So it looks like some naughty Europeans will be getting coal in their lederhosen this Christmas. France, Germany, Russia - they won’t be invited to the big reconstruction party. The US-funded projects can only be bid on by countries that supported the war effort.
Okay, that fact is easy to understand. What boggles the mind under scrutiny is why. There are lots of ways to look at it, but every single one of ‘em reveals something squalid and ugly about it, like a cubist still life of a pile of rotting waste.
But before I get into it, I have to underscore one point - this is not a ban against certain countries getting involved; it’s a ban against companies that are based in certain countries getting involved.
That’s an important distinction. After all, Bush bent over backwards to let the Iraqi people know that our argument was with their government, not with them. “And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country.” But the French and the Germans don’t merit the same kind of clemency, it seems. Their governments’ crimes of non-participation and skepticism and peacemongering puts their entire populations beyond the pale. If they’d wanted a chance to bid on those $18 billion worth of contracts, why, they should’ve thought of that before they voted for the leaders who were eventually going to make those decisions!
Of course, there might have been a slight economic factor in our decision. France and Russia had existing oil deals with Iraq, and their familiarity with the region might have enabled them to make some pretty persuasive bids. It’s doubtful that Halliburton devotes too much time during strategy sessions trying to figure out how to compete more effectively against Honduras, Hungary, and Kazakhstan. Our boys will have an easier time going up against a pool limited to the Coalition of the (Mind Is) Willing (But The Infrastructure Is Weak).
To the victor go the spoils, you might say. Sure, of course, yeah. It’s just that those spoils are going to have to be doled out under pretty heavy guard. Over 100,000 individual guards, in fact. And just now we’ve ensured that at no time are those guards going to be drawn from, for example, the capable militaries of France and Russia. So call today’s decision a big win for American business, and a big loss for imperiled American soldiers and their families. Not a cheery slogan for the White House Christmas card, perhaps, but there you have it.
Then again, maybe it’s NOT about the money. Remember, back when this all started, back when Bush railed against Saddam’s mighty arsenal (really, the State of the Union is great reading), France, Germany and Russia all claimed to be unpersuaded that Saddam’s weapons programs really were all that extensive. So maybe this is our way of telling those offenders something that we can all agree on: No one likes a smartass.





25 comments
B
December 10, 2003 at 4:54 pm
1Sad. True. Too bad it looks like we’re going to get these kind of on-going humorous incidents through the 2004-2008 season. Haahahahaha.
Wait, no, that’s not really funny.
jr
December 10, 2003 at 5:12 pm
2Odd. I don’t see anything wrong with his decision.
He simply went after those who make the decisions in those respected countries, and, being unfamiliar with how them there folks do things, simply modeled it after the way things are run at home.
Murray
December 10, 2003 at 5:16 pm
3In this age of multinational corporations, who can tell where a business comes from? Chrysler is owned by Mercedes, as I recall Vivendi (sp?) owns much of our media, as does Sony, and Murdock.
But what is really important is that the people of Iraq get the most for their bucks. It seems likely that they will eventually foot the bill for all of this, and I’m sure that they would much rather pay someone like Halliburton 2X the going price of gasoline than get it from the French.
Besides, The French, Germans and Russians, didn’t do it our way, so we’re going to take our ball and go home, …so there.
Landis
December 10, 2003 at 7:01 pm
4I, for one, am glad that they actually said it. I mean who, in the whole world, would have thought they’d have done it any different? Admitting what’s going on is the first step….
Joshua Scholar
December 10, 2003 at 11:27 pm
5I grew up in Saskatchewan (that’s in Canada for those of you who never heard of it… above the United States, thank you).
Unlike most places in the US, Sask. has three viable parties, the Progressive Conservatives on the right, the Liberals in the middle and the New Democratic Party on the left. The NDP in Saskatchewan, by the way started socialized medicine in Canada (and probably socialized insurance before that, I’m not sure).
Anyway, my point here is that whenever the government changed hands in Sask. all government contracts went to whatever businesses were associated with that party - at least that’s what I heard. That was purer form of legalized corruption than what’s going on here.
In this case there are two policy reasons for what we’re doing, one is the conflict of interest problem you mentioned where we might not actually trust some of those companies. But the more important issue here is that it’s perfectly rational for us to throw our weight around.
