Contracts for Iraq: Reverse the Pentagon's Decision

PNAC ^ | 12/11/03 | WILLIAM KRISTOL & ROBERT KAGAN

[JohnGalt]

December 11, 2003

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: WILLIAM KRISTOL & ROBERT KAGAN

SUBJECT: Contracts for Iraq: Reverse the Pentagon's Decision

President Bush, we suspect, is going to overrule the Pentagon's attempt to exclude from the bidding for Iraq reconstruction contracts certain countries that have opposed U.S. policy in Iraq. He might as well do it sooner rather than later, so as to minimize the diplomatic damage done by the Pentagon's heavy-handed and counterproductive action.

We hold no brief for the Chirac, Schroeder, or Putin governments. We are also very much in favor of finding ways to work more closely with other governments -- such as those of Britain, Spain and Poland -- who have courageously stood with us, and who hold the promise of continuing to be more helpful to us. We have even been critical of the Bush Administration for a certain lack of imagination in finding ways to work constructively with these friendly governments. But this particular effort by the Pentagon to reward friends and punish enemies is stupid, and should be abandoned.

A deviously smart American administration would have quietly distributed contracts for rebuilding Iraq as it saw fit, without any announced policy of discrimination. At the end of the day, it would be clear that opponents of American policy didn't fare too well in the bidding process. Message delivered, but with a certain subtlety.

A more clever American administration would have thrown a contract or two to a couple of those opponents, to a German firm, for instance, as a way of wooing at least the business sectors in a country where many businessmen do want to strengthen ties with the United States.

A truly wise American administration would have opened the bidding to all comers, regardless of their opposition to the war -- as a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort, building a little goodwill for the future, and demonstrating to the world a little magnanimity.

But instead of being smart, clever, or magnanimous, the Bush Administration has done a dumb thing. The announcement of a policy of discriminating against French, German, and Russian firms has made credible European charges of vindictive pettiness and general disregard for the opinion of even fellow liberal democracies. More important, it has made former Secretary of State James Baker's very important effort to get these countries, among others, to offer debt relief for the new government of Iraq almost impossible. This is to say nothing of other areas where we need to work with these governments.

This decision is a blunder. We trust it will be reversed.

[JohnGalt]

Kristol turns the guns on Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz...interesting to note that Wolfowitz was the author of the policy in question which certainly will make James Baker's life more difficult in getting the Iraqi debt forgiven.

Rumors persist that Baker was brought in to sweep out the Iraq architects, but it looks like they intend to go down fighting.

[cynicom]

Kristol is a conservative in name only. I dont trust any man that talks with his mouth closed.

[Pukin Dog]

This is a perfect poker play by Bush, and it will remain in effect until the French and Russians do what we want. Kristol is a boob.

[RichInOC]

One day as the Little Red Hen was scratching in a field, she found a grain of wheat.

"This wheat should be planted," she said. "Who will plant this grain of wheat?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow.

"The wheat is ripe," said the Little Red Hen. "Who will cut the wheat?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was cut, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will thresh the wheat?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

When the wheat was threshed, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will take this wheat to the mill?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She took the wheat to the mill and had it ground into flour. Then she said, "Who will make this flour into bread?"

"Not I," said the Duck.
"Not I," said the Cat.
"Not I," said the Dog.

"Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did.

She made and baked the bread. Then she said, "Who will eat this bread?"

"Oh! I will," said the Duck.
"And I will," said the Cat.
"And I will," said the Dog.

"No, No!" said the Little Red Hen. "I will do that." And she did.

[caisson71]

Kristol is at it again. Why should Russia, Canada, France and Germany get any US money? Screw them.

[Ben Hecks]

Someone should remind Kristol that France, Germany and Russia had their share of contracts with Iraq BEFORE Saddam was taken down. Their eagerness to illegally sell arms to Saddam is one of the reasons we are losing troops in Iraq to RPGs and other military explosives.

[BlueNgold]

I think it will work fabulously. The Germans, Russians, and French understand only 1 thing and that is $$. They can stand and whine all they want, but based on the PResident's remarks I don't believe he will move an inch until he sees significant movement on their parts.

