In The Shadows Of Iraq: Qubad Talabani (Part 6)

Political stability must be viewed as a precursor to economic development. How else do you explain the success of microfinance in places such as India, Mexico, South America, and its failure (for the most part) in Africa (aside from limited success in places such as Kenya – which is a rather stable government for the region)?

That theory holds in place for areas where the United States has previously been involved in major conflicts and had troops remain in place – South Korea being a prime example, but let’s not forget the rebuilding of Europe after World War II. Is there a correlation – does US military equate to stability over time? Here I want to gauge the economic effect that Qubad feels the US military is having on the country.

SM: In economic terms, is the US and coalition presence in Kurdistan beneficial or harmful? QT: Because of the relative stability in Kurdistan, few U.S. and coalition forces have been stationed there in order to directly benefit the economy. Indirectly, however, the U.S and coalition presence in Iraq has been, and continues to be, beneficial for Kurdistan.

Kurdistan’s stability, which has led to something of an economic boom, would have been extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, without the security provided by U.S. and coalition forces. Their presence has had a direct impact on Kurdistan’s ability to succeed economically as it greatly affects consumer confidence.

The slightest statement by a U.S. member of Congress hinting at a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sends the price of commodities soaring for a day or two.

[to be continued]

[Part 5]
[Part 4]
[Part 3]
[Part 2]
[Part 1]

This segment is part 6 in the series : In The Shadows Of Iraq: Qubad Talabani
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9