| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq | ||
| Iraq contracts will go only to our allies. | ||
| 2003-12-10 | ||
| EFL & Impact Companies from countries opposed to the conflict in Iraq will be barred from bidding for new rebuilding contracts worth $18.6bn, the Pentagon has said. Makes sense to me.
Ok, that too makes sense. The 26 prime contracts cover areas such as oil, power, communications, water, housing and public works centres. The basics. The ban would exclude firms from countries such as Well, that should just about do it. Procurement specialist Professor Steven Schooner (sounds German) of George Washington University, said it was "disingenuous" to use national security as an excuse. Boo, efing, hoo. "This kind of decision just begs for retaliation and a tit-for-tat response," Reuters news agency quoted him as saying. I WANT MY MOMMY! I WANT MY MOMMY! THE AMERICANS AREN’T PLAYING FAIR!. Boo, hoo.
| ||
| Posted by:Dragon Fly |
| #78 Jarhead, I have always spoken out violently against anyone trying the Bush-Hitler comparison (and unlike most others I know who Hitler was). Actually that comparison was not condoned by the government, the minister who (actually allegedly) said so (she still denies it) was fired. I made the comparison Afghanistan-Iraq for the following reason: Germany could understand and approve why the existence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was intolerable, and once the Germans go along with you, they stick to what they do and promise. In the case of Iraq, Germany (along with many others) wasn't convinced, and that made the difference. And the country has changed. When Johnson asked Germany for troops to be sent to Vietnam he created a lot of embarassment here and Germany (not allowed by its constitution then to follow through anyway) wiggled its way out of it by sending a handful of ambulance guys and a boat to treat wounded soldiers. Today Germany is willing to speak up when it doesn't agree with something, even with the U.S. That doesn't mean that it is always right with its opinion, but so be it. Sure Schroeder used the anti-war sentiment but he's a mediocre politician. rkb, I don't think that Schroeder won the election on an "anti-American platform", he won it on an "anti-war platform" that some leftist SPD guys misused to voice their anti-American ideas which actually caused Schroeder more harm than good. The Bush-Hitler remark of his minister nearly succeeded in costing him the elections (he won by a few thousand votes only) because it alieniated many traditionally US-friendly Germans in the South and West. You have to understand that the reunification added about 17 million East Germans to Germany who were raised in Communist times, with a daily dosis of anti-Americanism. Most did and do not have much real life experience with Americans. The places were Americans are most popular in Germany are those where they have been for half a century... enough said. rkb, I hate it that people believe that rubbish about 9/11 and WMD. But please query how many Americans (California?) believe the same nonsense? What has Dean been babbling about lately? As for the consequences, they will actually be minimal for the German economy, but far more serious for transatlantic relations and the War on Terror because it plays in the hands of those who oppose both. Btw for good reasons financial decisions are most of the time not made following political convictions. Even Germans who do not approve Bush politics invest heavily in the U.S. And the "national" argument isn't very valid today anyway: The Wolfowitz paper lists "countries that can bid". Yet it's not countries that bid but companies that do. And given the size of the major contracts most companies with a chance to win will be multinational anyway. Someone should re-read his own lessons about globalism. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-11 7:18:29 AM |
| #77 Wow! This really was a raw steak thrown to the dogs. This is interesting. We should go a little easy on guys like TGA. There's a long, scholarly US history book called The Age of Federalism (sorry, author's names not at hand) that has a chapter on the history of US - France relations, both between governments and between societies. They note two specific instances when the US bailed out the French collective ass, and commented (approximately) "... but when the American soldiers were actually in the country, they didn't get along all that well with the French. In both the First World War and the Second, for some reason they got on better with the Germans." |
| Posted by: Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-11 12:09:50 AM |
| #76 TGA, I do understand the point you made about the real reluctance many Germans have in shifting gears to deal with the current world situation. I also empathize with the memories of Dresden - I wasn't there, but in-laws of mine lived through the war in Germany and the hungry times afterwards. So I would have had little trouble accepting a principled or just slow-to-react refusal to join us in Iraq - I would have been disappointed, but not angry - if that was what had happened. But that's not what I saw. I saw a politician win a Federal election on an "oppose America" platform. I read interviews with Germans who stated outright that any reports of WMD found in Iraq would not influence them, as they would be quite sure the CIA planted those weapons - the Americans can't be trusted, you know. I read polls which show that over 30% of Germans think that, at a minimum, the Bush administration and/or the CIA condoned or even planned the 9/11 attacks. And right about then I began to be angry. My daughter was less than a mile from the Twin Towers when those planes struck. It was a shorter experience than being in Dresden at the end of World War II, but the 36 hours until we were able to speak with her and confirm she was alive and well were difficult as well. So too is the knowledge that I live and work with the threat of a terror attack in my area. I pass bomb-sniffing guard dogs when I enter the government facility where I work each day. That is a new and unwelcome part of my life now. I think Germany (on the whole) did take the "easy way" with Iraq, and did so assuming there would be few or no ill consequences for so doing. I also acknowledge that this doesn't describe all Germans, nor does it negate the ways in which both our countries benefit from long ties of alliance. May they continue! I don't see the trend going that way, however ... while I would welcome a Europe that was dedicated to her own defense, when the French and German leaders define that Europe as being inherently in opposition to US influence, it is hard for me to argue that those countries should get first chance at contracts funded by my own tax dollars. |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-12-10 10:26:28 PM |
| #75 As a Canadian, I have no problem with the US decision. Canada has taken advantage of the American security zone since the end of WWII, and has demilitarised itself while the goverment played the anti-american blame game. Well maybe we need to learn cause and effect; there maybe economic consequences for our cheap political action. The new prime minister just recieved his warning shot. Besides, Canada is no longer a real country; just a collection of badly run medicare programs. |
| Posted by: john 2003-12-10 9:37:08 PM |
