President Bush clearly has delegation of authority issues. This is not merely fragmented, contentious, national security bureaucracies as described in Zygert's _Flawed by Design_. This looks a lot more like inherently flawed micromanagement a la Jimmy Carter.

Another possibility is that the Bush administration is focused on convincing the 'people' of the world, not just the ruling elite. Throwing a bone on the QT to a German company might have made a few execs happy, but wouldn't have the same impact as the very public stance the administration has taken instead.

Working-class Germans, French, Russians, etc. now have a very public data point to consider when the full economic ramifications of their intransigence are felt.

And American taxpayers, who have a big vote coming up next year, got the message loud and clear.

You're either with us, or you're against us. Choose terrorism, or choose civilization - you can't choose both.

Either way, we take care of our friends, and the hell with the rest of y'all.

Felix: Have you read any public opinion polls from Germany lately? Check out the latest offerings from the Eurobarometer or Pew.

Hint: Remember when everyone said Schroeder pandered to his anti-war electorate on the Iraq issue? There was a lot of truth in that.

The German public did chose civilization -- they just define it differently than your false frame.

Indeed, as Chris Patten pointed out in early 2002, the entire "axis of evil" frame is rejected in Europe. EU states have been trying to influence Iran and North Korea by trading with them.

I know Dan is the sanctions expert here, and I haven't read his book, but its description on amazon says: "Adversaries will impose sanctions frequently, but rarely secure concessions."

Then again, maybe the Bush administration have this in mind by denying Europe access to the contracts: "Allies will be reluctant to use coercion, but once sanctions are used, they can result in significant concessions."

I offer two ideas.

1. The stiffing of the Axis of Weasels will play well to the electorate at home that is more than happy to stick it to them. By making a big show of sticking it to them (or better, letting THEM make a big show of how hurt they are), it Constitutes a political boon.

2. It's a bargaining chip. This seems counterintuitive, but consider the paucity of response from France, Germany, et al. to the friendly "aid request". Asking nicely got us nowhere, so, without a bargaining chip, why should we expect a good result on the debt relief issue? By generating the "No contracts" issue, we potentially gain some leverage. Countries wishing to invest in Iraq's future must forgive its past. In this way, the French (for example) get to play up a political victory (We got those ugly Americans to drop their concessions) and we get a tangible reward- forgiveness of the debt Saddam ran up buying Mirages, MiGs, and precision-engineered rocket tubes from Germany.

Dan is right as far as the practical impact of the DoD announcement, but the key point is its place in administration strategy.

Strategy may not be the right word. What we have is a President mostly focused on the next election; since administrations like other organizations tend to take on salient characteristics of the people leading them, so are many of the people working for him. This focus doesn't leave much time for foreign policy, a sitation made worse by Bush's low level of interest in and knowledge of that subject. Bush approves, seriatim, appointments and policies that turn out to interfere with one another, and the combination of his lack of depth and lack of time always means he doesn't see the contradictions before everyone else does.

Tripping over itself like this is the kind of thing that administrations headed by weak Presidents do. It doesn't matter whether the President is weak because of problems on the Hill or naivete (as with Carter), age and scandal (Reagan), or preoccupation with domestic politics (the younger Bush, Clinton). It is still a painful thing to watch one opportunity after another cast improvidently aside.

Incidentally, the Pentagon announcement also illustrated an unfortunate characteristic of weak Presidents' administrations: the tendency of officials on the winning side of bureaucratic arguments to assert themselves brutally when it is not really necessary. This is destructive in the long run for many reasons -- one is that it ensures the losers will find some way to retaliate -- and looks pathetic if the policy in question later flounders.

Here's another incidental observation: coordination of the various administration officials involved with foreign policy is normally something the National Security Adviser does -- not always, but usually. Bush and Condi Rice seem to have a different conception of what the NSA job entails.

Personally I've always thought Rice was out of her depth as NSA, serving mostly to give the President quickie briefings and emotional support and being mostly exempt from media criticism because she is black, female and very pretty. This is a sour view, but consider the context of some very important things historically done by past NSAs not being done now.

