Except that Canada is NOT on the list of favored countries at the end of Wolfowitz’s directive. Check the link I gave yesterday, which includes an image of the document. It may be an inadvertant omission, an error if you will, but until it is corrected, the pentagon’s official policy is to exclude Canada from these contracts.
I was going to start a thread about this whole issue, but I was too late. A couple of brief thoughts:
-
It certainly ends any pretence that the war was about anything other than cold hard cash.
-
The opponents of the war knew this anyway, so why are they worried? Being opposed to the war, I should not wish to profit from the “rebuilding” of Iraq. (Hey, there’s a euphemism to cherish… remind me again why the country needs rebuilding?). Leave the US administration and their croneys to it, and let them reap what they sow.
-
Anyone else find it uniquely depressing that a few swinging chads will probably ultimately end in the whole 21st century going belly-up, due to Bush’s determination to drag the world into a “With us or against us”, us v them showdown? What, were we getting bored with the demise of the Cold War?
**1. It certainly ends any pretence that the war was about anything other than cold hard cash.
**
How does it do that? We are paying for the reconstruction ourselves!
(Hey, there’s a euphemism to cherish… remind me again why the country needs rebuilding?)
Two words: Saddam Hussein.
As for 3), you seem to find an us v. them domestically, but don’t see one in our foreign policy, which is particularly perverse.
The “socialisation” of costs (i.e. the taxpayer pays - a regressive system of tax naturally so meaning the “middle class”) but the privatisation of profit (to the big corporations) seems a consistent aspect of the modern world.
The effect being to make the mass of the people poorer and the rich richer. Ditto with the IMF and World Bank. Ditto with the rescue of the private airlines.
Is it only me that is sick to death of this? The government have the cheek to claim it is all about protectings jobs - yeah right - but the real beneficiaries are pretty clear.
Why dont we stop whinning about the nationality of the rich pigs who are stealing our tax dollars and address the underlying issue?
It just seems offensive to me that our country invaded and bombed the crap out of Iraq for reasons (WMDs, terrorism) which were doubted by other nations and found false.
As things got worse and more expensive we passed a spending bill for the reconstruction of Iraq, while handing out no bid contracts to Halliburton and awarding other lucrative contracts to Bechtel and subsidiaries.
We then asked other nations for help in the form of money and soldiers, but refused to share any command of the operation with the UN.
We’re in the process of asking nations that disagreed with our motives for war in the first place (and that they were 100% right about) to forgive debts owed to them by Saddams govt. and we flatly state that companies from those nations won’t be eligible to get rebuilding contracts due to ‘security concerns’.
As we do this stories surface about Halliburton overcharging massively for work it’s doing there at the moment. Halliburton with very close ties to the current administration.
Meanwhile, opposition to the US in the very country we’re “liberating” (current reason for war) seems to be growing, and we’re having to run military operations with cool names every two weeks to flush out and counter insurgents - it’s a guerilla war.
It’s a mess, we could do with help, and we’re in the wrong anyway but we still act like other nations should be kissing our asses and we’re in the right.
I don’t care who does the rebuilding, as long as it gets done for a good price and fairly quickly so we can leave the place better than we found it and start getting out of there. Right now it’s costing us a lot and it’s foolish to think that by excluding other nations we will do this any cheaper or better. So far we’ve f’ed it up royally.
So, in addition to the security given to these trucks by the military Halliburton has to hire extra security? I don’t know how much extra Halliburton is paying the drivers and I suspect you don’t either, but I doubt that all of the extra goes into their pockets.
And this price drop has all occurred since they took on the Iraq contract and as a result of it?
If these Iraq contracts are such a loser, maybe GW and Rummy should award them all to businesses in countries that didn’t support the war.
Or maybe you are assuming that all of the rebuilding contracts will only come in that happy day when Iraq is a happy, peaceful democracy.