| #74 Sorry for the late pile on. To riff a little bit on TGA's comment in #73, after the two world wars, America wanted docile Europeans. Now that we've got them, we don't know what to do with them. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-12-10 8:37:02 PM |
| #73 LH, makes a decent point on Canada. Let them bid. They put up a lot of cash, and, let's be honest, they've no real military to speak of(trust me, I've trained w/what they have, nothing to write home about). Germany has been staunch on Afghanistan true, but we're talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan. I could go either way on them as far as bidding goes. Yes, the Germans should receive accolades for their part in OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM and anything that comes with that. Iraq is more dicey. TGA, I will say this, if your government gives tacit approval in denouncing my country or my president, your basically saying at least half of the U.S. population is also stupid for backing this war. Anyone who compares Bush to Hitler is an absolute moron in my book. As for France and Russia, maybe we were wrong in openly telling them they couldn't bid. I think it would've been best to let them bid and make sure said bid paperwork hit the trash can afterwards. Done deal. Everyone walks away thinking they got what they wanted, and it looks like we threw them a bone. Duplicitous, yes, a little too Clinton like for my usual brash manner, but for these diplomatic pseudo-intellectual elite pussies, probably would of worked. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-12-10 8:25:19 PM |
| #72 Tibor, isn't it interesting that the American public never wondered just why German troops are in Afghanistan but not in Iraq? Both are dangerous places and if Germany had wanted, it could have had it the easy way with Iraq support: lip service, a few hundred ambulance troops and be done with. This can't be explained away with sympathies for Saddam (we had none, not even the left), nor lucrative dealings with Saddam (we had few and reconstruction would have be much more lucrative). It's hard to explain to Americans what war means to us: For 50 years we have been vaccinated against it and maybe we have more problems adapting to the new situation that the end of the Cold War and the start of a new, sinister WOT poses. We're a bit like someone who finally caught up with sleep in 1990 and is unwilling to face a new rude awakening. Without 9/11, would Bush have felt the urge to deal with the Iraq problem so swiftly. Would he have been able to convince the US public that Iraq couldn't wait? Remember... there were times when the U.S. hated to be dragged into conflicts... in 1916 or 1940. And believe someone who survived Dresden 1945... although I believed in the moral justification of the Iraq liberation (WMD yes or no) I couldn't avoid shivering when I saw the bombing of Baghdad. I knew it wasn't anything like Dresden... but you can't get it out of your head. Never. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 6:35:01 PM |
| #71 TGA -- Thanks for taking care of our troops. I'm sure there are many other Germans who are doing the same things, and we appreciate the German soldiers guarding our bases in Germany and fighting with us in Afghanistan. In fact, we wish there were more of them. Our bit is not with the German military or the German people -- it is with the German government. Schroeder et al. chose criticism of the US over allegiance to an old ally for political expedience. Unlike Aznar, Howard, Blair, Berlusconi, etc., he did not show political courage and stand with us. As a result, we are not inclined to help him improve the German economy by getting some German companies contracts in Iraq. It is a simple calculation. P.S. - Many Americans feel that, having rebuilt Germany and established a successful liberal democracy in the face of the massive threat of the Soviet Union, the least Germany could do was guard our bases in Germany -- which were only there because of the former Soviet threat. The Germans have done that, but not much more, to assist the US in liberating Iraq. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-12-10 6:13:43 PM |
| #70 I want to second Capsu's appreciation of your arguments (although I don't agree). Ya'll come back now, ya heah. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2003-12-10 6:10:30 PM |
| #69 Oh sure Capsu, after all that missile didn't hit his head in the Rasheed Hotel, right? After all, it's not a list of the excluded but a list of the included. Now add Baker's debt restructuring mission to the equation and the latest rescheduling notice on the rebuilding-iraq.net site and... Ok it's a bazaar out there... but bad mint tea to go along with the haggling. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 6:04:53 PM |
| #68 TGA Thanks for the thoughtful, well developed starting point for this thread... I have been wrestling with this discussion all day and I guess I have a few comments that have not been made yet. I can't figure out the reason Wolfie put this out so high profile, when there are so many different procurement methods that simply could have written the "non helpful" out of the bid specs anyway, but Wolfie doesn't do anything without a reason... so nailing up the "No Irish Need Apply" sign instead of simply not "hiring any Irish" has to have some intended effect beyond it just feeling good to say! I mean they could have just said that all Glockenspiels, Lederhosen, bagettes and russian Caviar must be purchased using a Walmart credit card and that would have constrained much of bidding anyway! As far as Canada, those of us from the the Cold Belt had better not want to go "T for T" with the Tukes, as much of the "export" Canada has to offer, beyond Celine Dion and "better" beer, is in the form of Natural Gas, and the cupboards aren't exactly stacked with this commodity at this time... infact we are at all time barebones supplies. Seriously TGA, I have mostly enjoyed your point of view since I first logged onto Rantburg, so keep it coming. I would guess though that Wolfowitz has pushed this specific and very public button for strategic reasons that will play out in the next few months. He is in a chess game here,I suspect, and not worried about negative PR... maybe even desiring it. |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2003-12-10 5:43:46 PM |
| #67 TGA, I agree the 'safety' issue is a canard, doubtless there to fulfill some government purchasing regulation allowing the government to limit the bidders. It is not meant as an insult, but it is meant to hurt, if that distinction means anything to you. It's evident we're not going to convince the 'oil and profit' whiners anyway, they've always got something else to bitch about. But it's time to let those who let their policy be governed by kowtowing to them that their actions are being noticed - including by ordinary, voting Americans - and they will be dealt with accordingly. Nothing personal, but that's how your country under Schroeder acted - you are known by the company you keep. And I am all for consistency: no sub-contracts for weasels, either, if I were running the show. And sod the Saudis. |
| Posted by: Nero 2003-12-10 5:36:57 PM |
