Infrastructure Matters

Last week, we got a stark reminder of the cost of war when the I-35 West collapsed in Minneapolis, dumping commuters and construction workers into the Mississippi River.

Now calm down – the bridge didn’t collapse because of the war, and I am not saying it did. I am saying that we have some totally screwed up spending priorities.

Consider that the war is costing $150 Billion dollars a year, or about $3 Billion per week. $150 Billion dollars could repair 600 bridges a year.

Infrastructure matters. Without sound infrastructure, the economy is at risk. Highways are deteriorating, bridges are crumbling, the electric grid is teetering, ports are not secure, and we all saw two years ago this month that the levee system is unreliable.

The Resident was mindful of the post-Katrina flap when he went to Minneapolis and pledged the money to rebuild the bridge. And that’s all well and good. But then today, as he headed off to yet another vacation, the Leisure President denounced a hike in the gas tax to repair infrastructure.

“Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities,” Mr. Bush said.

“My suggestion would be that they revisit the process by which they spend gasoline money in the first place,” he added, accusing lawmakers of focusing on their own parochial concerns — or plum projects — above such national concerns as bridge conditions.

Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska and a member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has raised the possibility of increasing the gasoline tax as a way to pay for bridge repairs throughout the country in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, which raised new concerns about potential problems with a number of the nation’s bridges. A plan being considered by the House committee would index the current gasoline tax for inflation, which would result in an increase of roughly 5 cents.

Sweet Jeebus…he wants everyone else to reevaluate priorities? While bridges fall down and levees fail and people perish? But he won’t even consider reevaluating his pet war?

There's more: "Infrastructure Matters" >>

Déjà Vu, Anyone?

Haven't we seen this movie before?
Played out at the other end of the Mississippi?
In another August?
After years of infrastructure neglect?

Minneapolis is so screwed...

George the Scourge™ showed up in Minneapolis yesterday for a disaster scene photo-op.

Oh, it was touching.

"I'm here with the Secretary of Transportation, because our message to the Twin Cities is, we want to get this bridge rebuilt as quick as possible; that we understand this is a main artery of life here; that people count on this bridge and this highway system to get to work. There's a lot of paperwork involved with government. One of our jobs is to work with the Governor and the Mayor and the senators and the members of the Congress to cut through that paperwork, and to see if we can't get this bridge rebuilt in a way that not only expedites the flow of traffic, but in a way that can stand the test of time." (But in the very next breath he made "no promise of a time line.")

Like I said...Touching...

I actually heard the fife and drum...

Then realized that a Green Acres rerun was on in the other room.

There's more: "Déjà Vu, Anyone?" >>

In Iraq, hundreds of thousands are without water as the electric grid teeters on the brink of collapse

When a delusional halfwit like Pollack or O'Hanlon, or someone idiotic enough
to tout those fools as credible, insists it's looking up in Iraq,
show them this picture of Iraqi's gathered for Friday prayers in West Baghdad.

As temperatures in Baghdad soared to 120º Fahrenheit, the electric grid wheezed and strained and sputtered, leaving western Baghdad without water. It simply can’t deliver the electricity to operate water purification plants and pumping stations.

The electric grid is on the brink of collapse, unable to meet rising demand. Compounding the problems, provinces are taking local generating stations off the national grid. Coalition bombing runs and insurgent attacks have destroyed the infrastructure of the grid, while fuel shortages inhibit electricity production. Of 17 high-tension lines running into Baghdad, only two were operational at the time the AP filed their story.

Power supplies in Baghdad have been sporadic all summer and now are down to just a few hours a day, if that. The water supply in the capital has also been severely curtailed by power blackouts and cuts that have affected pumping and filtration stations.

Karbala province south of Baghdad has been without power for three days, causing water mains to go dry in the provincial capital, the Shiite holy city of Karbala.

"We no longer need television documentaries about the Stone Age. We are actually living in it. We are in constant danger because of the filthy water and rotten food we are having," said Hazim Obeid, who sells clothing at a stall in the Karbala market.

