[norton]

1) Haliburton is a company, a large organization structured to perform large and complex tasks; it's not "American labourers".
2) There were a whole bunch of things that needed to be rebuilt as soon as possible.
3)There were no massed Iraqi resources lined up to rebuild much of anything; they are still trying to create non-state initiative and capabilities two years after.
4) Haliburton, large organization etc., is paying wages to a whole lot of Iraqis and other non-Americans who would otherwise not be employed.
5) By restoring or building new infrastructure as fast as possible the rest of the country (Iraq) has a chance to start back up the cultural and economic ladder.
6) Haliburton, Brown & Root, PA&E, there is always someone in business to take charge of managing tasks within a crisis zone; big bucks but a necessary capability.
7) Outsource to the French? No way, stick with someone you know and can trust (somewhat).

[Lord Nelson]

I will take your word for it that they are employing Iraqis. At the time it had the appearance of wrong doing, so I was surprised Bush didn't make an effort at that time to assure Americans that all was kosher with the deal. In this age of cynicism about politicians (we all know the lobby game that is played in Washington) it is important to communicate to the people about these things. After all it was Cheney's company.

I don't blame Bush from not wanting to give a single contract to France. At least some nations were polite about not helping in Iraq - I guess the French are never polite.