| #66 rkb, sorry but that "safety threat" is nothing but an excuse to avoid another WTO ruling against the U.S. The U.S. military feels it's safe enough to have its bases in Germany guarded by Germans while troops are gone fishing for a while. The Germans probably have a better clue about U.S. casualties and wounded troops than everyone else... they are all flown to Germany first and get a salute from our troops if they get a chance to do so. That German companies could be safety threats is an insult... to our intelligence. We had 5 U.S. soldiers for dinner on Thanksgiving, freshly flown in from Iraq. My family does have some first hand info on the situation in Iraq as well. I'm afraid I'm a bit cynical here but it doesn't really matter whether Germany or France are on the list or not... the bulk of contracts will go to U.S. companies anyway with a few "consolation prices" for the rest. But the public a priori exclusion just floats the boat of those who said: We told you right away that it's all about oil and profit. If the U.S. is going to stick by its word it will be the decision of a free Iraq with whom it wants to do business in the future. And I know for a fact that German companies are very welcome in Iraq, not because they did business with Saddam's Iraq but because they deliver quality. So I think we can wait this out. LH, we thought that Chirac was haggling, too. We believed that he'd jump on the bandwagon àla dernière minute. Maybe he just fell in love with his role as a champion of peace. He didn't have much else to fall in love with. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 5:12:39 PM |
| #65 TGA, I agree with you on so many issues but not on this one. Re: bunkers, there was substantial additional hardening done after 1991. Re: French weapons, it is *not* an urban myth - I've talked with troops who confiscated some of them. What is an open question is whether they were sold directly (unlikely) or allowed to follow an unregulated path to Baghdad through 3rd parties, perhaps with the not-so-subtle support of Paris in return for sweetheart deals with Elf when the Russians got stiffed (more likely). There really is a difference in "safety threat" between being a prime contractor and being a sub contractor. For instance, it is conceivable that some work could be subcontracted to companies without ever allowing that vendor's personnel to enter Iraq, much less to roam more or less at will there. |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-12-10 4:35:56 PM |
| #64 though im burned on haggling explanations - i thought for months Chirac was haggling, and it turned out he wasnt. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-12-10 4:31:46 PM |
| #63 cold feet or time to haggle? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-12-10 4:31:01 PM |
| #62 "How pro-American is Egypt? Try a survey in any Cairo street." precisely - considering their position, the Egyptian state went out on a limb to support us as much as they did and do. Germany did and does not. Saudi is more arguable, but the admin isnt ready to fight that battle just yet. As Europeans are so quick to say about Israel - we expect more from you. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-12-10 4:29:52 PM |
| #61 Steve den Beste, USS Clueless, reiterates many of the points brought up here. I'm sure that it won't change the minds of some, but it will help clarify the thinking of a few. I don't always agree with Steve, but there's nothing wrong with his thinking process. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-12-10 4:16:12 PM |
| #60 "The scheduled release of the solicitations in support of the Iraq Reconstruction contracts has been temporarily delayed. Additional information will be provided as soon as possible." "The Pre-Proposal conference scheduled for 11 December 2003 has been changed to 19 December 2003. The location and time will be provided not later than 12 December 2003." Cold feet anyone? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 3:51:28 PM |
| #59 Oh great, I just discovered Saudi Arabia on the welcome list. So the Saudis meet the "safety requirements" and Germany does not. Oh well, Rummie already listed us with Cuba and Libya, so we are at least spared the Soddy company. Thanks so much. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 3:22:03 PM |
| #58 As a US taxpayer footing this huge bill, I'd be very disappointed if these funds were spent on companies from nations who weren't part of our coalition. If France et al want their companies to get money for rebuilding Iraq, these countries could pony up the money themselves to help the effort. |
| Posted by: Ughman 2003-12-10 3:08:17 PM |
| #57 There is a VERY strong "National Security" concern here. How in hell can we trust nations that have shafted us every way possible not to do it if they get the chance INSIDE Iraq? We saw France, Germany, and Russia blatantly disregard the UN sanctions against Iraq, and got special deals because of it. This undermined the entire United Nations effort. There is no way I can believe the current French, German, or Russian government would NOT try the same tricks against us at this point. We CANNOT TRUST the French, German, and Russian companies to work in our best interest, and in the best interest of the Iraqi people, for very good reason - their careless disregard for those same best interests over the past twelve years. It may be cold, it may be heartless, it may even come back to bite us, but it's still the ONLY solution that won't cause more immediate problems for the US coalition. If the EU seethes and whines, too bad. You've proven (by the actions of your core nations, France and Germany), that you cannot be trusted, and must be excluded. So solly GI... |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-12-10 2:29:13 PM |
| #56 Let me also stress what has been said above: the contracts at stake are being funded with American taxpayer dollars. We have every right to be sure that they are awarded according to US procurement law, which does allow the SecDEF to bar firms that would pose a security risk. Let's be brutally frank here. The tunnels that Saddam hid in, under Baghdad, were built by German firms after the first Gulf war. French weapons were found among the caches we seized and many of those weapons had manufacturing dates after the imposition of sanctions. Russian secret service were in Baghdad in the days before the invasion and according to high Iraqi officials who surrendered or were captured, those Russian generals were advising Saddam on how to resist the Coalition. The reality is that it is entirely reasonable to view firms from those 3 countries as serious threats to the safety of Coalition forces and as a threat to the security of the United States. I too was deeply saddened by the demands of the German people and the posturing of their anti-American politicians both before and after the main operations in this war. My brother-in-law is native-born German as are many of my husband's relatives. Aris tells us that we will not have cooperation in the war on terror as a result of this decision. The time may come when it is Greece who desires help from the US in this matter. But in any case, these are somewhat different matters and should be treated as such. But if not, we will move ahead without Greek help. And as for Canada, I remain unconvinced. First let Martin assume the leadership role and then let's see what policies he pursues and what statements he makes. There are a lot of Canadians who