I also thought the inherent morality of the argument made by the President was profound. #1 - it is WE and our ALLIES who faced danger (Still do) and shed blood, and therefore we have the basic right to do what we wish with our own $$. #2 - What we are asking them to do in order to gain AMERICAN dollars is not things that are of direct benefit to America, but things that are of benefit to the IRAQIS ... debt fogiveness, security assistance, humanitarian support ...

I find it appalling that there are those who say we are strong arming the socialist weenies ... what are we strong arming them for? Position? Power? Money? .. none of that ... we want these 3 countries to do something that will have a significant impact on the short and long term governmental stability of Iraq. We should be ashamed we are being so selfish ... pshaw

[glowworm]

I think life gets too complicated when it involves political types..

In my simple world view.. I think of the solution to let REPO men go in and confiscate all goods that are owed money..

If those countrys could, like car companys, go and take back stuf that wasn't paid for (if they can find them) then there would be no problem. Sounds fair to me.. If some of these countrys sold things without some security.. then Too Bad.. To me... same as a goofy auto company. Let them eat cake..

[JohnGalt]

I think Kristol is hedging bets and trying to get on both the D's and Baker's good side.

[vbmoneyspender]

I have seen Kristol enthusiastically describe himself on Fox as being (and I quote here) 'a big government conservative.' The label isn't exactly an oxymoron, but it is close enough for government work.

[JohnGalt]

Fred Barnes coined the term and has written in defense of Big Government Conservatism, since his days when he was the editor for the leftwing New Republic.

They are phonies, but as you said, its close enough to work for Murdochian "conservative" television.

[narby]

It's OUR money. We can spend it any way we like and France and Germany can go F themselves (to use a little Kerry lingo)

[kingu]

It's OUR money. We can spend it any way we like and France and Germany can go F themselves (to use a little Kerry lingo)

That's along my own views.. If they want to donate money to the reconstruction and bid on the contracts paid for by their money (or the money of any other nation than ours), that's fine. But if they want our money, tough beans. As for if Baker's job is tougher or not, again, tough beans. If they want to protest via snubbing him or by harming the people of Iraq, that's fine with me. While we're at it, why not have Baker collect on all the fifty year old debts with interest and knock out our national debt while we're at it?

[conservativecorner]

Reverse the decision. ROFLMAO!! You have to wonder about intellectuals sometimes.

[Liberty Valance]

As an American Taxpayer I believe Pres. Bush made the right decision as to who gets AMERICAN TAXPAYER FUNDED contracts to rebuild Iraq.

[PsyOp]

True friends should be rewarded. Fair-weather friends and enemy's should be hit with a stick. France especially. They went above and beyond to thwart our efforts in Iraq.

[meenie]

I don't know why it is such an advantage to confirm to the doubting Thomases in the world, that the war on Iraq was for economic purposes. It is also unfair to Jim Baker to bring him in and use his reputation and good will as former Secretary of State, and then undercut him with this stupid press release from Wolfowicz. Don't they have any coordination at the White House?

I cannot imagine the embarassment Baker must feel when asking a nation to forgive some indebtedness to Iraq after that nation has been told that it will not be allowed to participate in bidding the rebuilding of Iraq. The excuse that US taxpayer money should be used to discriminate against foreign firms will only mean that the US taxpayer will have to put up more money because of the foreign nations refusal to forgive debt. Stupid is as stupid does, but this one takes the cake.

[JohnGalt]

The rumor is that Baker was brought in to sweep, amongst others, Wolfowitz out. Wouldn't surprise me if Wolfowitz's decision was just part of an internal power struggle.

[Finalapproach29er]

I'd like to wipe that smirk off ol' Billy's face.

[pierrem15]

a) regarding "doubting thomases"-- who is really saying its about economic interests, the US, or the countries squealing they've been cut out of the pie?

b) I think the admin already figured out that they were unlikely to forgive much of the debt in any case (certainly Russia would not) without receiving "compensation" on the back end, so the "debt relief" really means we pay the debt or the Iraqis do. No loss there.

c)France, Germany, and Russia have already made it plain that they would contribute nothing of any significance to Iraq's reconstruction, so remind me what we're losing?

d)the end result is i-- the weasels know they will get nothing up front from the reconstruction; ii-- they are likely to get stiffed completely out of their debt if they don't forgive some of it now. After all, the most they can do is refuse to turn over monies they already received from Saddam if the debt is not paid, and most of that is already pledged to the UN's food programs in any case.