Electricity shortages are a perennial problem in Iraq, even though it sits atop one of the world's largest crude oil reserves. The national power grid became decrepit under Saddam Hussein because his regime was under U.N. sanctions after the Gulf War and had trouble buying spare parts or equipment to upgrade the system.

The power problems are only adding to the misery of Iraqis, already suffering from the effects of more than four years of war and sectarian violence. Outages make life almost unbearable in the summer months, when average daily temperatures reach between 110 and 120 degrees.

Water is a necessity of life. In fact, it makes more sense to fight wars over water than it does over oil…(and even as I write that I get a chill up my spine, knowing that that day is coming, possibly in my lifetime, and certainly in the lifetime of my grandchildren.)

None-the-less, it activates my irony meter that this war over oil – and an arrogant determination to keep squandering a precious and dwindling resource foolishly – has stolen that necessity of life away from hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people.

There's more: "In Iraq, hundreds of thousands are without water as the electric grid teeters on the brink of collapse" >>

Infrastructure Matters

What happened Wednesday in Minneapolis was a wake-up call. Put bluntly, our infrastructure is going to hell in a hot-rod. Granted, I am a little more cognizant of that than many people are, because infrastructure considerations are a big part of mass casualty drills, and in my two decades in trauma services, I have participated in a lot of mass casualty drills and a couple of mass casualties.

When I say I worry about infrastructure, I mean I am somewhat obsessed with it. Let me put it this way – when I have nightmares, they star bridges and tunnels. And water supply. But mostly, bridges and tunnels.

Speaking of bridges – somewhere in this country a bridge fails every single week. It might be a wooden bridge over a creek on a gravel road in rural Missouri, five miles from the nearest blacktop, but if it cuts a family off from that blacktop road, it cuts them off from town – and doctors – and school, and supplies. This week, the bridge that failed got our attention, because it failed big-time, killing people and dumping scores of cars and commuters into the Mississippi freakin’ River in a major metropolitan area.

Four years ago another I-35 bridge failed, that one across the Missouri River in Kansas City. It didn’t catastrophically fail like the one in Minneapolis, but it was closed in 2003 for emergency repairs, reopened; then closed for several months in 2005 to do the repairs properly. Had the Paseo Bridge failure in January 2003 happened during rush hour, instead of in the middle of the night, what happened in Minneapolis might have been a tragic replay. We got lucky.

Last month, a steam-pipe in Manhattan blew. In August 2003, there was a northeast blackout.

In New Orleans, two years ago this month, levees failed and people died and a city was changed forever.

Infrastructure costs money. Bridges, tunnels, the electric grid, the levee system – all of these things cost money, and without the infrastructure, it all falls apart.

Infrastructure maintenance is funded by the tax base. When you gut the treasury and cut taxes, infrastructure suffers.

It is no longer my job to stress out about this stuff – now it’s a hobby, I guess, because I can’t just stop giving a shit, and I can’t unring the bell and forget the stuff I know.

It was fun sucking up tax cuts and encouraging the buying of jet skis and SUV’s and cardboard McMansions. But the party’s over. It is time to suck it up, tote the board and start paying taxes at a responsible rate.

Part of that reality we need to deal with is a crumbling infrastructure. Our interstate highway system is 50 years old. I-70 is in such disrepair from KC to St. Louis that some people say that MODOT should just cut their losses and build a whole new I-70 parallel to the one we currently refuse to drive on, it is in such sad shape; I'll take the train across the state, thanks just the same. The average interstate highway bridge was built in the 60's, when our cities were smaller, our population was lower, a lower percentage of that lower population owned cars, and most cargo still moved by train. In short - not only are the bridges 40-50 years old, but they were built for a different demographic and are not standing up at all well to the wear and tear of the traffic loads they bear.

Our infrastructure is so compromised right now, that we might actually be to the point of needing another WPA type effort, or face serious economic consequences as a result of our obstinance. If we don't get with the program and start dealing with these problems, we better get used to stories like the one from Minneapolis happening once or twice a year.