delight in looking down on those in the States. Chretien had a substantial constituency. While it's wonderful that Canada prides herself on humanitarian aid, I'm not inclined to include Canadian firms in the first round of prime contractors who spend US money in Iraq. Canadians should not be allowed to boast that they helped rebuild Iraq -- using US dollars -- after the US went to war there. TGA: regarding Turkey, I was very disappointed with their decisions as well. However, after major combat operations died down, they did allow the movement of supplies and equipment through their ports to the north of Iraq. Moreover, the US and the emerging Iraqi leadership have good reasons to promote economic growth and relationships between Iraq and her northern neighbor. It would be good to have 2 fairly secular states in the middle East as examples of economically thriving countries with Islamic majority populations. Finally, one important point. TGA and Aris see the US as being childish or petty. They ignore the fact that anti-American attitudes and actions have become nearly national sports in each of their countries. "The hyperpower should be above retaliation." Well, when my daughter was a young child, it is true that if she kicked me in the ankle she did not do me great harm. But it hurt nonetheless and she was not allowed to continue to do so with impunity. As a teenager she was held even closer to account for her actions. It has been a long time coming, but anti-American actions do have consequences when what is at stake is as important as the need to dismantle state support for terror and the need to establish stable free societies with representative governments and thriving economies in the Middle East. |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-12-10 1:47:49 PM |
| #55 Would someone point me to an official list of "excluded" countries? I have only been able to find the list of "eligible" ones. And it would appear from that, that the keys (support of the coalition) to inclusion in future are in the hands of the ineligible. http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pdf/D_F.pdf |
| Posted by: Infrequenter 2003-12-10 1:40:24 PM |
| #54 Tigris-Euphrates river -system,- |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2003-12-10 1:36:11 PM |
| #53 The Turks have: A) caught a clue and turned more helpful, especially after the bombings, and B) they control the flow of the Tigris-Euphrates river, and have turned it off in the past. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2003-12-10 1:19:34 PM |
| #52 Tibor's got it right, TGA. As a US taxpayer, there's no friggin' way I want my money - which is what we're talking about here - going to the Axis of Weasels, low bidders or not. We're talking about countries that actively sabotaged our efforts at the UN, did their level best to delay the overthrow of Saddam, and sold him most of the arms that were used against his people and are still being used against our troops. Germany was far from the worst offender on any of these accounts, but I'm sorry, this is where your government's actions have landed you. Yes, this is tit-for-tat. If you know your games theory, you know that rule is the optimal one: repay a defection with a defection. Your government valued its relationship with the Frogs and Saddam more than that with the US, and you are reaping the consequences. Something to keep in mind for the next go-around: We are done with being suckers at the cost of American lives and wealth. When and if the EU makes its promised financial contribution to the Iraq reconstruction, I'm sure there will be plenty of self-dealing opportunities for German firms. |
| Posted by: Nero 2003-12-10 1:18:55 PM |
| #51 Aris: You said, "But perhaps you couldn't have trusted the Iraqis to make that decision, because Iraqis might have been more interested in doing what's best for Iraq, (aka signing the contracts that'd most benefit their country) rather than just acts of petty vengeance." I think you may want to read this from CNN: October 23, 2003 The level of Germany and France's participation in an international conference aimed at raising more funds to rebuild Iraq prompted reaction Thursday from a top Iraqi official, who warned of a possible backlash. Ayad Allawi, the current head of Iraq's U.S.-appointed governing council, said he hoped German and French officials would reconsider their decision not to boost their contributions beyond funds already pledged through the European Union. "As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq." http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/23/sprj.irq.donors/ |
| Posted by: TS 2003-12-10 12:59:17 PM |
| #50 again let me say, if there is any way to get Canada off the list of excluded nations it should be done. Canada pledge over $200 million at Madrid, IIRC. Also the PM so many here dislike is on his way out - a new, more reasonable PM, Paul Martin is coming in - we should not greet him with a slap. Canada is the only one of the key powers that opposed us on Iraq to have had a change of leadership since. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-12-10 12:55:28 PM |
| #49 There are serious security risks involved in allowing French and German companies to work in Iraq. These same companies did a lot of the work for the previous regime. They are going to rehire the same Baathist personnel and Iraqi sub-contractors they used prior to the war. No only is this an immediate security risk but we will hear a continuous message from these people with respect to how the American Coalition has "screwed up" to country. I commend Wolfiwicz and Co. from falling into the same trap as CNN, BBC,and the UN has currently. |
| Posted by: john 2003-12-10 12:49:51 PM |
| #48 Geez, 500 Landser go to Iraq and none of this happens. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-10 12:48:18 PM |
| #47 Perhaps france could do the catering, no? And the grunts would probably love to have low priced German Brew. Everybody's happy! TGA, good points, keep working to bring Germany from the brink of french pirfidy. Also keep in mind our allies that get the contracts and how happy they'll be. I can only tell you how disappointed I was in Germanies unwillingness to back down saddam. The french it was to be expected. But had Germany stood erect against a true tyrant, many lives might have been preserved. Germany should have seen the writing on the wall and done the grown up thing and supported action against saddam. Why not I'll always wonder. Hell, france may have followed Germanies leadership, whoa! But I don't think Germany is the bad guy in this. Just poorly lead and a little to passive. I wouldn't shut out Germany. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-12-10 12:45:26 PM |
| #46 I would add that I think this is aimed (and properly so) at Canada and Mexico as much as France and Germany. If GWB wants to aim something at Mexico, he can permanently shelve any notions of immigration amnesty, or get the proper government agency to begin actively rooting out and deporting illegal aliens. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-10 12:44:35 PM |
