IS MORE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ OKAY IF IT IS IN THE NAME OF THE FREE MARKET? [+] serious ballot by cranky ACTIVE Mon May 14, 07 - Sat Feb 06, 10 Pentagon, State Department fueding in Iraq. “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. (Think Progress) * * * * * * * * Is preventing the reopening of government run factories and employing thousands of men who might otherwise be in the streets broke, angry, and vulnerable to extremist ideologies, worth the additional cost in insurgent violence because to reopen the factories violates the ideology of Bush Administration free marketeers? Yes, the additional violence is worth it to support the concept of the free market No, the violence must be stemmed, even if it is through a gov't program Ballot #114872 : SEE RESULTS Comment: show your vote with comment?

v 2.0

© BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank: