The six-year Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) project to improve access to clean water and food security in parts of Iraq will cost an estimated $39 million.
“The Iraqi government, represented by the Ministry of Environment, has today achieved an important accomplishment by obtaining funding from the Green Climate Fund to implement SRVALI project in coordination with FAO,” stressed Environmental Minister Nizar Amedi.
This initiative will deliver urgently needed investments in adaptation and resilience in Iraq, which the United Nations categorizes as one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change in the Near East. Additionally, By transforming the existing irrigation network, the initiative will help stabilize water availability and make water systems more efficient.
“Water scarcity, exacerbated by climate change, conflicts, and population growth, poses a significant threat to our region’s food security and sustainable development. Projections indicate rising temperatures and declining precipitation, further straining our already limited water resources. SRVALI project will help mitigate the impact of these challenges on water and food security in rural areas of Iraq through several well-thought-out and proven interventions for a better life and a better future for all,” said Abdulhakim Elwaer, FAO’s Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Near East and North Africa.
Fifty Years of War in Iraq
A half-century of war has ravaged Iraq. In ancient times, Babylon, which is modern-day Iraq, was one of the largest and most powerful empires in the world. The good old days are long gone. Three major conflicts since 1980, all connected, have been seen to that.
Religious, cultural, geopolitical, and other smoldering tensions led to the Iraq-Iran War, which began in 1980. Supposedly, both sides committed atrocities, including the use of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
The war ended in a draw in 1988. But in the early 1980s, longtime Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein seemed to be leading his country to victory. Incoming U.S. President Ronald Reagan was eager to stick it to Iran after the hostage crisis. He was also eager to back a winner and gain influence with what was then a stable and moderate government in the volatile and radical Middle East.
So, Reagan sent special envoy Donald Rumsfeld to negotiate an arms sale. Hussein agreed to pay almost $100 million for missiles and various other weapons. He did not have the cash, so he borrowed most of it, mostly from Kuwait.
When that war ended, Kuwait demanded repayment. But Iraq, which had emerged from the Iran war mostly in one piece, had the fourth-largest land army in the world at the time. Hussein did some quick math and determined that putting that army to use and occupying Kuwait was cheaper than repaying the loan.
Unfortunately for the Iraqis, Hussein’s calculation skills were not quite as sharp when he predicted the UN’s response to that invasion. He most likely believed the UN would impose economic sanctions on Iraq.
Incidentally, economic sanctions against countries like Iraq rarely work. Despots like Hussein do not care if regular people suffer.
A U.S.-led invasion, 1990’s Operation Desert Storm, quickly dislodged the Iraqis from Kuwait. Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, took his foot off the gas after that initial victory, even though the Iraqis collapsed. Most likely, Bush believed that continued offensive operations exceeded the UN’s limited mandate and would antagonize Arab countries, who would view a full-scale invasion as American imperialism.
Hussein was determined to get revenge on Bush when he visited Kuwait in 1993. During the former president’s visit to Kuwait to commemorate the coalition’s victory over Iraq in the Gulf War, Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 people allegedly involved in an assassination car bomb plot. A Kuwaiti court later convicted all but one of the defendants.
In retaliation, President Bill Clinton authorized a cruise missile attack on the Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad. After the U.S. attack, Vice President Al Gore said the attack “was intended to be a proportionate response at the place where this plot” to assassinate Bush “was hatched and implemented.”
This retaliation wasn’t good enough for Clinton’s successor and Bush’s son, George W. Bush. Revenge certainly wasn’t the only motivation behind the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, but it was in the mix.
Contractors in Iraq Wars
In the latter two wars, U.S. private military contractors served with distinction in many areas. They also developed occupational diseases at an alarming rate.
As his defeat seemed imminent in 1990, Hussein ordered his troops to torch Kuwaiti oil extraction facilities. The resulting fires blanketed much of the region with toxic smoke. Many veterans inhaled this toxic smoke and developed what doctors called Gulf War Syndrome. Possibly because of that fake-sounding name, these veterans have had a hard time obtaining benefits.
Roughly the same thing happened during the Iraq War. Smoke from burn pits (open-air waste disposal pits) blanketed much of the country. This smoke was laced with toxins, including heavy metals and various other VOCs (volatile organic compounds).
The Veterans Administration has reluctantly, at best, paid benefits in these cases. However, a Defense Base Act lawyer has ample precedence in obtaining compensation for sick private military contractors.
Injury Compensation Available
Before the pandemic and long before Congress approved benefits for burn pit injuries, the Department of Labor approved benefits for a private military contractor with DRLD (deployment-related lung disease). The Administrative Law Judge noted that the victim, who was a morale officer at the notorious Joint Base Balad (Camp Anaconda) in Iraq, breathed burn pit smoke. That smoke, not the environment, substantially caused her illness, according to the ALJ.
An Administrative Law Judge hearing is usually the last stop for a Defense Base Act lawyer. As outlined below, during earlier hearings, decision-makers usually only hear from the insurance company. When Defense Base Act lawyers have free reign to do what they do best, maximum compensation is usually available.
This compensation usually includes lost wage replacement and payment of all reasonably necessary medical bills, whether the victim has a temporary or permanent partial or total disability.
These earlier phases usually include a “settlement conference” and perhaps a higher-level review. We use the term “settlement conference” loosely because, at the early stages of a claim, there’s usually not enough evidence to determine a fair settlement amount. Unfortunately, many victims accept whatever pittance the insurance company offers. If that happens to you, and it probably will, do not lose heart. Let your Defense Base Act lawyer keep working for you.
For more information about Defense Base Act eligibility, contact Barnett, Lerner, Karsen, Frankel & Castro, P.A.