| #45 1 re Turkey - this IS NOT about payback for the past - its about willingness to help in the present. Turkey offered 10,000 ground troops, which didnt go in because of the IGC. We cant punish Turkey for the action of the IGC. 2. Money - France has offered NOTHING for Iraqi reconstruction, and Russia a pittance, and Germany slightly more than a pittance. 3. Note well - this applies only to US funds - it DOES NOT apply to international contributions, which are in a seperate fund 4. WTO - there are IIUC rules on govt procurement in the WTO, but I presume theres a fair amount of leeway in defense and related security spending. 5. My objection to this - Canada - Canada, while it has not contributed troops (and has been a pain in the behind diplomatically), HAS contributed a substantial amount of money - more than France, Germany and Russia combined. Canada should therefore not be excluded from contracts. The problem I think was that to make this on national security grounds, Wolfie had to use provision or offer of troops as the criteria. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-12-10 12:40:30 PM |
| #44 Amen! No turncoats, back stabbers, or U.S. enemies allowed! |
|
Posted by: |
| #43 A few points about this action announced by Wolfie. The most important point is that we are talking about US taxpayer money being spent. Besides Liberalhawk's technical rationale (US procurement regs probably require a nat'l security exception to open bidding), there is a more important reason -- it is in the US's national security interest to share the awarding of contracts with countries that have contributed to the liberation of Iraq. Failure to take a hard line here could have repurcussions for future campaigns. As the President said, you are with us or you are against us, and if you're against us, you must pay a price. For Iraq, it was an invasion; for France, Russia et al., it's dough. I also think this is just the first slap at non-contributing countries. As Jarhead noted, pre-liberation Iraqi contracts will be voided and commercial debts will be repudiated. There is and should always be a price for dealing with tyrants -- not the least of which is that he will be deposed. This will hurt Russia and France (and Germany, too) the most, which is right, since it was, to my mind, their main motivation for actively opposing US efforts to remove Saddam from power. Other countries are impacted, too, notably Canada, our most important trading partner, and China. Having Canada on the list adds an important measure of even-handedness and credibility to the decision. And as for Turkey, they were not very helpful during the war, but they were prior to the war (by providing a base for the Northern no-fly zone patrols) and after the war offered to send 10,000 troops to Iraq. (By the way, that offer was rejected by the Iraqis, not us. I say send the 10,000 Turkish troops to Afghanistan and let them help out there.) Finally, I can't wait to see how the Democratic candidates (The Ninecompoops) react to this announcement. After all, they want to internationalize the reconstruction efforts. But do they really want to be carrying water for France, Russia, et al., over this issue? |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-12-10 11:40:36 AM |
| #42 I would add that I think this is aimed (and properly so) at Canada and Mexico as much as France and Germany. The Canucks have done their best to be junior De Villepins at times, it's time to reap what you sow - in the immortal words of South Park: "Blame Canada" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-12-10 11:36:35 AM |
| #41 TGA, like the others I appreciate your comments, but have to disagree with your analysis. Germany will have to live with the consequences of its decisions, and continuing to attempt to force Iraq back into a U.N. framework (a condition of your financial aid at Madrid) is another poor decision. The U.N. has absolutely no credibility in the U.S. regarding Iraq policy decisions. Besides, you're already holding too much Iraq debt -- we couldn't possibly ask you to take on any more... It wouldn't be fair. |
| Posted by: snellenr 2003-12-10 11:33:24 AM |
| #40 UPDATE UPDATE White House Defends Policy: "Prime contracts for reconstruction funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to the Iraqi people and those countries who are working with the United States on the difficult task of helping to build a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq," McClellan said. See entire article here, while I grab another cup of coffee. |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2003-12-10 11:15:23 AM |
| #39 Re: Turkey, it's because you made a good point - at least it would be a good point if getting even was the point - which it is clearly not. I think what you are missing is that we no longer see the government's of France and Germany as our ally. Indeed, we now see your government as an enemy that we need to guard ourselves against. And why shouldn't we? Your government has consistenly aligned itself with our enemies, willfully undermined the lives of our troops, and works night and day churning out anti-American drivel in the hopes of turning the rest of the world against all that we hold dear. Maybe you think that we are going to just sit back and take it, but we are not. Like I said, we don't have anything against the German people, but attitudes in America have changed. We aren't the cute and cuddly dog whose ears can be pulled and stomach jumped upon...because we now believe your government means to hurt us. So in answer to your question about Turkey, we are still hopeful that the government of Turkey can work with us. We have no such illusions re: Schroeder and Chirac. |
| Posted by: B 2003-12-10 11:01:56 AM |
| #38 mhatlau, apparently from the article not the 'first round' of contracts being awarded. Those were only for US corps. Mistake imho in regards to those three. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-12-10 10:51:58 AM |
| #37 Sure let's set the stage for a multi-lateral coalition to get more international support. Let's bring in Elf from France, and supply them with nuclear power from Germany. Great track record on following sanctions with those two. Makes perfect sense. |
| Posted by: Brainiac 2003-12-10 10:49:43 AM |
| #36 welcome back TGA - I've gotta disagree with you on this one, for all the reasons noted here - particularly SW's. There have to be consequences for actions, and if there should be an increased anti-American "backlash" among Europe's lefties and elites, how would we notice? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-12-10 10:49:16 AM |
| #35 BTW, TGA...I do enjoy hearing your thoughts. I can see the lack of wisdom of this policy you point out in your comments, but at the same time, I think most Americans (myself included) are tired of duplicity amongst our fickle allies. Of course, perhaps more Germans of your type will remove Schroeder from office, and we can return to the closeness of better times (as is still present between our militaries, if not our politicians). |
| Posted by: mjh 2003-12-10 10:39:58 AM |
| #34 Aris, One more comment... "But perhaps you couldn't have trusted the Iraqis to make that decision, because Iraqis might have been more interested in doing what's best for Iraq, (aka signing the contracts that'd most benefit their country) rather than just acts of petty vengeance." Most importantly there is no Iraqi government to make these decisions yet so ummmm, huh? The other point is that it's not their money being spent, it's ours. We have every right to decide on who and where it is spent. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2003-12-10 10:35:50 AM |
