# Should the US limit contracts in Iraq to countries that supplied troops?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [December 10, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203 "2003-12-10T21:31:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/201 "2003-12-16T19:22:50Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by GoHeels \*  
> Will those of you who chortled about how this drives the international community away now retract your criticism?

Was anyone “chortling” over this? I certainly don’t recall anyone going “Bush screws up again, ha ha!” – at least, it sounded more like “teeth-gnashing” to me.

> [@](#):
>
> Maybe playing hard ball - combined with the capture of Saddam and the diplomacy of Baker - had something to do with this reconciliation.

I think this simply shows Baker’s diplomatic skills, that he was able to take the SNAFU Bush gave him and pulled something positive out of it. Either that, or he has incriminating photos of certain someones that he brought along with him… 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/202 "2003-12-16T22:10:50Z")

</div>

Well, **rjung** , I suppose that’s the glass-is-half-full way of looking at it. No doubt, Baker is a national asset, whose statesmanship, admittedly, would have been nice to have in the run-up to the Iraq war, instead of Rumsfeld becoming the arrogant voice of American diplomacy (even though I supported the war, Rumsfeld, IMHO, is a prick of the highest order).

Then again, there is the glass-is-half-empty way of looking at it, as in: Considering the what I’ve seen of the Chiraq/Schroder axis, maybe the sudden French/German offer is a result of blackmail (which, frankly, I don’t mind).

Maybe Baker told them that the US won’t reveal what Saddam says about how those nations surreptitiously aided him against the US, if those nations stop dicking around and start helping the reconstruction.

Knowing the depraved morality and ruthless self-interest of most nations, I tend to lean toward the latter interpretation.

Either way, I’m glad the French and Germans seem to be on board with debt restructuring/forgiveness, and they should now be included on the eligibility list\*.

- 
  - with a caveat. When Chiraq or Schroder says they’ll offer “substantial debt relief”, they better really mean “substantial.” Forgiving a token portion of the debt - which would do little to help Iraq but gives Schroder/Chiraq a nice talking point about how “conciliatory” they are being - would not suffice.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/203 "2003-12-16T22:17:11Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by GoHeels \*  
> \*\*  
> Show me proof that Iraqi oil is being used to fill the coffers of US companies (a disinterested cite would be nice, not something from A.N.S.W.E.R., DemocraticUnderground, or MoveOn). As it stands now, since the infrastructure used to extract and export oil is decrepit, Iraqi oil isn’t really filling ANYBODY’S coffers right now. Hopefully, this will change as the infrastructure improves.  
> \*\*

Funds from Iraqi oil and gas sales go into the Development Fund for Iraq, which is used by the CPA to fund reconstruction efforts.  
Minutes for the meetings of the Program Review Board which approves expenditures are available on the CPA website.  
Note for example that on Nov 1st., the board decided to provide funds for contracting an external auditor. Auditing functions were originally intended for an independent committte charged with Oil for Food and other Iraqi asset relations between the UN and the CPA. Bremer refused independent auditing powers to that board. Now an auditing company will be hired. Guess where that will come from? Given that US auditing companies have not precisely made headlines through trustworthiness and transparency of late, I somehow fail to see how this is laudable.

Also see [http://www.cpa-iraq.org/budget/DFI\_intro1.html](http://www.cpa-iraq.org/budget/DFI_intro1.html)

> [@](#):
>
> To date, disbursements from the DFI have been in support of the wheat purchase program, the currency exchange program,\*\* the electricity and oil infrastructure programs \*\*, equipment for Iraqis security forces, and for Iraqi civil service salaries and ministry budget operations

Remember who is doing that bolded work?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> As far as comparing actual soldiers to human shields, I think you might get an argument from those Polish soldiers (who, unlike human shields, actually carry guns) currently serving. \*\*

Oh, really? I take it, then, that those Polish soldiers weren’t really shot, huh?

