Reading this article reminded me of an old blog post here on the US Embassy building in Baghdad. At the time, the tenor of the post was that this was the most expensive and expansive embassy building in the world at the time. At the time, the overall costs could have been attributed to the need to fortify the grounds that hold the building together with the residences of the embassy stuff. To my mind then, it was also a testament to the fact that the US foresaw a continuing role for it in that country for the foreseeable future.
Five years hence, it is clear that the combat mission is being drawn down with the result that the compound now looks unwieldy. It illustrates that telling the course of war and US engagement in the future was not accurate at that time. At the same time, the concerns for safety of workers means that the embassy compound is a fort that does not predispose embassy staff to meeting with Iraqi's. So without looking at the vast expense, this embassy building risks becoming a white elephant. As one official asks, "what prompted the designers to build it in such scale?"
Five years hence, it is clear that the combat mission is being drawn down with the result that the compound now looks unwieldy. It illustrates that telling the course of war and US engagement in the future was not accurate at that time. At the same time, the concerns for safety of workers means that the embassy compound is a fort that does not predispose embassy staff to meeting with Iraqi's. So without looking at the vast expense, this embassy building risks becoming a white elephant. As one official asks, "what prompted the designers to build it in such scale?"
No comments:
Post a Comment