| #33 Aris, "Cheers, you've just managed to lose your future allies, and possibly the entire War on Terror for that matter. You defined the kind of "payback" as economic and therefore you defined the reward as economic, and therefore you defined the motivation as economic --- and money contracts is *not* a motivation that will encourage European voters to send their children to die in America's wars." First of all you have this exactly backwards. Why would anyone join a future american coalition if it is profitable for them not to? If none contributors to take the contributor's money the contributors would be PISSED. Second, obviously the motivation is not economic... How exactly do you see economic gain in coalition partners getting to decide the details of just exactly how THEIR OWN MONEY is spent in Iraq. It's not like they are making money, just getting to decide how their own money is used and ensuring that the margins of their own money don't go back to countries that didn't contribute a dime. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2003-12-10 10:32:45 AM |
| #32 #27, jarhead; Thought Britain, Spain and Italy were included in the contracts. And I am also waiting for someone to explain Turkey. |
| Posted by: mhatlau 2003-12-10 10:31:10 AM |
| #31 TGA, "But whatever happened in 2002, the U.S. cannot walk around asking for financial and military help in Iraq while it shuts out the same countries it asks help from." We asked them first for military help and they said no. Then we asked for help in the Madrid conference and they said no again. When exactly were they planning on helping us? This is a reaction to their policies, their policies are NOT a reaction to this policy... you have it backwards. The damage by them has already been done. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2003-12-10 10:28:48 AM |
| #30 Excluding companies from countries like Germany (despite the Iraq row an ally, member of NATO and dedicated fighter in the WOT) will be hard to explain citing "national security". I see a new WTO issue in the making and the US will have some explaining to do why it touches US national security when a German firm gets Iraqi electricity working or repairs the water dams it has constructed in the 70s. But maybe Tonga can help out there. And Aris has this point right: If Iraq really is about fighting terrorism, this move will not help. It will only help those who always said that its all about oiiil and contracts and domination of the Middle East. Steve, I don't agree with your "hegemony" point. The Europe of 25 will be extremely dificult to manage. To keep it working, Germany wants majority decisions: A majority of countries plus a majority of three fifths of the total EU population. That's not asking too much. We don't want hegemony. But we also don't want Spain, Italy and Poland to dictate our policies via EU decisions. As for the Iraqi debts... I don't think that anyone here thinks about ever recovering them. Well we all know how it will play out eventually... big haggling bazaar style... as usual. I'm still waiting for someone to explain Turkey. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 10:19:44 AM |
| #29 I never said anything about paybacks, TGA. You're missing the point. The point isn't that we are trying to get even. Like I said, we like the German people and we'd like to play ball with them. But...your government keeps telling us that if they don't play by their rules, then we can't play. Understandably, we are tired of playing by rules which assure we can't win. So we've taken our ball and gone home, and you aren't invited to play with us. It has nothing to do with getting even, and we're sorry it's come to this. But seeing how that's the way it is, it turns out we're ok with it. |
| Posted by: B 2003-12-10 10:02:03 AM |
| #28 "But perhaps you couldn't have trusted the Iraqis to make that decision, because Iraqis might have been more interested in doing what's best for Iraq, (aka signing the contracts that'd most benefit their country) rather than just acts of petty vengeance." technically at this point its still agencies of the US govt spending US money, and in order to be in compliance with US procurement regs, a US official had to make the call. I presume that Wolfie and Bremer consulted with the IGC first though. If it turns out they didnt, and the IGC objects, that will be a huge embarassment. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-12-10 9:43:47 AM |
| #27 The only part of the policy I disagree w/is not letting Italy, Britain, and Spain in on the first round of contracts. Other then that, TGA raises good points on fiscal grounds. However, the American people largely would not understand giving France/Germany/Russia any consideration at all for any contract no matter how miniscule. With many of us, it is a matter of principle. Yes, you were too morally superior to fight side by side w/our boys, now, you should be too morally superior to ask for a piece of the pie from their victory (Britain, Spain, Italy included in that victory of course). |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-12-10 9:38:32 AM |
| #26 jarhead - i believe wolfie had to cite national security, in order to stay in compliance with US procurement regulations. Can't just arbitrarily limit bidders, at cost to taxpayers, as a general rule. National security considerations override this though. TGA - if the issue were only the past, I would certainly agree with you. If it were the past plus troop contributions, I might agree with you. But as far as I can tell, the excluded countries have also been less then generous with financial support, and have been hesitant with debt renegotiation. To fail to take that behavior into account would be seriously undercut US credibility, and would invite similar obstructionism in the future. You say the money isnt enough to change policy over - very well, then its not enough to lead to costly retaliation either. For all the talk about US hyperpower, the US has relatively few levers over the powers in question - if one of the levers we have is off the table, then we have no leverage. And as you well know, the specific technical skills can still be procured through subcontractors - the primes have largely generic management skills, found in abundance in coalition countries. The dollars are small, but they're big to the small universe of would be French and German primes, who are now a constituency with an interest in change. The EU itself just demonstrated how to play this game in the steel tariffs dispute. I think that if and when the countries in question get serious about contributing financially to reconstruction and debt relief, this policy will certainly be reexamined. MHW - israeli primes are certainly out of the question, for Iraqi and regional political reasons - this gives us cover for that exclusion. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-12-10 9:37:50 AM |
