that there's a problem of further depressing wages, although some are discussing a similar possibility regarding post-Katrina construction. I can only defer to him on those issues, but still don't quite understand the problem.

Why not put the two together in a non-Bushian, non-cronyist way? Bush probably wouldn't and it may even be contrary to his very constitution to do so. But couldn't this be a platform for a Democratic candidate and other policymakers?

Here's the idea: How about the combination of Katrina and Iraq? That is, providing jobs for both the poor and displaced from Katrina and Iraq in both LA/MS and Iraq. There is plenty of skilled labor from Louisiana and Mississippi that could help in Iraq, and there may be the same in Iraq who could help in LA/MS. The added bonus to providing the jobless and homeless a decent wage is political good will, and a triangulated rebuilding of trust between Iraqis, Americans, and this US administration (or, more likely, the next one).

The large contractors discussed by Engelhardt and others earn huge amounts of largely squandered money. A student of mine was spending time in Iraq on a reconstruction project and finding the Bechtel folks would repair a couple of holes, slap a coat of paint on a bombed school, and call it "Iraqi reconstruction," charging huge sums of money in the meantime. Bush would then announce success in the reconstruction of Iraq, ignoring that the schools were bombed by American planes, but were functioning fine under Saddam. But that Bechtel/Halliburton/et al "reconstruction" money was coming from the US government, right?

What, then about Katrina-displaced workers being paid reasonable wages (unreasonable being what taxpayers pay Bechtel, Halliburton and the like) but higher than typical American wages, thus providing them with work and a better-than living wage, and saving American taxpayer money from the taxpayer sinkholes of the Bechtels, Halliburtons, and so on? I'm not sure why wage depression would be a question here. Salaries are already exorbitant for US contractors who do little to ameliorate the situation in Iraq. Cut those salaries in half or some such number, save taxpayer money, have those savings go to Katrina-displaced people, and pay Katrina-displaced workers more than they've likely ever earned in LA or MS, thus giving them a chance to start a new life, maybe buy a new home, and start over. On the other hand, maybe some actual Iraqi reconstruction would be accomplished.

The political merit is that Bush gains a kind of redemption for the multitudinous abuses of the Bush administration -- or more likely the future Democratic president gets the redemption for the US -- and Iraqis might see some real goodwill and honest intentions coming from the US. As it stands in Iraq, everyone knows "reconstruction" is a money-making scheme for American contractors and some Iraqi elites with few beneficial effects on the daily lives of Iraqis.