In one of the news releases I read (I think it was off the BBC website) they said that the list isn’t set in stone. Countries could still gain eligibility by commiting troops to Iraq. Seems to me like it’s more of a plan to get other countries involved in the peacekeeping efforts and maybe lift the burden a bit from the US military.
Even if they didn’t support the war, they can tell themselves, “Hey, send a few troops now that most of the really dirty work is done, help make sure the US doesn’t screw things up over there, and maybe get some killer paychecks out of it.”
IMH-but probably naive-O, it doesn’t seem like a terrible plan.
As I noted in the Pit thread, even as is, it allows for subcontractors from those countries … that can be a pretty big loophole. The admin can say truthfully say the policy hasn’t changed, but still let in whoever comes around on the issue.
I think you’re right; this is not vindictive payback as much as a tool for gaining current and future help.
Not that payback isn’t part of it. Or that I mind.
Being unaware of what these ‘prime’ contracts are, I’ll guess that these French/German/Russian companies are better equipped/more capable/more experienced than most of those from the list of approved nations at handling said contracts. Maybe, just maybe, these companies can do a better job of reconsruction?
If that indeed is that case, how could you justify not allowing these companies to bid for said contracts? It’s not supposed to be for the benefit of the USA, remember? it’s Iraq that needs reconstructing, and those doing the reconstructing should be chosen based on their capabilities, not on their nationality. Why should Iraq get second best?
???
Loopholes are by definition “legal” workarounds.
But there is no legal issue here. It’s a loophole in US policy, which enables them to change their mind without saying they changed their mind. It’s how diplomacy works.
Yes, we’d never want to judge people by anything other than their nationality, right? God knows, no one would raise a stink if an American firm was denied the right to sell a product in Germany simply because the German government doesn’t like what the American government is doing.
No one can have the cake. The cake belongs to the Iraqi people, not the U.S. to use in a political pissing match or to enrich itself. Anything less is a violation of the obligations of an occupying nation.
Hmmm. Given that the US, Japan, Korea and most of Europe are on board, I’m inclined to think there are plenty of knowledgeable conglomerates, and there will still be plenty of competition.
If there’s some specific part or task that’s only made or best done by France, that’s subcontract stuff.
Is this in the best interest of the Iraqi people ? (higher costs and less competition).
Do you consider this creating a positive image of the occupation of Iraq ?
Does this mean they have become a US colony ? Is money the real reason ?
The fact that french and russian equipment are quite common in Iraq that you will need to buy stuff from them to fix current systems anyway… wouldn’t it be better to not have a stupid list.
Do you think the USA should operate in “you help me… I help you” basis ? Doesn’t this legitimize the US government helping back those companies who bank rolled the election of the US President ? Isn’t this a form of corruption ? (Very common in Latin American Countries in fact).
Finally doesn’t it stink of childish ? “You didn’t help me kick their ass… now I won’t share the lunch money we got out of 'em…”
Of course I wouldn’t expect the French to get fat contracts… but certainly open bidding and a transparent process would go a long way to cleaning up the notion that this was a war for Bush supporters to make money in. Haliburton would have received a few less contracts for sure… but even in a clean and fair biding they would have gotten many contracts.
**1. Is this in the best interest of the Iraqi people ? (higher costs and less competition).
**
Doesn’t matter, since they aren’t paying for it.
**2. Do you consider this creating a positive image of the occupation of Iraq ?
**
Doesn’t change much, since the people we are excluding didn’t have a positive image of it to begin with.
**3. Does this mean they have become a US colony ? Is money the real reason ?
**
No, if it was we’d be using their money, not ours.
**4. The fact that french and russian equipment are quite common in Iraq that you will need to buy stuff from them to fix current systems anyway… wouldn’t it be better to not have a stupid list.
**
Much of it is broken down anyway, and it’s nice to hear someone finally admit in an offhanded way that those two nations were Iraq’s primary sponsors.
**5. Do you think the USA should operate in “you help me… I help you” basis ? Doesn’t this legitimize the US government helping back those companies who bank rolled the election of the US President ? Isn’t this a form of corruption ? (Very common in Latin American Countries in fact).
**
Not really. The general concept here is that nations that didn’t sacrifice for Iraq don’t get to benefit. It also is good politically, because American taxpayers would rather have their money funding American workers in Iraq than French.