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Considering that the U.S. is sending around $18 billion of its OWN MONEY to finance the reconstruction (~ $87 billion in all), this charge of using Iraqi funds (what Iraqi funds are you talking about, anyway?) is ludicrous. \*\*

Look, I am not responsible for your lack of familiarity with the situation. Iraqi assets were frozen internationally, and Iraq was allowed to sell oil under the oil for food program. Iraq still IS selling oil, even if not to its full potential. If you don’t know about Iraqi assets, then you should seriously shop for some solid information.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Look, Oliver, as I said earlier in this thread (if you had bothered reading it), I’m resigned to the fact that Germany and France won’t be sending troops. I’m confident the Pentagon has accepted this, as well. \*\*

Funny. I guess I was dreaming reading that Wolfowitz declared sending troops to Iraq as a major factor in being included on the list.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> I also think American politicians campaigning against Bush are being disingenuous when they say they want to “internationalize” the occupation. As you said, Germany is stretched thin with its own commitments, and it’s pretty much politically impossible – considering the anti-war stance of their populations – for Germany and France and Russia to send actual troops. \*\*

Since when does the stance of the population matter? No one had any such qualms concerning the population of Spain.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> I prefer to view France’s stance as consistent with its policy of trying to “counterbalance” the U.S. (examples of which I listed in my response to Hector the Barbarian). \*\*

The motivation is pretty much irrelevant when France is acting in accordance with international law.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> I suppose you can argue that the U.S. blackmailed countries into supporting them, and I can argue that France actively worked to keep Saddam in power. \*\*

Except, of course, France never ruled out using military force to take him out. Whereas the fact that the US threatened to cut off foreign aid to african nations not supporting them is very real.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> As far as what Colin Powell said, I’ll reserve judgment for now. Considering the story in London Telegraph that Sam Stone proffered, and that the U.S. now has the opportunity to potentially uncover a treasure trove of information from Saddam, I’ll wait and see, thank you very much. \*\*

Nothing discovered NOW will change the fact that the information PRESENTED was fabricated, misrepresented, and in many cases an outright lie. Regardless of what is found now, it doesn’t change anything about the fact that two satellite photos presented as being shot in short sequences were really taken weeks apart. It doesn’t change anything about photos from a jet supposedly capable of spreading WMDs was taken prior to the previous stint of inspections in the early nineties.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Furthermore, I challenged you to actually show me proof (in the form of a credible cite) that the decrepit state of Iraq’s infrastructure was solely the result of U.S. military action before I would accept the premise of this sentence you wrote:  
> \*\*

I never spoke of solely

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Of course, you didn’t produce this proof, which isn’t surprising.  
> \*\*

Yes, it is indeed not surprising that I refuse to defend positions I never held. But obviously, fingerpointing is all that we get from you.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Ask and ye shall receive:
> 
> [Cite](http://www.oneworld.org/news/reports/may96_iraq2.html)

\*\*

You should read your sources a bit better. They don’t prove the point you want them to support, regardless how the authors claim they do. Take the data, and look at what it says. Children are starving while there are sanctions. Correlation doesn’t prove causation. Food and medication was always allowed into Iraq. The fact that they were not distributed properly is thanks to Saddam, not the UN, and has little to do with infrastructure being destroyed.

Also, see the quote "You do not shoot a plane down because it has been hijacked. "

Oh. Really? The article was written in 1996. Guess he never imagined that people would one day decide that they WOULD consider shooting down planes that have been hijacked. The article isn’t evidence of anything, it is an opinionated appeal.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> [Cite](http://i-p-o.org/un-sanctions-iraq.htm)  
> \*\*

Again focuses on food and medicine, which were always allowed in, and fails to substantiate comments on water systems. Most such appeals ignore the terms of the embargo completely, and show little awareness of what was actually prohibited from being sold to Iraq.

[Cite](http://www.afsc.org/iraq/guide/deadly.shtm)

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Yeah, tell the 500,000 kids who died due to UN sanctions that their state was improving. It is the height of absurdity to claim that the sanctions didn’t hurt the overall state of Iraq. Do I excuse American complicity in the imposition of UN sanctions? – NO! Do I excuse French, German, and Russian complicity in the sanctions? – NO! The whole damn world - and Saddam Hussein - is to blame. \*\*

Ranting and raving won’t prove any points.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Could have fooled me. France, Germany and Russia seemed to try awfully hard to prevent the war that was the sole means of deposing him. If you can think of another way to get rid of him (and his sons, and the Baath Party), I’m all ears. \*\*

Your ignorance about the actual position of France, Germany and Russia isn’t an argument. If you think your recital of the propaganda published in the more warmongering parts of US press is going to convince anyone, you are mistaken. France said that more evidence was needed. Germany said we won’t contribute to a war and don’t support it at this point in time.