| #25 TGA, appreciate your thoughts. I suspect that this was really aimed at France and (secondarily) Russia, and Germany got caught up in it because we couldn't name the first two and leave Germany out. German moves to join itself at the French hip in the last few years made that impossible. France did everything possible to stop us from invading Iraq. If that had been premised on some final moral principle well then, okay, that's their view. But it was so transparently the result of Chirac's cold calculations about his relationship with Saddam, French money and contracts in Iraq, and the "need" for France to offer the "alternative" to US power in the world that it has brought France to a great level of disrespect in our country today (outside of Ho'wood and Berkeley, of course). French moves after the war have similarly been transparent and designed to hinder the US where possible, mixed with Gaullic pique and a desparation that comes from seeing one's cherished opinions so obviously proven wrong. So Wolfie's comments constitute a sharp rap to Chirac's teeth. Good. As for Germany, lots of Americans (including most here on Rantburg have good thoughts about Germany -- we see Germans helping in Afghanistan, and there's the sense that unlike France, Germany's opposition to the war was (more) principled. Germany doesn't want war and believes that war is wrong. Okay, that's an opinion I can respect even as I disagree. But Germany has been working with France in the EU to gain more hegemony over the upcoming expanded Union. The talk about a separate military force, the common disregard for the Mastricht accord on deficits, etc., all suggest that Germany will tighten its links to France. So now it becomes more difficult for US policy to reward Germany (or at least not punish it) as we punish the French. And make no mistake, as long as GWB is president, the French will get hammered in a number of ways. Your points about 'tit-for-tat' are well considered, and I'm not advocating that: I'm advocating a policy that undermines the French. Best policy move Germany could make is to distance itself from the French and work with Britain, Spain, Italy and 'New Europe' as the EU expands. It would be a more modern version of 1815. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-12-10 9:35:37 AM |
| #24 It's an amazingly great way this one you found to ensure that in all future conflict, the people opposed to any military aid to America will have ample opposition in their disposal -- "it's all about contract deals!" they'll be shouting, and it'll be difficult indeed to disprove their words. Cheers, you've just managed to lose your future allies, and possibly the entire War on Terror for that matter. You defined the kind of "payback" as economic and therefore you defined the reward as economic, and therefore you defined the motivation as economic --- and money contracts is *not* a motivation that will encourage European voters to send their children to die in America's wars. If this is "payback" for not supporting the "liberation" of Iraq, don't you think that it should have been the Iraqis, not the Americans, whose righteous anger at those countries should have barred nations from these contracts? In short shouldn't all and any such "punishment" be decided by the Iraqis who were supposedly harmed by this failure to support an Iraq invasion? But perhaps you couldn't have trusted the Iraqis to make that decision, because Iraqis might have been more interested in doing what's best for Iraq, (aka signing the contracts that'd most benefit their country) rather than just acts of petty vengeance. It's just sad that yet again America decides to isolate herself thinking herself all-powerful, and yet again it'll come as a revelation that in the next round of combat she'll have even fewer allies than she had now. In the meantime islamofascism is marching on, and Iraq has been now made safe not for democracy, but for *Iran*, as it seems that one of the first effects in the "wider region conflict" will not be a democratic domino effect, but rather the removal of the MEK as a threatening force for the mullahs of Tehran. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2003-12-10 9:34:18 AM |
| #23 Historically, when the Germans come, it hasn't been to liberate (Ask the Poles, Russians, French, etc). Even now, the Germans are so neutered that they are pretty much a military helper at best, and certainly not a leader, in large scale operations (But dont count out ther special ops guys - some of the best in the world, GSG-9, etc). France militarily liberating a country? HAHAHAH, yeah right. They are best at blowing up greenpeace ships and losing wars. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-12-10 9:15:07 AM |
| #22 "This kind of decision just begs for retaliation" Oh? So the next time France and Germany liberate a country and we refuse to help, they'll shut us out of contracts? Fine by me. Like we'd ever need to worry about that situation happening. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-12-10 9:13:16 AM |
| #21 Dragon Fly, we are in the next round already. Discussing points you won or lost in previous rounds won't help you win the match. B, if that's payback, she's a cheap bitch. Europe's extra-European trade only accounts for 14 percent of the European GDP, even less in France. Some stupid European politicians called you names, some not much wiser American politicians called us names... is this a kindergarten here? And Robert, please blame others: I'm actively involved in the Committee for the non re-election of Schroeder. But Wolfowitz didn't help us today. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 9:11:22 AM |
| #20 Welcome back TGA I always appreciated your points even if I didn't always agree with them. We asked for reconstruction money from the EU, we were shafted and now we lock them out of the process. We've done our due diligence with Franc e and Germany and now they will pay. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2003-12-10 9:11:09 AM |
| #19 TGA...you have it sideways: the U.S. cannot walk around asking for financial and military help in Iraq while it shuts out the same countries it asks help from First we asked for military help, then we said "sorry, no contracts for you," after Germany and France Poo-Pood us. |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2003-12-10 9:01:04 AM |
| #18 You didn't even remotely get my point, Robert. And you ignored mine. Read what B said -- we're sick of the crap from Europe's "enlightened" governments. If you want to get angry, get angry at your politicians. The ones who spit on us, who call us names, who act like we're more a social disease than a close ally. Until then, well, payback's a bitch, ain't it? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-10 9:00:06 AM |
| #17 mjh, it is not unlikely that German or French companies would not have gotten a single "main contract". That's market economy. But whatever happened in 2002, the U.S. cannot walk around asking for financial and military help in Iraq while it shuts out the same countries it asks help from. Whether they sent troops or not is not the issue anymore. Never fight battles of the past. Given the precipitous rise in the Euro lately, you won't be missing out on screaming deals...probably. But who knows, if the Euro rises even more, some U.S. companies may become just that... screaming deals. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 8:57:13 AM |
| #16 If the European allies were in this for anything more than the money, they would forgive the Iraqi debt. |
| Posted by: mjh 2003-12-10 8:53:58 AM |
| #15 Looks like I have my coffee just in time. Carry on! |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2003-12-10 8:51:54 AM |
