Should the US limit contracts in Iraq to countries that supplied troops? It seems the US is currently excluding contracts on $18 billion in contracts in Iraq to any country that didn’t participate or send troops to Iraq. I suppose there are pros and cons to that, so I thought it would be a good debate for anyone interested.
On the one side, I can see why the US would do such a thing. After all, most of the countries that are being excluded basically opposed the US involvement in Iraq…why should they now profit for sitting on the sidelines while the US and UK (and our other ‘allies’) did all the heavy lifting. On the other hand, this could and would be a good time to heal the breach between us, and it could help the US’s position with many of these nations. Especially Canada and they are a very close neighbor.
So, what do you think? Is the US right/justified in taking such a stance, or is it a bad move?
I can certainly understand why the United States would restrict the contracts to those nations who where in support of the coalition - their risk, their reward. And the reconstruction probably will not suffer too much for it.
However, the US should make an effort to include all nations if they are really interested in providing the best help possible for the Iraqi people. And, as so often happens in International Politics, someone refuses to take the high road.
Well, as you certainly can imagine I find it extremely funny that they once again expose themselves with no shame at all for what they are.
Now if someone comes in to say that anybody in the current US government ever heard the word “diplomacy” and understood what it means, I think I’m going to die of laughter.
They truly have no brains at all… They even don’t make any effort to cover it up and work it out behind the public scene with some hidden threats there and some intrusive bribery elswhere.
Cowboyisme in practice at its top level.
As for you comment “why should they profit”…
One should rather ask:
Why should the US companies “profit” from the bloody murdering invasion of a sovereign nation, if it was not because profit was the only thing that was ever in the minds of this so called president and his bunch of bloodthirsty greedy warriors linked to Capitalism with the largest C you can imagine.
As always I wonder once again when US’ers are going to wake up and understand that it is not “democracy” but Capitalism that rules their nation.
Salaam. A
Some of the nation the US is excluding are nations that have donated money to restructuring. The US is also asking NATO countries to donate troops at the same time that it excludes the same countries from bidding. You might also think about the fact that a lot of the restructuring is supposed to be paid back by the Iraqi ppl. They should have a say in how their future earnings are being invested.
The US should not exclude any of its approved trading partners from the contract process. Money is fungible, so what the hell difference does it make if, say, a French company makes money in Iraq or in the US? This is silly, bad poitics. If there are legitimate security issues, lets hear about them. Otherwise, contracts should go to the best overall bid, regardless of where the company is based.
I have to say, IMO, this is an incredibly stupid and short sighted thing for the US to do, from what I’ve read today. It gains us nothing but bad will abroad, and at a time when the US should be making efforts to bridge the gap between our differences…especially with the NATO countries. Whats the point of this? Is it some kind of bid to tempt our ‘allies’ to send troops to Iraq or something?
Also, whether Canada supported us or not should be compeletly irrelevant, as they are are neighbors for gods sake. We NEED to put our differences aside on this stupid issue.
Does anyone want to argue that this IS a good idea? If so, why is it a good idea to do such a thing at this time? Do you think on the domestic politics side this will fly, that it will help Bush in the election somehow?? On the face of it, I think this will definitely hurt the 'Pubs…both the center and the left are not going to be happy campers about this, IMO.
There is absoloutely no way in hell anyone should be granted a fat contract for Iraq if they didn’t join in the hunt! Anybody who ever really wanted to help Iraq in the first place would have supported the violent overthrow and subsequent campaign to “re-orient” the minsd of the citizenry. Now that it’s collection time they want a piece? NO WAY!!!
[tongue pops out of cheek/]
**As always I wonder once again when US’ers are going to wake up and understand that it is not “democracy” but Capitalism that rules their nation. **
Chill out big A. You clearly know enough to operate a personal computer so you don’t fool me with impressively grandiose & belligerant crap insinuating that we Yanks Love the Bush-master and think we live in a Democracy. And at any rate, what does our opinion of our government have to do with the nastiness of the current adminstration? We’re not supposed to shoot 'em…unless of course GWB gets a second term, then all bets are off.
It is rather foolish, provided reconstruction is the serious aim. As the motives of the US administration is yet unclear and anybody’s guess (my guess would include peglegs and parrots, that as an aside), I cannot really reach a verdict on whether this is a wise move or not.
I come from a country that sent our leader to address Congress in sympathy over 9/11 and has loads of troops in Iraq. Plus we have a ‘special relationship’.