I know that there are a lot of GW supporters who see no problem with the actions of he and his administration. To me, the emperor is wearing fewer clothes every day.
Our ruling clique is looking more and more like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight in the area of international affairs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58200-2003Dec11.html
A thoughtful editorial on the subject.
For months, the Bush administration has been trying to mend fences with France, Germany, and other allies who did not support the war. Now, on the eve of Baker’s trip to ask these same countries to forgive Iraq’s debts, the administration announces “Oh, ane while you’re forgiving Iraq’s debts you can also forget about bidding on any of the contracts to rebuild the country.”
The governments of each of the countries Baker is set to visit should first laugh in his face, then escort him back to the airport.
The ever-trenchant Mr. Krugman has thoughts on the matter:
“…Maybe I’m giving Paul Wolfowitz too much credit, but I don’t think this was mere incompetence. I think the administration’s hard-liners are deliberately sabotaging reconciliation…”
I don’t give a shit about any of that.
Diss Canada all you want, I’ll just laugh. Just don’t diss our serving men/women or vets, or belittle their sacrifice.
Don’t waste your pixels on Milium, my friend. He’s an oaf and always will be.
Whatever you say he will go his own sweet way - nobody’s following him - not on this board anyway.
(Advance apologies for the length of this post.)
xtisme:
The problem is, xtisme, the U.S. gave these nations the opportunity to “bridge the gap” in Madrid last October at the Donor’s Conference. At that conference, the great symbol of multilateralism, Kofi Annan, .urged attending nations to do everything possible to help Iraq. At the conference, the U.S. hoped for help with troops to stabilize the situation, but would settle for financial contributions to ease Iraq’s plight.
And what was Germany and France’s response as individual nations to Annan’s request? No troops, of course. Fine, we honestly didn’t expect them to contribute any. But then they stuck the knife in a little further and offered NOTHING beyond EU’s lousy contribution of $235 million (with the current level of spending required in Iraq, that amount gets spent in, oh, a week or so) and a whole heaping of carping and condescension.
If it was so goddamn important to France and Germany to have the U.S. “come to its senses and rejoin the international community” (which really translates to “U.S. deferring to its enlightened ‘betters’ in Paris and Berlin”), maybe they could have shown their willingness to bury the hatchet and invested in Iraq’s future. But they insisted on sending low-level officials and treating the conference as an opportunity to display their displeasure with the U.S. instead of a chance to help the Iraqis get back on their feet after 30 years of repression.
As IGC member Ayad Allawi said in the article I cited, “don’t think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries (Germany and France) wanted to neglect Iraq.” Germany and France were warned that their behavior would not be forgotten, and as so many of America’s “friends” are fond of saying, “The chickens have come home to roost.”
xtisme, you also wrote about how we need these countries to help with the crushing debt owed by Iraq, which, let’s not forget, was accrued as a result of their scummy deals with Saddam. I’ll grant you that it’s very important to get these countries to restructure (or forgive) the debt, for the sake of Iraq’s future. Let’s hope the “enlightened” Europeans, with their “wonderful generosity” so beloved by the benighted masses, will take the high road and help the Iraqis by forgiving or at least restructuring the debt.
But if these nations insist on repayment of the odious debt – which will be borne by the Iraqi masses who suffered under Saddam – fine, but then let’s once and for all BURY the myth that the Europeans are somehow morally superior to the mean, money-grubbing, oil-sucking, capitalist pigs Americans. They’re just as full of shit as we are, and have no right to hijack the moral high ground.
Let’s also not forget that France, Germany, Belgium, and other Western European nations have a dirty little secret that’s hard to discuss because it’s not PC (Rest in Peace, Pim Fortuyn): They have a bit of an Islamist problem.
Because they’re socialist welfare states, these nations lack the institutions, social climate, and business infrastructure to effectively assimilate the waves of (unskilled) Islamic immigrants coming from North Africa and the Arab world into their social fabric. Too many of these immigrants a) wind up on the public dole, b) inject an Islamic religious fervor into European society that’s not exactly welcomed by liberal secular native Europeans and c) tend to be behind most of the recent anti-Semetic outrages perpetrated on the continent.