As an American I DON’T CARE IF WE”RE BEING FAIR TO FORIEGN CORPORATIONS. Why the hell should I ever care about that? But I do care whether my country has the clout to protect ourselves. If we don’t throw our wieght around we lose it! If we send a message that our “allies” can hinder our security whenever doing so can buy a few points in domestic politics, then we’ll be screwed at every chance.
But I’m sure those poor abused foriegn corporations are very greatful for your love. Your charity for the truely deserving is touching.
Oh did you notice the huge multi/city demonstrations against terrorism and facism in Iraq the other day. I didn’t think so.
check out
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com
Bob
December 11, 2003 at 1:08 am
6Joshua, a day after we announced the no-contracts-for-you policy, we asked some of the very same countries to consider retiring Iraq’s debts.
We are nothing if not smooth.
Paging Dr. Howard, President Bush, Dr. Howard…
Joshua Scholar
December 11, 2003 at 1:18 am
7bob, that’s spin. Yeah, France was going to pony up big bucks… God, how stupid do you think I am?
Ras_Nesta
December 11, 2003 at 1:35 am
8Josh, Canada was going to pony up a few hundred mil, not Emperor C-plus Agustus campaign dollars, but more than 99% of the world.
If only foreign corporations could donate money to the GOP, they’d be be on easy street.
Bob
December 11, 2003 at 1:43 am
9Joshua writes:
“bob, that’s spin. Yeah, France was going to pony up big bucks… God, how stupid do you think I am?”
It may be embarrassing, but that’s what the administration did: denied the possibility of contracts–not just to France, but to a number of Name Brand countries–then asked for help with debt forgiveness. No spin there, just the facts, as reported in Thursday’s Times.
This makes me feel sorry for satirists. How can they make a living when their work is being outsourced to Washington?
As for your question, I’m going to assume it’s rhetorical.
Joshua Scholar
December 11, 2003 at 1:54 am
10By the way, here’s another Iraqi blogger who’s talking about the demonstrations.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com
note the first blogger I mentioned has pictures and is putting up more
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com
Note you might have to reload that page a few times to see this blog. I think blogspot is screwing the Zeyad over. Since the earliest days of his blog, when I try to load it I get gibberish most of the time. I have to hit reload a few times, then the page appears. His is the only page on blogspot with this problem. Maybe someone at blogspot doesn’t want that page going out.
Ras Nesta: so you want to solve the problem of poor abused multinational corporations by bringing MORE corruption to Washington. This conversation fell down the rabbit hole before it started. Liberation is bad, security is bad, international corporations are worthy of our charity and we need more corruption in Washington. My scorecard is melting from the surrealism.
Joshua Scholar
December 11, 2003 at 2:01 am
11Bob, intelligent people know that the Administration was just embarrasing France with that request. That was the point of my rhetorical question. But your vacuous self rightousness doesn’t seek an intelligent audience.
julia
December 11, 2003 at 2:13 am
12The untold want, by life and land ne’er granted
Now, vacuous self-righteousness, sail thou forth to seek and find
Chicory
December 11, 2003 at 9:25 am
13As a loyal, flag waving American, (take note Ashcroft) I’m backing the Prez. 110%. I don’t want any of my tax dollars going to a bunch of “fair weather friend” companies. I’m sticking with my Freedom fries and American toast. :-p
Bob
December 11, 2003 at 11:33 am
14Joshua -
Starting a sentence with “Intelligent people know…” is the rhetorical equivalent of “I got nothin…”
jerry
December 11, 2003 at 11:58 am
15I agree with Joshua entirely. I am in no mood to futz around Germany and France any more. France has been trying to stick to us as far back as the creation of NATO. They’re still trying to do it today. And they definitely don’t have the market cornered for providing effective military peace-keeping support (anyone been following what they’ve been up to in Africa lately?).
Germany is trying, well hell, I can’t figure out what Schoeder is doing and I don’t think even he knows.
Canada is in an interesting spot right here. Cretien and Bush haven’t liked each other as far back as Bush seeing Vicente Fox before Mssr Prime Minister. Canada was going to maybe give money but opposed the action as a whole and actions do have consequences, or so everyone’s been telling Bush et al. It is an interesting situation.
I have read this board for a couple of years. I’ve even been called a conserva-troll by regular posters on this board.
That all being said - Bob, that was funny.
Joshua Scholar
December 11, 2003 at 11:59 am
16Actually Bob, I meant that statement literally.
