Yet there are those who wonder why, for example, a $26.3 million renovation of Iraq's Umm Qasr naval base near Basra, which is under way, took precedence over fixing the sewage system at the country's biggest children's hospital, al Iskan, where toilets sometimes overflow into the leukemia ward.

Hey, I have an idea, let's run ships full of plumbing supplies aground in the marshes of the al Faw peninsula!

Then the CPA can hire Iraqis as "native bearers" and manhandle the cargo through the marshes, load it on donkeys, and take it by land to the al Iskan Children's Hospital in Basra. Sure, it's labor intensive, but there's lots of unemployed Iraqis around. We'll be killing two birds with one stone!

Or maybe we should install some of that mind-boggling, newfangled technology instead.

Maybe infrastructure improvements will be hastened if the main deepwater port in Iraq -- Umm Qasr -- is capable of handling more ships at one time. Maybe it would be easier to import heavy equipment & supplies such as generators, earth-movers, and pipes if they're not sitting in ships in the Persian Gulf for want of dock space. Maybe more basic supples like latex gloves and painkillers might be off-loaded, too.

But I suppose that can't be the motive behind the dock rennovations in Umm Qasr. I mean the Bechtel corporation is involved! We all know who Bechtel gives money to. It all ties together! Don't you see? Don't you see!?!? It's a war for oil!

Seriously, though, I wonder - how many US corporations are capable of handling large-scale infrastructure projects? I'll wager the list is around a half-dozen. Uhh, let's see, Betchel, Halliburton (KBR is a subsidiary), Honeywell, GE... anyone else?