Article

2003-12-12 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-12-12 10:32:28 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Waiting for the Queen of Donkeys to open her mouth in protest.

Posted by Charles 2003-12-12 10:39:03 AM|| 2003-12-12 10:39:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I've given this a lot of thought over the past couple days. Doubt I would of brought this up publicly if I was Wolfie. I'm not sure if Wolfie was asked the question by a reporter or just made the statement on his own. If it was the latter, fairly questionable chess move imho. I usually back the admin but this would not of been my tact. Let all the dissenters have their bids, discreetly throw away France & Russia's bids after they make them, but get some assurance they're going to forgive Iraq's debt first. Let them think we listened to them, blah, blah. Give the Canucks some minor contract and get Martin on the team (we need to get them to start closing up their asinine immigration policies) and give the Germans some minor medical contract of which they're good at. Case closed. They all think they got a deal. We come away smelling as good as we can. Even a lot of conservatives have questioned this move.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-12-12 11:06:51 AM|| 2003-12-12 11:06:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 JH - I respectfully disgree. By publicly noting that those who oppose us, and appease torturers and dictators (i.e.: the UN) or whores for financial gain - (i.e. the French), will not benefit from American tax dollars while our soldiers shed their blood. The French, Russians and Germans can kiss our ass if they want a rapproachment of relations. By making this very clear we raise the stakes next time someone dithers on whether to join a coalition. The public bitch-slap is well worth any antiamerican sentiment it raises in those already predisposed to same

Posted by Frank G 2003-12-12 11:13:28 AM|| 2003-12-12 11:13:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 the neat thing about this is that none of the democrats will criticize it because the unions want to keep have as many Americans as possible get contracts.

the bad part is that we should have made it at least partially open (we could have established a catagory for specialized work with limited availability of coalition contractors) and let the Iraqis get pissed off about letting the axis of weavils in.

Posted by mhw 2003-12-12 11:15:23 AM|| 2003-12-12 11:15:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Jarhead, understood. But one of the main benefits is a public demonstration of what it costs to do as France et al did. This is necessary in order to make it easier going for us in the future.

Doing it all behind the scenes, so that the targets might not even know that they have been whacked, will not have that effect.

Posted by Carl in N.H. 2003-12-12 11:22:22 AM|| 2003-12-12 11:22:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Rules of politics, Chicago-style:

Rule #1: reward your friends.
Rule #2: punish your enemies.

GWB had to let Chirac and the Weasels know that when you cross us, there's a price to be paid. That's rule #2, and you can't do it quietly behind the scenes: it has to be in the open so that everyone else gets the message. GWB as a member of the Bush family understands this as well as any Daley.

Posted by Steve White 2003-12-12 12:11:59 PM|| 2003-12-12 12:11:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Gentlemen, your points are noted. I'm not letting any of their gov'ts off here, & yes, I still think they suck a donkey's nuts but I would ask you to consider the following though:

everything is time & place. I'm all for skull-fucking them as you all well know from what my chosen occupation is. However, I look at the steel tarrifs issue as one example of ways they can manipulate our center of gravity (economic production). One must always negotiate from a position of strength (or appear to.) Putting Canada on the list was a mistake. They put up big cash, their folks know, they're our number 1 trading partner, and moron-boy Chretien is out the door. I'm not a diplomatic guy by trade, but at least we should've opened things w/Martin on some sort of positive note. Our northern flank is of considerable significance to me and their immigration laws are making that a vulnerability we cannot afford to have. This would've given us bargaining power. Consider that.

I'm also all for the public bitch-slap when it presents itself. However, we made statements about a month ago that all dissenting nations to our actions in Iraq need to forgive past debts and let bygones be bygones, then unfortunately, we've set a precedent across the board. (I would've never made the statement in the first place, I would've told them all to pound sand and try to find Sammie to collect, but since it has been made, and we are about one of the only honorable countries left that means we follow through to some degree) However, that does not mean in anyway we have to come through on contracts (certainly not to Frogistan or the Commies anyways, I'd rather eat a pile of monkey shit), but, letting them think that would've played into our hands. Again, time and place for smash mouth, & time & place for behind the scenes deception and guile. The French and Russians probably never expected to get anything anyways. (they would never of got anything from me) However, making the public statement makes it a public discussion. (I know, I don't really give a shit what they think either but let me continue) Keeping it down probably would've kept it under most people's radar except the very well-informed, i.e. the normal Rangtburger. And since when did we, the strongest nation on earth give a f*ck about the need to make anything public to show our might, the action itself of considering the contract and then brushing it aside would've of been enough for their gov't's to get the picture, (yes, we can play your game as well, but you will live by our rules.)