As for an alternative: How about letting the Iraqis depose their leader themselves? You see, this issue of sovereignty implies that people don’t get their leaders imposed by outsiders.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Considering that Ayad Allawi (the member of the IGC who uttered the remarks against the French and Germans at Madrid) has argued against…
> 
> a) disbanding the Iraqi army (advice ignored by Bremer and the CPA)  
> b) charged that the current insurgency was created by the CPA (“our own creation of the problem, changing Iraqis to be against us.”)
> 
> …to call him a puppet is mind-numbingly stupid. You’re the one who’s displaying ignorance \*\*

Hardly. He is what he is due to the US, and not due to Germany and France. Allawi complained about the unilateral commitments of France and Germany. What you and he ignore is that there was a whole different slab of funds provided by the EU.

Now, any idea where that money comes from? Certainly not from Spain, which is a net recipient of EU funds. Take a look at the percentage of the EU budget paid for by France and Germany, and then reconsider your mudslinging.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Forgiving the debt frees up resources that can be spent on improving the infrastructure, which benefits the entire population. It encourages investment, which creates jobs for a country with a 70% unemployment rate (not to mention that when people are employed, it’s a lot less likely that they’ll be planting IEDs along the roads, or driving trucks loaded with C-4 into buildings, or robbing people). \*\*

That assumes actual payments are being made.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Proof of this charge would be nice, but I’ve learned not to expect proof from you. \*\*

Funny. I am not responsible for your lack of even minimal background knowledge. Take a look at Iraq’s potential oil production rate, take a look at the oil price. Figure it out for yourself.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> Well, not the countries that preferred Iraq’s people stay in bondage and repression, no. If they forgive (or greatly restructure) the debt, I think they should be included. Simple as that. \*\*

And those who claimed they would support an Iraqi insurrection and then watched as the Iraqis were being slaughtered as if it was a TV show, they should profit. Right.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*  
> As far as who should profit, I repeat: I believe the Iraqis should get first dibs and the maximum amount of money and jobs they are capable of performing. Second comes the US and its allies who spent blood and treasure liberating the Iraqis. \*\*

Either it was an act of selflessness or it wasn’t. As for spending blood and treasure, as long as the US prefers ten Iraqi civilians to die over one GI, please, don’t talk about blood being spent. The arrest of Saddam, demonstrating the futility of the attempt to boimb a civilian quarter of Baghdad to kill him -and the recent killing of scores of children in Afghanistan- shows where the US places its priorities in hunting its enemies: Rather kill innocent civilians than risk the life of a GI by going in on the ground. The fact that Germany was sued in court (unsuccessfully) for the NATO approval of the bombing campaign in Serbia, on which the US insisted, causing the death of civilians in the destruction of a civilian bridge, shows the absurdity. Back then, evil France was willing to go in on the ground. As long as the life of one’s own troops is infinitely more valuable than that of an Iraqi -or Afghan- child, any talk of ‘liberating’ anyone is hypocrisy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/204 "2003-12-16T22:29:45Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by GoHeels \*  
> \*\*Maybe playing hard ball - combined with the capture of Saddam and the diplomacy of Baker - had something to do with this reconciliation. \*\*

Maybe. But unlikely, given that the French foreign minister hinted at the possibility of debt restructuring already Monday, after talking with the chairman of the Iraqi Governing Council. Thus, given that Baker only traveled to Europe on Tuesday, it is more likely that he was made to understand that the noninclusion on the list had made such a restructuring actually less likely, but that the occasion was used to make the intention to consider such a reduction public, thus committing Baker to pressuring Washington in a quid pro quo manner.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\
**Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/205 "2003-12-16T23:49:54Z")

</div>

**Oliver** ,

> [@](#):
>
> Funds from Iraqi oil and gas sales go into the Development Fund for Iraq, which is used by the CPA to fund reconstruction efforts.

