I am fine with this:
The Pentagon has barred French, German and Russian companies from competing for $18.6 billion in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, saying the step “is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States…”
Under the guidelines, which were issued on Friday but became public knowledge today, only companies from the United States, Iraq and 61 other countries designated as “coalition partners” will be allowed to bid on the contracts, which are financed by American taxpayers.
Among the eligible countries are Britain, the closest American ally in Iraq, as well Poland and Italy, which have contributed troops to the American-led security effort. But the list also includes other nations whose support has been less evident, including Turkey, which allowed American aircraft to fly over its territory but barred American forces at the last minute from using its soil as a staging point to invade Iraq from the north in March.
I am sure this will be spun by the Democrats as more reckless disregard for Old Europe, but as far as I am concerned, until they begin to be useful allies, we might as well just treat them as they deserve- hindrances to progress in Iraq. I see absolutely no reason that our tax dollars should go to french coffers, when the entire reason they were opposed to deposing Hussein were their oil interests to begin with.
When the French and others decide they want to become partners in the region, I say allow them to bid. For now, let them sit and simmer. After all, what are they going to do? Dislike Americans? Dislike George Bush? Impede any meaningful action in the UN and the Security Council? Blame Israel? Provide diplomatic cover for more tyrants? Attempt to manipulate Turkey with threats of repercussions? Sell arms to our enemies in violation of UN sanctions? What could the French possibly do that they have not already done?
In other news, the Japanese have decided they will send troops to aid in the reconstruction:
Japan decided today to deploy ground troops to join the American-led war in Iraq, in what will be its most ambitious military operation since its surrender to the United States at the end of World War II.
After months of agonizing, punctuated by the weekend state funeral of two diplomats gunned down in northern Iraq, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s cabinet approved a plan to send up to 600 ground forces to southeastern Iraq, in a mission to last from six months to one year.
Thanks, fellas.
The False God
Good.
Now, let the braying begin.
Andrew Lazarus
Remind me again how this fits in with our plans to get their help with Reconstruction. Oh, not to mention all that debt restructuring. James Baker must have choked when he read this.
Next time Kucinich says the war was to transfer American taxpayer dollars into Halliburton’s pocket, remember this rule. I know, that’s not the reason for the war. It’s just a wonderful and fortuitous side effect.
At least our acceptable Uzbek allies can repair the torture chambers; they know how to do that.
Kimmitt
It’s nice to see that Japan has, after an agonizing debate, at least temporarily agreed to shoulder 0.4% of the burden of occupying Iraq.
John Cole
Break out the calculator to dismiss their effort? If any of them get killed, will your feelings change about their contribution?
Dean
Kimmitt:
Are you at all familiar with the Japanese and their history in trying to do peacekeeping operations?
FOR JAPAN, this actually is an enormous step forward.
When we examine their participation in the 1991 Gulf War (the good intervention that I”m sure all the liberals who comment here supported, since it was blessed by the UN and involved an international coalition—no charges of “blood for oil” here, I’m sure), it was a very very hesitant one. The issue of contributing only money still required massive debate within the Diet—and the hesitancy hurt US-Japan relations.
The post-’91 dispatch of minesweepers was even more fraught with issues, not so much w/ us, as w/ Japan’s Asian neighbors.
By the time of the Cambodian exercise, where Japan dispatched actual troops, it still required nearly a year-long debate and questions about whether the Constitution itself would still have to be amended.
FOR JAPAN, this dispatch has been far less cantankerous, in the context of domestic politics, and much more at the initiative of the Japanese government (i.e., w/o requiring US pressure, as has often been the case for domestic Japanese reforms).
That’s not even taking into account the idea that this may be the largest deployment of the Self-Defense Forces since their founding.
Dismissing it so cavalierly merely suggests a lack of familiarity with the complexities of the situation.
Kimmitt
My point was that this is a US/British occupation with a little help from a few friends; that’s all. If we have to wait several months after agonizing debate for the few allies we have other than Britain to send six hundred men and women, then the cost of occupation will continue to be borne almost exclusively by the US and British peoples.
Not that it matters to y’all, but this is something which is going to be relevant to the American people, who continue to expect a short, inexpensive occupation with very few casualties.
Andrew Lazarus
The beginning of the backtrack on this issue.
DANEgerus
Vichy-Reich should also lose the credit they extended selling weapons to their neo-colonialist terrorist regime… why should Iraqi’s pay for Saddams illegal indulgences by the Axis-of-Weasels.
As for letting them bid on contracts… sorry… they tipped the Iraqi’s to UN inspectors, sold weapons, will make contacts to sell more weapons to either side, and should be punished for
being the enemy.
Slartibartfast
I’m not sure why the American people expected a short, inexpensive occupation when Bush said repeatedly that it would take a long time.
Therefore, I must ask what “American people” is Kimmitt referring to?
SDN
Whose backtrack, Lazarus? the Europeans. Just remember, they have to worry about all those military bases that we might decide to move from unfriendly countries like Germany to friendly countries like Poland. Can’t happen soon enough. And if they take it to the WTO, maybe they can make WTO look just as bad to Americans as they did the UN!