The emergence of a free and prosperous Iraq – which could serve as a model to other Arab/Muslim nations – might do wonders in stemming the flow of Arab and Muslim immigrants to Europe. Don’t tell me that wouldn’t be a welcome development for European countries who don’t want to do away with their precious welfare states (that, because of rigid labor laws and ultra-strong unions, have a hard time generating the business growth necessary to get these immigrants working [and not making trouble]). If you want to take the sober, long-term approach that incorporates European enlightened self-interest (see Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus’ comments on the dangers of a statist EU), that’s a damn strong reason for investing in a free Iraq.
Sam Stone, thanks for sharing the news about Canada. As I said previously, I fully support Canada being included on the list.
Bouncer, I grant you everything you wrote about how it benefits the host nation to have a U.S. military base on its soil. You’re absolutely right.
However, if there was a lesson learned during the Iraq war, it’s that bases that earn us reproach and hatred (Saudi Arabia and South Korea), cannot be used when Americans fight and die nearby (Saudi Arabia and Turkey), and are obsolete political liabilities (Germany), are not assets.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, etc. showed the U.S. their good will by sharing the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their people, recently freed from the shackles of Communist oppression with the help of the U.S., actually like America for the most part. They are geographically closer to the main theater of conflict. They do not yet have expensive environmental regulations that hamper base operations. IOW, we need to take care of them, and make it clear that we APPRECIATE what they’ve done to help us.
As we now know, America has plenty of fake allies. We need to cultivate and nurture our few REAL ones.
If we proceed on the arrogant notion that these countries should be honored and privileged to host our bases, how long will it be until they – like the Germans, Saudis, and South Koreans – resent our presence? The next time some crisis pops up in the ME, will we then have to resort to bribing them – like we tried to do (unsuccessfully) with Turkey on the eve of the Iraq war – to actually use our bases?
(Whew, I’m exhausted :D)
notquitekarpov,
You saying it’s not a concern doesn’t not make it a concern. Sorry bout that. We’re talking 3-5 billion dollars a year and 10000+ jobs out of their economy. That’s DIRECT employment and DIRECT money, btw. Rammstein AFB for instance employs 800 Germans directly and provides at least part of the income for another 20000 or so indirectly. Using those figures we’re talking about an impact on the income of 250,000+ Germans.
In addition, Germany has been UNDERFUNDING their military by about 1% of GDP for decades (1.5% versus the 2.3% they should be spending)… with less of a US umbrella, they have to pick up the cost or have less military readiness at a time when their deployment concerns are INCREASING. That means they have to find 20 Billion more every year for their defense needs.
Who says so?
The Germans do:
“The financial situation of the armed forces is desperate. The military is so massively underfunded that there must be consequences … We’re living from hand-to-mouth,” Bernhard Gertz, chairman of the German Armed Forces Association, told Reuters in an interview late on Tuesday
“There’s been an investment shortfall of 15 billion euros over the past 10 to 12 years, this just for bringing things up-to-date,” Gertz said, adding that the military’s land vehicles are on average 14-years-old and communications are inadequate. “We are still flying the Bell UH1-D helicopter which was at its prime during the Vietnam War 30 years ago and the Phantom F4, a jet conceived during the Korean War.”
http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/04/18/germanar.html
The departure of US military forces from germany IS of very serious concern to the German gov’t, your pooh-poohing notwithstanding.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I personally love the concurrent timing of the statement about rebuilding contracts with Bush’s request for debt forgivance. Not because it makes Bush look like an idiot but because it will shine a spotlight on France and Germany’s decision to either take the moral high ground (in action rather than just words) or appear acting out of spite or greed. While it may make Bush look like an idiot, it opens France and Germany up to looking like a bigger idiot.