| #14 TGA - American's like the German people, but we are sick of your government's attempts to stab us in the back everytime we turn around. I hate to add to the flames of discontent with true friends like you, but the American population is done with being screwed over and over and over again by Schroeder and Chirac. They've been kicking a friendly dog. It's time to realize that we can and do bite when provoked enough. And we've had enough. It's just that simple. |
| Posted by: B 2003-12-10 8:49:44 AM |
| #13 You didn't even remotely get my point, Robert. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 8:49:40 AM |
| #12 TGA. OK...from a purely economic standpoint, this may result in higher prices and blowback. But, since when is this about economics? France and Germany cannot have it both ways. They opposed the invasion on "Humanitarian" grounds (much like we impose this policy based on "National Security" grounds), and now want a piece of the reconstruction pie. It is "disingenuous" of them to imagine that they can both finance the infrastructure and weaponry of a dictator in defiance of UN sanctions AND assist in the reconstruction after that dictator has been deposed. They were not willing to be pragmatic before the war, but are willing to be now. F that! (Besides, given the precipitous rise in the Euro lately, I doubt we'll be missing out on any screaming deals. This is US $ financing, after all) |
| Posted by: mjh 2003-12-10 8:48:56 AM |
| #11 And before I could even post my last comment, TGA proved my point. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-10 8:46:32 AM |
| #10 TGA, yes, I know your comments on this are nonsense. Germany went along with its master France like a happy little puppy, desperate to please. Your politicians went out of their way to spit on us; don't think we didn't notice how well anti-Americanism played in your elections. This is the price. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-10 8:43:22 AM |
| #9 There are German subcontractors working in Iraq as well. As I said, the move will not mean that much in money terms. The symbolic consequences may be more significant. Thank you for promoting the French-German friendship even further, Mr Wolfowitz. You might as well donate to the Commitee for the re-election of Schroeder. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 8:40:30 AM |
| #8 Israel was also left off the list of countries that can apply. This was not a big deal to the Israeli infrastructure companies since they don't have the resources to compete. However, the Israeli security companies would be able to compete to be primes. There may already be subcontractors working in Iraq (or indirectly working in Iraq). |
| Posted by: mhw 2003-12-10 8:32:50 AM |
| #7 Robert, this is nonsense and you know it. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 8:32:07 AM |
| #6 "This kind of decision just begs for retaliation and a tit-for-tat response," This is OUR tit-for-tat response you twits! Oh wait - the US has to worry about pissing off everyone else, but on one has to worry about pissing off the US. Toughski shitski as they say in Roosia. |
| Posted by: Spot 2003-12-10 8:31:32 AM |
| #5 TGA -- Who cares? Seriously; Germany desperately tried to keep Saddam in power, so who cares? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2003-12-10 8:23:53 AM |
| #4 I'm afraid I will have to disagree with most Rantburgers this time. This is not a wise decision. I'm not saying that because I'm German. It is not wise because neither the U.S. nor Iraq will benefit from this move. Less competition means higher prices (or less action for your buck). How many contracts would Germany actually have won? 10 percent would be good already. Then we are talking about 2 billion dollars. Thats not a sum you change your foreign policy for, that's not a sum you risk your troops being killed for (if you weren't ready to engage them in the first place for more idealistic reasons than contracts). For a few billion dollars worth you create a lot of resentment, a lot of bad publicity in Europe that will eventually backfire... probably in a more quiet way than the Wolfowitz announcement. And bigger sums may be at stake in the long run. When U.S. companies start to meet smiling but negative faces when bidding for EU contracts it will be too late. It will not be good for Iraqis. I know a few fields where German companies (medical ones for example) simply have the best products and Iraqis want them (they have used many of them for decades). And if German businesses engage themselves in Iraq, politics will follow (and that may include financial and even military assistance). Right now many people already think that Iraq is a big mess, that the guerrilla war is going to get much worse. Now the U.S. shuts out companies that might be willing to take a chance (and risks) in Iraq. How wise is that? And then, what is a "German company" today? Daimler-Chrysler and many others are global players, but also smaller companies are active in many countries. A German company that wants to bid will always find a Dutch, Danish or Italian straw-man (if it hasn't a dependance in the respective country already). The ban will also have an effect on debt restructuring and aid going to Iraq. Expect more foot dragging. And the big bucks won't be made in 2004 or 2005, they will be made much later when Iraqis decide with whom they want to do business. America's "essential security interests" are not served by this move. No troops for America, no business with America? Good luck with that policy. And how balanced is that list anyway? Turkey which obstructed the U.S. military in a dangerous way (by preventing the use of bases and denying overflight rights etc) is allowed to bid as an "ally" while Germany whose troops guarded U.S. bases, did not hinder US troops in any way, provided AWACS assistance at the Turkish-Iraqi border, assumed more responsibility in Afghanistan to relieve US troops there is banned from bidding? I'm afraid this won't impress the Anti-Americans here and will irritate America's friends a lot. For a few billion dollars' worth. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-12-10 8:14:38 AM |
| #3 "it was "disingenuous" to use national security as an excuse." -He's right. Let's be honest, put nothing in, get nothing out. Let's not even bother using nat'l security as an excuse, tell'em w/out any shame what the deal is. You tried to f*ck us, now your being left out. Too bad, so sad. Heck, I can't believe they'd think they would get any consideration anyways, arrogant asses. Plus, all old contracts under Saddam are probably going to be null & void as well. Meaning France/Germany/Russian losing mucho cash. BWhahahaha....... |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-12-10 8:10:36 AM |
| #2 Typical,you do not want to feed or milk the cow.Much less muck out the barn,but you want a piece of the cheese. Taking into consideration it is Coalition personel and money that liberated Iraq,is hunting down and killing the Bathists,etcetera and rebuilding Iraq it should be Coalition companies getting the contracts. In conclusion let me say"Bugger-off, frogboy". Cry me a friggin river! |
| Posted by: Raptor 2003-12-10 7:32:27 AM |
| #1 Well, there goes the spirit of free market economy, what's next, democracy? Iraq designed to suit America, signed comrade George W Stalin. |
| Posted by: Franz 2003-12-10 6:22:06 AM |