Graylist - Correspondent PJZ writes:I

Graylist - Correspondent PJZ writes:

I see that you have not yet blogged on the supposed "black listing" for Iraqi reconstruction contracts by Paul Wolfowitz. In case you do, I thought you might want a copy of the actual document in question rather than relying on the media reports. Pay close attention to points 4-6.

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS RE: U.S.-FUNDED REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS IN IRAQ (December 5, 2003)

Deputy U.S. Secretary Of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Issues A 'Determination And Finding' That Bids On Redevelopment Contracts In Iraq Will Be Limited Only To "Companies From The United States, Iraq, Coalition Partners, And Force Contributing Nations," With A List Of Countries Eligible For Bidding On U.S.-Funded Contracts

Most of the news stories I've seen have made it appear as if the United States has a de facto black list of nations who did not support or opposed the Iraqi mission and we are specifically excluding some nations.

Read the findings, indeed. It does explain things, vastly better than the media is doing.

Prime contractors on jobs paid for by American taxpayers have to be from coalition-member nations. Subcontractors can be from anywhere. Prime contractors on jobs paid for by anyone but the American taxpayers can be French, or German, or North Korean for all anyone would seem to care.

Of course, some people read this, from the Times...:

President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.

White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive, even while conceding that they had approved the Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the United States political or military aid in Iraq

...and conclude:

I mean, it defies ridicule (what will I do?). The tone? How were they supposed to sugar-coat it?

Clearly, we need to come up with a new executive branch foreign policy appointee, someone whose job it would be to coordinate all this stuff, who could make sure the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, someone who could ride herd over interagency disputes.

(Dr Evil on) Riiiiiight. (Dr. Evil off).

You can count on this: If a prime contract had gone to a French company, the likes of Josh Marshall would be crying "See! Inconsistency! Why are they only "American First" until the money starts to flow?"

If I were the President (or Donald Rumsfeld or Condi Rice), this would be my response:

OK, pundits. If you insist on tying these two things together, do it this way - because this is the way that actually makes sense:

Yes, we're limiting prime contracts paid for by the American taxpayer to countries that are part of our coalition. Damn right we are. We liberated Iraq with a vision; to create a democracy in the Middle East. Why should we trust this objective to nations that have contributed nothing to sharing that vision?

And yes, we are asking non-coalition members to forgive debts. The debts were for loans that allowed the Hussein regime to consolidate its power, making it that much bloodier and longer-lived than it would have been otherwise. They were, in essence, complicity in mass-murder. So even if a nation doesn't feel it can participate in the Coalition, it would still be a fine piece of moral expiation to forgive these loans...

...or at least send your bill collectors after Hussein, the guy who really owes the money.

And that, my French, German and Russian friends, would solve both problems for you, now, wouldn't it?"

Probably a good thing I'm not in politics.

Posted by Mitch at December 11, 2003 05:51 AM