Contractual bids were an opportunity for manipulation on our fair weather allies. I think we should've dangled that carrot for all its worth. By closing it off so openly & quickly was a tactical mistake that could've been milked more. I prefer a well executed ambush no matter how covert to an open demonstration that looks sexy, but does not in the long run, imho, provide us the tactical advantage and initiative. That's the bottomline. We have wanted them to forgive the Iraqi debts, we could of secured that, I believe, w/giving them almost nothing in return except a little face saving. I know many will disagree w/me, that's okay, I'm a big boy, these are just my two cents.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-12-12 12:14:01 PM|| 2003-12-12 12:14:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 one more thing, in business or politics: keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-12-12 12:24:16 PM|| 2003-12-12 12:24:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 JH, (btw I was a Marine, but that was backalong) as far as this should've been overt/covert, arguable. But you hit it with one thing; those debts belong, not to Iraq, but to the criminals that ran the place for a while. We understand it's a lot of marks/franks/rubles, so go ahead and find Sammie to collect. Let us know where you find him.

There was a controversy about debts vs. regime change in embryonic US history, too, but it was about War of Independence debt to France, and the regime change was by the lenders, not the borrowers, and it was about recognition, not of the debt, but the repayment. And there has been a regime change like that here. The Iraqis should argue off the top their "Russian" debt was money Sammie borrowed from Brezhnev.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-12 12:56:53 PM|| 2003-12-12 12:56:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 i tend to agree with JH.

Rule number 3 of politics is divide your enemies - this not only pushes Germany back toward France and Russia, it puts Canada under Martin in with them as well.

Rule number 4 is timing: this looks a lot better when we're clearly willing (which I hope we will be within a couple of months) than after a couple of bad months. It also would be best to wait until after we've further resolved the political situation in IRaq (which we have to take to the UNSC on Dec. 15) and till we're farther along on Iraqi debt renegotiations. I also agree with JH, we could have done the punishment more discreetly - we could still have explained it for the history books later, if more deterrent effect is warranted. I note Kristol and Kagans public disagreement with this in the Weekly Standard - theyre no euro lovers or knee jerk multilateralists.

There is already talk that Canada's status will be changed, and the White House Press office is indicating debt forgiveness will be enough to change status, even as Bush makes silly remarks (which will be picked up all over Europe) about international law. Pardon, but this is looking more and more like hamhanded incompetence. Maybe later it will look retrospectively brilliant - I certainly hope so.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-12-12 1:02:42 PM|| 2003-12-12 1:02:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I've definitely had mixed feelings on this move as well. But, I think (hope) that Bush & Co is playing this right. Look for Martin to join the fold. He wasn't PM when this decision was actually made. Now we negotiate. And I am confident that Canada with their new PM will come on board in some manner. As for the Axis of Weasels. Well, fuck France first and foremost. Second, none of the three had made any commitments to actually HELP Iraq. They were donating nothing. And they were not going to forgive any of the Iraqi debt. And we had no leverage to get anything out of them. Now we do, several billion. My prediction is that Germany and Russia will negotiate some deals, either more assistance or debt forgiveness. They want these contracts, and not just for the money. They know that the Iraqis have labeled them as 'NOT A FRIEND'. Iraq is sitting on lots of oil. Pretty simple math. As for France, fuck france and the whore she road in on.

Posted by Swiggles 2003-12-12 1:29:56 PM|| 2003-12-12 1:29:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I agree that it is a national security issue. If we allow "allies" to obstruct us with impunity why have "allies"?

Posted by Blitz 2003-12-12 1:50:58 PM|| 2003-12-12 1:50:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 The public bitch-slap can be a remarkably effective communication tool. In this case it is good for Americans and the rest of the world.
"You treat me good, I treat you better. Treat me bad, I'll treat you worse." Certainly not the Sermon on the Mount, but clear and concise.

Posted by Sgt.DT 2003-12-12 2:38:13 PM|| 2003-12-12 2:38:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Ok let's analyze that "bitch slap" a little. How many contracts would have gone to Germany, France, Russia anyway? One each? Maybe. Probably one of the smaller ones as well, worth less than a billion dollars. Profit? 200 million maybe? Before taxes? Compared to debts that are 25 times as high? Doesn't sound like an excellent haggling position for the U.S. to me.

Do you really think a government changes its politics for a sum like that. For a contract that it is not even sure of winning? Oh, not the government is bidding btw.

Then again, most of these contracts will be sub-contracted. Profits may be lesser but still profits will be made. And the subcontractors will be those who actually work in Iraq. Siemens workers doing a good job in Iraq will actually do more good for Germany than Siemens having the main contract and sub-contracting. And you can bet that Siemens will do more work in Iraq, on projects they had before. They have the know how, the spare parts, the contacts. We want solutions which are best for Iraq now, don't we?

And you may like it or not: Iraqis have NOT labeled Germany as "NOT A FRIEND". Personal experiences supersede political irritations and Germans have good records working with Iraqis. This hasn't got much to do with Saddam. It's not Chalabi and his fellows who can finish off these good relations.

Kristol and Kagan have it right. (WOW, am I saying this?) Ask Rumsfeld how well "bitch slapping" worked in early 2003. Ask Baker what he thinks about it.