Meanwhile - if you are one of those people who is sustained by fear...go to ASCE.ORG and look at our infrastructure report card. You will find some stuff there to be by-god terrified about.


[Crossposted from Blue Girl, Red State]

There's more: "Infrastructure Matters" >>

Of Strafing Runs and Pyrrhic Victories

Last spring I started noticing a trend in the news reports coming out of Iraq. Air strikes were – are – being used with increasing frequency. Well, I was right to notice. So As of the end of May, the United States had already dropped more bombs than they did in all of 2006, according to an AP story by Charles Hanley dated 05 June:

"U.S. warplanes have again stepped up attacks in Iraq, dropping bombs at more than twice the rate of a year ago. … And it appears to be accomplished by a rise in Iraqi civilian casualties.

"In the first 4 1/2 months of 2007, American aircraft dropped 237 bombs and missiles in support of ground forces in Iraq, already surpassing the 229 expended in all of 2006, according to Air Force figures obtained by The Associated Press."

Using air strikes against a counter-insurgency is a very serious act – it is a desperate last move of an army that is losing. It sure ain’t a stand-up fight. I would go so far as to argue that the reliance on air power is evidence of the failure of the s(pl)urge.

First of all, it indicates that our forces are facing an adversary that is increasing in effectiveness, and that is developing both strategic and tactical acumen. It speaks to the ability of the insurgents as a fighting force, at least to the locals.

The pitched battles will always go to the Americans, because the Americans can call in the Air Strikes. But that they are increasingly necessary in order for the Americans to not lose the battle, represents overwhelming psychological victory.

Air strikes always kill far more civilians than targeted fighters, and this serves to enrage the local populace. This has the net effect of increasing the sympathies of the locals to the insurgent fighters that were the targets of the aerial assault. Air strikes also kill indiscriminately and they destroy vital civilian infrastructure.

Psychologically, it is a boon to the insurgency – the United States is a bunch of cowards who only dare fight from five miles high, dropping bombs indiscriminately, on innocents as well as insurgents. Morally, it turns the United States into a Goliath that must be fought, and must be slain.

This is the stuff that martyrs are made of, and we are intervening in a culture with a long, strong and proud tradition of martyrdom. Just the folks whose resolve needs a good strengthening.

There's more: "Of Strafing Runs and Pyrrhic Victories" >>

This is starting to look like "strategy" to me

In the past seven weeks, as many bridges have been targeted by jihadist fighters in Iraq, bent on crippling the populace both logistically and psychologically by destroying infrastructure. (.pdf map of Baghdad with bridges labeled can be found here. Hat tip to Larry Johnson at No Quarter.)

This is an ominous trend.

The most obvious place my mind goes when this disturbing development is considered is the “sitting ducks” that are inevitably created; where traffic will bottleneck at the remaining routes across rivers and highways. The bombing on Monday that took out a bridge over the Diyala River means that traffic must be rerouted through insurgent-controlled Baquba. “Victims, right this way…”

And that leaps logically to the second place my mind goes: the strategic implications. Supply lines have not been cut, but they have sure as hell been complicated by this development. If this trend continues, the potential to isolate and cut off those “surge” troops that “surged” into neighborhoods from supplies and support is all too real.

(On the Faux News front, Bill O-Lie-ley has decided to push the bullshit line that these explosions don’t matter, and not only that, but that by the very act of reporting on these events, CNN and MSNBC are helping the terrorists win…Think Progress has more, including the video)

Seven bridges have been closed or seriously compromised by this effort that is starting to look a hell of a lot like a full-fledged strategy at this point. In addition, it has a huge psychological impact on the Iraqi populace that is directly affected by these attacks.

And when it comes right down to it, we don’t have the troops to secure the infrastructure, let alone the capitol much less the entire damned country. So can we accept the reality of the situation on the ground, please, before we lose another 3500 to Bush’s splendid vanity war?

[Cross-posted from Blue Girl, Red State & The Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus]

There's more: "This is starting to look like "strategy" to me" >>