**6. Finally doesn’t it stink of childish ? “You didn’t help me kick their ass… now I won’t share the lunch money we got out of 'em…”
**
No more childish than these nations not wanting to do any work, but wanting to make money off of Iraq. Money that’s coming from American taxpayers.
>1. Is this in the best interest of the Iraqi people ? (higher costs and less competition).
Only marginally.
>2. Do you consider this creating a positive image of the occupation of Iraq ?
From whom? If you mean the Iraqis, I doubt they care. Of course those who don’t get the contracts will whine, but what else is new?
>3. Does this mean they have become a US colony ? Is money the real reason ?
Nice strawman there…Obviously if we don’t give the anti-liberators contracts, Iraq is a US colony. Hmmm.
>4. The fact that french and russian equipment are quite common
>in Iraq that you will need to buy stuff from them to fix current
>systems anyway… wouldn’t it be better to not have a stupid list.
I’m not completely sure, but I think that contracts and machinery repairs are separate. Yes, no?
>5. Do you think the USA should operate in “you help me… I help you” basis ?
Why not?
>6. Finally doesn’t it stink of childish ? “You didn’t help me kick
>their ass… now I won’t share the lunch money we got out of 'em…”
Would you prefer that antiliberators get money that, if they had their way, would never have been available?
(Note that France and co. had a large stake in Saddam’s oil production. Kind of suggests less idealistic reasons behind their opposition, ne?)
According to this morning’s Los Angeles Times the restriction only applies to the 18.1 billion that the US is putting up. The 13 billion so far pledged by others is open to all.
Even if that is true it seems to me that this abrupt announcement without any warning is damned poor diplomacy.
But, as the Bushistas would say - if you’ve got the big guns who needs a bunch of cookie pushing diplomacy?
I’m not a Bushite but I’ll take a shot at this anyway. I believe a significant reason for the French, German, and Russian opposition to the Iraqi war was their interest in protecting existing or potential development/trade deals. Not only would I want to deny them deals out of principal but I would also want future deals to be given to those countries who have the motivation and capacity to protect them with force.
Is it possible that Bush et al… will use this as a negotiating tool re: the forgiving of debt?
That is, is it possible they “created” a leverage point out of thin air for this purpose, since they had to think it likely that Russian/German/French companies would likely pick up at least some of the subcontracts anyways?
The point that is being made time and time again is that this money is “the amrican taxpayers”. Not sure I buy this. Congress passed the bill authorizing the government spending the money, the bill has been signed and Bush pushed for it. The money was accepted as an expenditure, and this was accepted.
Now all of a sudden the money in the bill should actually be spent in a way to benefit the US corporations involved. The focus of the money has shifted from “rebuilding Iraq” to “rebuilding Iraq with the American people’s money going to those who fought for it”.
Last I knew, US et al’s engineering firms did not fight in Iraq. Sure, their countrymen did but the wordsmithing going on here is obvious (to me). If the original Iraqi spending bill had been passed with restrictions that the money ONLY go to US companies (and our ‘allies’) - there would have been something of a stink due to the amount of money it implies for Halliburton, Bechtel…etc.
I can’ tbelieve the naive attitude here…France and Germany should not benefit from American taxpayer funded programs. If they wish to put up their OWN money, they are welcome to do so! Frankly, my only criticism of Bush here , is that we should have done this like the French would have…announce open competition (“all are welcome to bid”), but then reject any non-American bids on the basis of obscure difficulties (like the bid forms not being submitted on ISO-9000-certified paper, etc.
That would have been much more subtle.
It seems to me that any group of people who believe in the value of competition as a way of maximizing outcomes would be pretty stupid to exclude companies from competing for contracts.
On the other hand, I’m not under the illusion that the Bush cabal actually believes in competition or even capitalism in any real sense. So this comes as no surprise.
If it was up to me, the company capable of doing the best job for the least money would get the contract. I think politicians have a DUTY to not to waste the taxpayers money if they can help it. And excluding viable competitors for a contract is almost certain to result in paying more for the job than necessary.
To Aahala. who says
Agreed. But I doubt that you really mean that. The people who are paying the bills are taxpayers. <b>Not</b> Bush and his cronies. I’ve no doubt that if the people actually paying the bills had a say, they would insist on competition to maximize the value of their $18 billion.
Of course, if you really look at what’s happening, it looks likely that the people who will be the paying the bills will be our children. Because the Bush people and current repulican majority are entirely without honor in their dealings with future generations.
So the people who are really paying the bills don’t even get a vote in choosing the government, much less to ‘make the rules’