Don't you think that Schroeder and Chirac may just be fuming in public and rejoicing in private? Schroeder and Bush agreeing in New York to "put the past behind and work together for a free Iraq", and now this. France, Russia and Germany will just lean back comfortably now and wait. Whatever might go wrong in Iraq will be blamed on the U.S. (only succes has many fathers). Wonderful opportunities for cheap excuses. Europe's destiny in Iraq will not be decided in 2004, with some reconstruction contracts won or not.

And LH has it right with the president's stupid remark about international law. Funny thing, it's not so much about international "law" (Schroeder's remark was not accurate ) but WTO regulations. But what will stick is Bush's "disrespect" for international law.

That said, Germany will forgive Iraq's debt, I'm rather sure of that. But probably not tomorrow. Saddam's pre 1990 debts (and that's the debt we're talking about because after that it was cash only) has been written off long ago.

The Russians and French might prove to be tougher cookies. And Wolfowitz certainly didn't do anything to make them more palatable.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-12-12 3:42:04 PM|| 2003-12-12 3:42:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 As usual, the question is pragmatism vs principle. It would be very helpful in the short run to kiss and make up - particularly with Canada (remember that 3300 mile open border) and maybe Russia.

On the other hand people died, US, Iraqi and allies, because France, Russia and Germany allied themselves with Saddam. In the long run, paying a heavy economic and political price may make these self-serving hypocrits remember why they were allies in the first place... big dog, little dog.

On the third hand (to steal from Larry Niven), Those mokes made it personal, pissed me off and I want them hurt. Badly.

Posted by Mercutio 2003-12-12 3:43:18 PM|| 2003-12-12 3:43:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 As I read the story this morning, I burst out laughing and chalked one more reason why I am prone to vote for this guy again next year, barring a CNN breaking story of him pulling out his pee-pee for the intern girl. His comment was made after he took questions, and the answers to all those other preceding questions were immediately thrown down the garbage shoot, because the above comment had that beautiful "sound bite" quality to it. Hell, he could have spent the next half hour saying he was endorsing Howard Dean, and we still wouldn't have heard about it, because little "Tommy Reporter" had run off wetting his pants to get Bushes "off the cuff" comments into play in the media.
As far as the chess game being played regarding "inclusion" on the bid list, I am beginning to sense that the move might be so public so that impacted French, German and Russian businesses do a little arm twisting from within the economies to the politicans to to start changing positions a little... The coalition has passed the hat on troops, support or at least money and every time the hat comes back light. This time George has Wolfie standing out next to the Salvation Army kettle ringing the bell to see if the worlds "Playas" continue to walk right past. From a 50,000 foot view, I can't see where France or Russia was going to help out anyway, I think Germany would have come around some, but only after "appeasing" France, and Canada will have its tit released from the ringer by year end but after some additional commitmants to get into the game.
I can't think of a scenario any longer that would have seen France or Russia pony up anyway so are the French planning on hating Bush worse? Not possible.
Working through subcontractors peels away a layer of profit, and keeps US Treasury checks made out to more grateful business partners.

Posted by Capsu78 2003-12-12 5:58:08 PM|| 2003-12-12 5:58:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Also, most of these "French" and "German" and "Russian" companies are actually "multinationals". Sureley Siemens has a British/Aussie/Spanish unit that would be able to submit bids?

Posted by seafarious 2003-12-12 7:26:58 PM|| 2003-12-12 7:26:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 2004 is THE election year. Last time I checked, Chirac, Schroder, Martin et al do not have a vote. While the Dems may complain about the unilateral nature of the decision, this is entirely a play to GW's political base. Those that bleed deserve the reward.

Canada was clearly against coalition interference Iraq from the outset. So let them whine. Keep in mind, Martin comes from the same political roots as Chretien. He even today reappointed Chretien's idiotarian foreign minister, Bill Graham. So do not go easy on Canada. Their Liberal government still does not get it.

Posted by john 2003-12-12 8:23:00 PM|| 2003-12-12 8:23:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 The term for the Saddam-era Iraqi loans is odious debt, given its use for weapons and palaces. And it's a good bet to be repudiated when there is once again a sovereign Iraqi government. Rather than going hat in hand for debt forgiveness, Baker is more likely telling the Weasels to make a deal now while they can, at any terms.

Posted by Nero 2003-12-12 8:46:53 PM|| 2003-12-12 8:46:53 PM|| Front Page Top

15:54 Doc H
09:47 raptor
05:36 The Dodo
01:47 ,comma
01:05 Tresho
01:01 Aris Katsaris
23:27 Anonymous
23:24 Steve White
23:13 4thInfVet
23:09 Anonymous
22:57 4thInfVet
22:50 4thInfVet
22:22 Fred
22:13 Fred
22:05 Denny
22:02 ruprecht
21:54 Fred
21:29 Kentar
21:25 NotMikeMoore
21:23 Glenn (not Reynolds)
21:21 Jarhead
21:17 4thInfVet
21:16 Jarhead
21:06 Jarhead