I assumed that you were posting rhetoric with mangled logic because you had contempt for your audience. So I reacted that you’d insulted our intelligence.
I guess we both misread each other. You assumed I was being rhetorical when I talked about my intelligence being insulted. And I assumed that you were being dense for rhetorical reasons.
See we’re all honest here.
adam
December 11, 2003 at 12:54 pm
17Let’s be clear - if the most secure, lowest-priced, least risky, most competent bid for an Iraqi contract came from a German company, US officials would now not be allowed to choose it.
Before yesterday, our government was always at liberty, of course, to REJECT offers from companies based in those countries.
If we ignore those facts, then we’re just arguin’ because we like to argue.
This isn’t about getting the best, or even the most-secure plans and bids. Despite my hilarious post, it’s not even about keeping the wealth in US hands [that could’ve been done without a public announcement]. It is purely and simply a move to take a slap at the nations that didn’t support us by ostracizing companies based in those countries.
It’ll score big points with a certain flag-waving segment of the population. In fact, it already has. But as a diplomatic move it’s simpleminded and petty bullying at best, and dirt-stupid and self-destructive at worst.
Wonderwoman
December 11, 2003 at 2:10 pm
18I wonder why all those foreign companies didn’t just bribe their governments to go along with the Bush Administration’s Iraqi invasion - like US companies did. Perhaps they knew they didn’t have a chance in the “competitive bid” process anyway!
I’m so embarrassed for our country. The arrogance of our leaders is appalling.
jerry
December 11, 2003 at 2:56 pm
19I guess it boils down to actions do have consequences. That is what those opposed to the new policy are saying and that is what those who support the new policy are saying. International trade has always and will always be linked to government international policy. Germany and France (I’m focusing on them because they have been the most active and vocal) vehemently opposed the war. Now they are mad because their companies cannot be the leads in the reconstruction efforts.
It can be argued that France and Germany were opposing a change in government because they had lucative contracts with the existing government of Iraq. Those contracts are now void. They would now be looking to replace the old contracts with new ones. You can’t have it both ways.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Iraq posed an immenient threat. However, we now a have fait accompli. No one in their right mind can argue that Iraq on the whole was better off under Saddam Hussein. The future is open to a whole new set of better possibilities that were not even thinkable a year ago.
Sure, there is risk involved. I’m willing to take that risk. The potential rewards are too great. I don’t make that statement lightly. I have too many friends just back, currently there, or gearing up to go.
Tom Bridge
December 12, 2003 at 1:06 pm
20While many on the left will find this either erudite or witty, I think you’re so self-interested in having this war be about oil and nothing else that you’re unable to see the people that were freed from Saddam.
Granted, I don’t think the Bush administration chose the right reasons to go into Iraq, I think we can all agree that deposing some of those fascists running resource rich countries into the ground and their peoples through plastic shredders might not be such a bad thing.
Lampooning the hard-working men and women of the US Military may seem like a good idea to you, but they’re the reason you get to behave as you do without threat of foreign invasion. They work for you, and this is all you can do? Make fun of their commanding officers who have alienated possible reinforcements from other countries?
What a sick fuck you are.
aimai
December 12, 2003 at 1:15 pm
21Tom bridge:
I don’t get it, why *wouldn’t* we make fun of the “officers” or, in this case the administration who have alienated possible reinforcements from other countries? Only by pointing out what is wrong with this policy does anyone have a hope of getting things back on track.
Adam,
great post, truly funny and, oddly enough, not at all disrespectful of our armed forces.
aimai
Alexandra
December 13, 2003 at 12:59 am
22So America does what it wants, arbitrarily, for it’s own ends, because it can, and screw the rest of the world. Again.
Hear that? It’s Osama laughing his butt off.
Rana
December 15, 2003 at 12:51 pm
23Don’t bother responding to Tom — he’s spamming Adam’s site. Go take a look at his “comments” about other posts. Sad, really.
Tom Bridge
December 15, 2003 at 6:18 pm
24Honestly, I didn’t do this, I’m not the type to comment spam, I don’t know what’s going on. I’ve emailed Adam and I hope we can work this out, I only posted on the oil ceo post.
Rana
December 15, 2003 at 8:16 pm
25That’s good to know. Perhaps someone else is taking your name and posting under it? Apologies for assuming the worst.