So you’re saying that Iraqi funds are being used to rebuild Iraq? How horrible. :rolleyes:

If you’re gonna bitch about American companies earning money for rebuilding Iraq, then why are you so eager for French and German companies to get in on the rebuilding - unless you’re eager to continue the economic colonialization of Iraq practiced by France and Germany during the Saddam regime.

(OK, that’s a cheap shot. But you yourself levelled that charge against the U.S. originally)

> [@](#):
>
> Funny. I guess I was dreaming reading that Wolfowitz declared sending troops to Iraq as a major factor in being included on the list.

Funny. I could have sworn that I objected to Canada’s being left off the list FOUR TIMES ALREADY in this thread. But I’m not responsible for you not reading this thread in its entirety.

> [@](#):
>
> Since when does the stance of the population matter? No one had any such qualms concerning the population of Spain.

If you are so ignorant as to pose this question, I can’t help you. Suffice to say that the people who decided to send troops to Iraq - yes, against the will of the majority of the population - took a great political risk. It’s my opinion that the U.S. should reward those nations handsomely. But to say the stance of the population doesn’t matter is idiotic. It may not prevent a democratic nation from going to war against the will of the population, but you better believe it’s taken into account by those pols who make that decision.

> [@](#):
>
> Except, of course, France never ruled out using military force to take him out. Whereas the fact that the US threatened to cut off foreign aid to african nations not supporting them is very real.

No, what France did was threaten to veto, then send Villepin to Africa to twist arms. France wanted to convince these countries’ governments that there was no point in coming to the U.S. side because any resolution would be blocked by the threatened French veto. In essence, France wanted the African nations to do its dirty work for them, so it wouldn’t have to veto and incur U.S. wrath.

Fine. As I indicated, France is entitled to pursue its own interests, and stopping the Iraq war was obviously in its interests given its financial stake in a Saddam-led Iraq. I argue that given the geopolitical path that France has taken, it’s time to reevaluate the U.S. relationship with France.

> [@](#):
>
> …Again focuses on food and medicine, which were always allowed in, and fails to substantiate comments on water systems. Most such appeals ignore the terms of the embargo completely, and show little awareness of what was actually prohibited from being sold to Iraq…

Are you seriously arguing that UN sanctions did not have a deleterious effect on Iraq’s infrastructure?

> [@](#):
>
> As for an alternative: How about letting the Iraqis depose their leader themselves? You see, this issue of sovereignty implies that people don’t get their leaders imposed by outsiders.

and then:

> [@](#):
>
> And those who claimed they would support an Iraqi insurrection and then watched as the Iraqis were being slaughtered as if it was a TV show, they should profit. Right.

So you’re simultaneously telling us to let the people revolt themselves, then criticizing us for doing so (and watching the unhappy results). Whatever.

We tried that back in 1991, to preserve our precious coalition. Saddam, of course, slaughtered a crapload of Iraqis - mostly Shia - who tried to depose their leader. IOW, devotion to multilateralism resulted in the wholesale slaughter of a whole lot of people.

So YOU see, your devotion to sovereignty - sovereignty that was certainly not consented to by the Iraqi people - implies that it’s OK for those folks to be slaughtered.

> [@](#):
>
> Hardly. He is what he is due to the US, and not due to Germany and France. Allawi complained about the unilateral commitments of France and Germany. What you and he ignore is that there was a whole different slab of funds provided by the EU.

.

No, I didn’t ignore it. You ignored the thread. Maybe if you had read the entire thread, you would see how I criticized the EU (paltry) contribution of $235 million (and, to its credit, $1.7 billion in humanitarian aid) at Madrid, which I cited.

> [@](#):
>
> Maybe. But unlikely, given that the French foreign minister hinted at the possibility of debt restructuring already Monday, after talking with the chairman of the Iraqi Governing Council. Thus, given that Baker only traveled to Europe on Tuesday, it is more likely that he was made to understand that the noninclusion on the list had made such a restructuring actually less likely, but that the occasion was used to make the intention to consider such a reduction public, thus committing Baker to pressuring Washington in a quid pro quo manner.

Hmm. Curious how last week, the French looked into protesting the Wolfowitz directive under international law, then turned around on Monday and “hinted at the possibility of debt restructuring.”