Unfortunately none of this gets UK companies much of the contract work. I think it almost all went to companies (Halliburton, Bechtel, etc) that funded Bush’s election campaign…
<Let me don my handy-dandy armor to prepare for the barrage to follow this post >
I think the pros of the directive outweigh the cons, so I support the decision (as long as the reasoning goes as follows, and was not made out of petty spite):
The $18.6 billion is primarily U.S. taxpayer money. If nations that actively worked to OPPOSE the U.S. get dibs on projects funded with U.S. taxpayer money, then, as one of said U.S. taxpayers, I would demand a damn good explanation why my money is helping some French firm get rich (especially if that French firm had previous economic deals with Saddam).
If we opened the bidding process to countries that opposed us, what message does that send to those countries that supported us? Let’s not forget that nations like the U.K., Bulgaria, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Austalia, etc. took considerable risks to aid the U.S. effort (especially those eastern European countries that aligned against the Paris/Berlin/Brussels/Moscow axis). I think it would be disgraceful to fuck over those countries that actually helped us.
If the French/German/Russian governments can derive the anti-American political capital they gained by opposing the war AS WELL AS profit from the reconstruction, then what incentive does any country have for cooperating with us when it’s unpopular?
The United States ought to be in the business of rewarding its REAL allies, not placating its fake ones.
And, if we really want to pursue our strategic imperative and redeploy our force structure toward the main theater of conflict (i.e. bases and troops out of Germany and into eastern Europe), we damn well better make it worth the east European host countries’ while.
The countries crying foul are shedding crocodile tears, IMHO. France, Germany and Russia basically sneered at the Madrid donor’s conference last October by sending low-level officials. They were warned by members of the Governing Council that the paltry $235 million contribution* made by the EU at the donor’s conference in Madrid would not be forgotten. And, as individual nations, France, Germany, and Russia haven’t sent anything beyond that amount. What the hell have these countries done to aid the situation in Iraq? Offered facilities to train police officers? Big deal.
(* - to its credit, if you count humanitarian aid, the amount given by the EU comes to around $1.7 billion dollars )
I do think xtisme is correct about Canada. Canada may not have supported the U.S. in Iraq, but did not exhibit the utter duplicity displayed by some of the aforementioned countries. Plus, Canada is currently donating nearly $200 million to reconstruction. I hope the directive is amended to include Canada, especially since we both have an interest in patrolling our borders.
I disagree with this statement by xtisme:
Please. Do you really think the majority of Americans are gonna shed a tear for those poor, mistreated, French multinational corporations who won’t get their pet reconstruction project?
This is red meat for Bush’s core constituency, and the center is probably smirking, too. So what if the left screams about it - that’s all the left seems to do, anyway.
By all means! The (so far) $18.6 billion in taxpayer funds is the only portion of the ~$56 billion required to rebuild Iraq over which the US has sole control. It behooves us to limit competition in such a way as to a) ensure that the funds are used as inefficiently as possible and b) piss off other potential donor nations so that a higher percentage of the total rebuilding cost will be born by the US taxpayer.
This course of action will serve to maximize the amount of cash that will flow from the pockets of American taxpayers, through Wolfowitz’s hands, and into the pocketses of our largest allied corporations. What’s not to love? :dubious:
I linked to the white house press briefing on this over in the pit thread, but here it is again.
The DoD Iraq Contracts Directive itself is available at the Globalsecurity website.
GoHeels:
What is so special about this particular amount of money to be spent versus any other money spent by our gov’t? The fact is, there is nothing at all different. This is purely a symbolic gesture to stick it to those countries that opposed the war. You cannot logically oppose allowing them to bid for these contracts w/o also opposing allowing them to be on any US governement contracts.
John Mace, I would respond by saying this money is much more likely to be closely scrutinized by the media and general public than most other forms of federal outlay.
It’s hard to deny that there is a sharp political element to this particular money. It materialized when Bush took a sizable political risk (and definitely took a hit in the polls) by asking the American people - in a televised address to the nation on a Sunday night - to give this money their blessing. To pretend it’s like any other form of federal spending is a stretch, IMHO. It doesn’t compare to a typical lousy Omnibus Farm Bill.
Also, I think it’s a hard sell to the Iraqi people to extend bids to firms in countries that had favorable financial relationships with Saddam. Countries like France, Russia, and Germany prospered by their relationship with Saddam, and these countries aren’t doing a damn thing to restructure the odious debt racked up by Saddam (which will fall on the shoulders of the Iraqis without debt relief by those “peace-loving” countries).
I do think Squink has a point about how limiting the bidders introduces inefficiency. Certainly, the funds need to be closely scrutinized and audited to ensure as little corruption as possible, I would agree. But as I said in my previous, the pros that I mentioned above and in my previous post outweigh the cons, for a variety of economic and political reasons.
>