GoHeels,
Suffice to say that I simply misread your original statement. I agree wholeheartedly with this last statement. I didn’t mean to imply in my post that they should be kissing our ass either. Rather that it’s mutually beneficial for us to be there in Poland and elsewhere and that they’re as happy to have us as we are to be there. Unlike Turkey, which is sweating bullets and praying that Incirlik isn’t closed down. Partially for the loss of dollars, but as importantly, for the loss of relevance in the eyes of Washington.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Bouncer, I should be the one apologizing.
I immediately inferred from your post that those countries should be the ones kissing our ass. I should have read more carefully - after reading your post again, it’s clear to me that you were not saying that.
My mistake. Sorry 'bout that.
This “France and Germany fucked us” and are “false allies” nonsense is so tiresome. You would think from listening to people spout this bullshit that they attacked us themselves. Is it possible that they believed it wrong to participate in an attack on Iraq, but have otherwise been good allies and partners? Isn’t it highly probable that the reasons that they rejected for attacking Iraq as we did have been proven false? And if WMD were not far and away the primary reason they were given for attacking Iraq, then what was the point of Powell’s UN presentation or the heavy focus on the UN weapons inspectors?
If they are such false allies prone to fucking us, then why did they contribute in the manner that they did to attacking Afghanistan? Where is their monetary gain for that? A quick Google search reveals the following description of their contributions as of 2/26/02.
US Department of Defense Fact Sheet
May I say, with all due respect, va te faire foutre?
That better not have anything to do with my momma, Frog Boy!
elucidator, please fondle my buttocks?
Hector the Barbarian
If France had registered its objection to the war by saying, “Y’know what, America? We think this idea you have of getting rid of Saddam by force is crazy and stupid, and we will not support it in any way, shape or form. Nevertheless, we are long-time allies, and therefore France will abstain from the UNSC vote authorizing war. We think you’re absolutely wrong, but let’s hope, for the sake of our futures, that you’re correct,” I’d have no problem with that stance.
(This is essentially the stance Canada took, and I respect it. If you read my posts on this thread, I strongly disagreed with excluding Canada from the “A” list.)
But that’s not what happened. France did everything it could - pressure foreign governments, court world opinion, isolate the U.S., embarrass Colin Powell, prevent air defenses from being stationed in Turkey, etc. to stop the war. France didn’t just object to the war; they schemed and lied to America’s face.
And after we won the war, these nations (especially France) have done nothing but offer condescending criticism and the diplomatic cold shoulder. In my mind, at least, they had an opportunity to “mend fences” at the Madrid Donor’s Conference. They had all the political cover they needed to save face (as illustrated by Annan’s call to give generously to Iraq), to help the reconstruction and in so doing pull America closer to its orbit.
Instead, they chose to use the conference as an opportunity to snub America (and much more importantly, Iraq). Multilateralism, my ass.
France has determined that its geopolitical interests lie in “counterbalancing” the U.S. As I said, France is perfectly free to pursue this end. But calling France an ally, saying that “friends tell each other when they’re wrong,” is utter crap.
Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.
You mean, Canada abstained from the UNSC vote?
So your problem is that they believed it was wrong to attack Iraq and worked to try to keep it from happening? Don’t we call that “decisive leadership” over here? And it sure is a good thing we were so straightforward and honest in our own efforts on the matter.
After we won the war? You mean of course, the end of major conflict, right? Anyway, shouldn’t that be “After France was proven entirely correct in its assessment of the case for war?” What did we do to mend fences that wasn’t driven by having a tit in the wringer?
They must have determined this only since mid-2002. Hmmm. And only on one topic. Hmmm. Again, it appears that they opposed us regarding the justification for attacking Iraq, and they were right - we were full of shit. From this you conclude that they have made major recalculations to “counterbalance” the US. Do you have any non-Iraq-attack support for this assertion? Or are you telling me that it is raining?