I wonder what really big news happened between last week and Monday to get the French and Germans into such a forgiving mood? Must be the holiday season, I guess. :rolleyes:

Regardless, now that the French and Germans are on board with debt restructuring, I withdraw my stance and think they should now be included on the list (with the caveat I offered in my previous post).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/206 "2003-12-17T00:51:44Z")

</div>

Sorry it’s takem me awhile to return to this **Apos** ; sadly, real life is intruding …

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Apos \*  
> \*\*Your logic justifies that line of reasoning and, to a lesser extent, the basic tactic that is its conclusion (threaten and punish otherwise blameless people so that they will have to struggle to change the policies of their government if they want to escape further punishment).
> 
> I don’t think that logic makes sense. The entire point of democracy is that the government is not an all powerful all encompassing Leviathan, a proxy for the nation and all its vassals. Democracies are not monarchies where all citizens are merely thought of as components of a single body wholly owned and represented in the person of a king. A democratic government is a buerrecratic institution given limited power and autonomy that is held in check by people who need not as individuals owe it their agreement or complicity in its decisions.

\*\*I think the main disagreement here probably lies in our fundamntal perceptions of the current state of world affairs. I agree with all of the above on a theoretical level; in fact I am quite libertarian in my views on the role of government. And yet I have also a quite Hobbseian view of human nature, and I am persuaded by history that the things we call “civilization” and “democracy” and “freedom” are in fact quite rare in human history and not to be taken as a given.

In the same way that Gandhi acnowledged that his non-violent protests would not have worked against Nazis, I think there are some times when theory must give way to pragmatism, and war against a foe determined to destroy you certainly qualifies. And without being melodramatic, I believe we are engaged in such a war. Not that Muslim Fundamentalism is an imminent threat to destroy Western Civiliation … but they’d sure like to, and if they continue to build their capabilities, they will give it their best shot. And, win or lose, that conflict would be[horrific](http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_belmontclub_archive.html#106401071003484059). The present goal then, is to prevent them from ever getting such capability, and indeed to make the movement as a whole disappear.

Obviously, many people disagree with the current strategy; and I have my misgivings myself. But that is what I believe the stakes are; in that light, if being less that 100% fair to TotalFinaElf is what it takes to get France to start playing a productive role (or else to declare that they’re on the other side), I’m willing to live with that.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*The argument here is that we can “punish” “France” by punishing firms that are incorporated in France, some of which (ironically) happen to employ Americans, on American soil, to fulfill these contracts. I don’t happen to think that makes much more sense than punishing Collin Powell for the fact that Al Sharpton is a fruitcake. The people we want to punish are the people who opposed our interests: namely the French government.

\*\*Well, sure, and there are French employees at America firms. But how, exactly, do you propose to change the behavior of the French government without in any way affecting any actual French people? It is precisely because we are not living in the age of Kings that such a problem exists. If this were the Roman Empire, we could demand tribute from Jacques Chirac or lay seige to his castle or something.

As has been noted previously, this is equally about rewarding nations that were helpful in bringing down Saddam. The implication that opening the contracts up to everyone is somehow a “neutral” position is untrue; countries like Poland, who risked lives and could use any help their economies can get, might well look on it as a slap in the face to them.

It is not at all unusual (_de facto_) to attach these sort of restrictions to aid; it is in fact nearly standard practice. What is new an unusual is that the Admin has done this so publicly and openly instead of just quietly seeing to it while making cooing diplomatic noises. Was it “rude?” Unquestionably. But I find it absurd that everyone is worried that the US will piss off France and Germany; is it not far more logical that they should be worried about pissing off the US? If a little rudeness is what it takes to make Paris – the government _and_ the people – see that they are indeed pissing off the US, then perhaps they will step back and take stock of the consequences of deliberately impeding US foreign policy before theyconsider doing it again.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/207 "2003-12-17T00:56:05Z")

</div>

GoHeels, you said it yourself: some people are Willfully Obtuse. Don’t bother.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2003, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203/208 "2003-12-17T01:25:27Z")

</div>

Probably a good idea, **furt**.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-us-limit-contracts-in-iraq-to-countries-that-supplied-troops/218203.md?page=10)