Kimmitt
“Bush said repeatedly that it would take a long time.”
Actually, Bush said before the war that the “war on terror” would take a long time, but gave no statement regarding the duration or cost of occupation of Iraq; his officials, however, on multiple occasions predicted a short and inexpensive occupation.
At any rate, I’m pretty sure that most of the sixty percent who thought that the $87 billion request from the Bush Administration should be rejected (!) expected not to receive it in the first place.
Andrew Lazarus
The Wolfowitz Plan is just another macho boast that we’ll have to retract. It made Bush (and his new buddy Baker) look really bad.
I can understand the motivation behind trying to get back at our so-called Allies, but it wasn’t mature. It speaks (again) to a tremendous lack of coordination, in this case between Wolfowitz and Baker, who was hung out to dry.
Of course, another most excellent consequence is that more money is available to buy very overpriced gasoline from Halliburton!
Andrew Lazarus
You’re full of shit on this, Slart. Here’s a quote on the Administration’s position as recetnly as April.
But I can find so many more. Have you read George Packer in the New Yorker on the crazy reliance on Chalabi without any plan B?
You want to know why people were shocked at the $87Bn request? Because the Administration TOLD US it was going to be inexpensive, that Iraq would pay for it all with oil. Here’s the head of USAID on Nightline telling an incredulous Ted Koppel that the US taxpayer will be out only $1.7 billion for reconstruction.
I can’t give you a link BECAUSE USAID HAS REMOVED THIS **ONE** PRESS RELEASE FROM THEIR WEBSITE, but you can find it in the Google cache.
I’ll tell you what, Slart: you bring in one—ONE—pre-war quote from the Administration predicting a long occupation (not meaningless drivel like “As long as it takes”, which could be anywhere from ten minutes until the freezing over of Hell; and not a long general war on terror), and we’ll take it from there.
Harry
Glad I bought into big tinfoil.
Slartibartfast
Well, I have to say you’ve got me there. Probably by the time he quoted that estimate, USAID would have had plenty of time to assess the true nature of the damage to Iraqi infrastructure and estimate (within half an order of magnitude) how much would be required to rebuild. It’s possible by that time that our role in rebuilding Iraq wasn’t well defined, and we had this notion that the Iraqis could accomplish much of this rebuilding using oil revenues. Certainly by that time we’d have had some indication that we wouldn’t be getting much in the way of financial cooperation from those who declined to assist in the invasion in the first place.
So: Natsios was wrong. So was Shinseki. Several hundred thousand never happend. Finally, so was Rumsfeld, as 30,000 won’t be a reality a couple of weeks from now. Oh yeah: I was wrong, too.
Andrew Lazarus
Slart, I’d like to retract the obscenity I used. I’m not accustomed to the other side acknowledging error and I would have been much more polite if I’d known it was a possibility.
FWIW, I think you were probably to smart to believe the pre-war estimates, so they didn’t stick in your mind. I didn’t believe them, either, but I bookmarked a few exactly *because* I was sure they would turn out egregious.
Slartibartfast
Thanks for the mannered reply, Andrew. I’m not always urbane, myself, but I hope to do better.
Yes, things turned out not quite as planned. I think one could come up with a huge body of predictions on either side of the political fence that have turned out to be wildly inaccurate. I’m not sure what to conclude from that; it certainly is possible that there was deliberate toning-down of estimates, but it’s also possible that everyone was simply way off the mark.
Dean
Slarti and Andrew:
Yes, the results were worse than the best predictions. But they are far BETTER than the worst predictions, which a variety of folks have been putting up. From the UN and the NGOs to the ANSWER-sponsored marches, there were predictions of tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians from the war part alone (including some predictions for what might happen if Saddam used his WMD).
If the results have not lived UP to the best hopes of the Admin, they have not gone anywhere near as bad as the war opponents believed, either.
At the same time, I wonder if EITHER side had a good idea on the scale of atrocities that Saddam himself had waged—presumably the ending of that rates somewhere into the “How are things going” scale (as opposed to the “this justifies the war” endless debate).
Andrew Lazarus
Dean, you’re correct. If you had asked me in March, I would have predicted MUCH higher casualties of Iraqi civilians AND American soldiers during the “conventional” phase of the war, acknowledging that the ultimate outcome was not in doubt. Perhaps a quick defeat followed by guerrilla war was Saddam’s plan all along.
On the other hand, I think it’s the responsibility of the optimist to plan for the pessimistic eventualities. The other way around is usually not as big a problem. The Administration failed at this, probably related to the same sorts of systemic errors that led to the WMD embarrassment. I’m glad to say that many supporters of the war see this pretty much as I do.
Kimmitt
I was very glad to be wrong about the civilian and US military casualties associated with the invasion.
I was very sorry to be right about the Bush Administration’s capacity to handle the postwar scenario.
I never in my wildest dreams imagined that it would be December and we would not have Saddam Hussein or his body.
Slartibartfast
Wonderful timing, Kimmitt.