I like Calpundit's explanation: "The Bushies like being bitter and nasty even if there's no point."

Remember, if you're not with us, we're against you.

Leaving aside the usual aspirations about GWB's personality, yadda-yadda, there may be a simpler plan, along these lines:

1) GWB knows in advance that Jim Baker will fail. He has to make the effort, and to show that he's gone all out in negotiating over the debt he brings in the impeccable Baker. Baker will travel all over and utter serious, well-meaning sound bites. No one will then claim that GWB wasn't serious in trying to negotiate over Iraq's Saddam-era debts.

2) GWB knows in advance that the Iraqi Governing Council (or the new government, depending on how long this takes) will unilaterally repudiate the debt. Why not? They didn't run it up, they have nothing to show for it other than rusty MiGs and gold faucets, and as long as they can pump oil for cash, they can import a good chunk of what they need to rebuild. There's a fair antipathy for France, Germany and Russia amongst Iraqis, who for some reason think these countries were in bed with Saddam. Unilateral repudiation will be popular locally and won't cause Iraq much international harm.

3) GWB really does feel the need to slap Chirac publicly, and doesn't mind reminding Schroeder and Putin who's calling the tune right now. So he sets up a nice 1-2 punch: no contracts and no debt repayment. The contract decision had to be made now for various reasons so he does it now and does it openly. The debt repudiation will come in a little while just as Chirac & Co. again start thinking that they can get their hooks into Iraq.

This does play reasonably well at home, as much as that might enter into the election equation (my guess is very little, most folks here don't care).

Is this "brutal"? It might play that way in Old Europe which is reduced mostly to talk and discussion. In my hometown of Chicago, this sort of thing happens all the time, usually over zoning and insurance contracts. Only not as nice (Dan, you might want to enlighten folks about "Greylord" and "Silver Shovel" on the next slow news day).

Regards,

Ah, yes! Multiple Choice!

Were The Evil Bush just a bit more clever, a bit more sophisticated, a bit more nuanced and a bit more sensitive...

The [French/Germans/Russians/Chinese] would have supported U.S. in the U.N. with regards to the ouster of Saddam with [troops/money/diplomacy/logistic support]. But, since The Evil Bush is not any of the above, the [European/World/Muslims/Arabs] refused to help in any [way/shape/manner]. Now, because The Evil Bush is not any of the above, in making it clear we will not take any [crap/B.S.] from a bunch of fascist-loving Euroweenies, we once again show our inability to get those who [hate/despise/loathe] us to [love/respect/embrace] us.

In other words, it's all our fault.

Same old crap shovelled on a new scenario.

God, you're stale.

Did it ever occur to anyone that there really may not be any point to being esteemed by the government of France?

Why is being acceptable in the eyes of Old Europe also put forth as an unassailable virtue?

Anyone care to justify the position in a meaningful way?

Rodger,

You mean like the recent public opinion poll the EU commissioned wherein ~60% of Europeans think Israel is a greater threat to world peace than North Korea and Iran?

And your point about Schroeder's pandering is apt relative to my larger point. It is much more likely that the average German citizen can now see that there are consequences to 'supporting' terrorism (by opposing those who fight terrorism). This gives those who voted to re-elect Herr Gerhard based on a knee-jerk anti-American sentiment something else to consider. I'm suggesting that one reason the Bush administration chose to make the snub public was to ensure that the lesson is learned by many. If the contracts had been awarded to a German firm, as Kristol and Kagan suggest, the lesson would have been confined to a much smaller segment of the German populace - particularly those who benefited directly. After all, one firm winning a contract is hardly newsworthy for the mainstream European media, especially not when said media is busy looking for reasons to criticize the US. If we're going to try to change hearts and minds, we've got to do it on a grand scale, and Bush's very public snubbing of the intransigent is a good start, to my mind.

As for my 'false frame', exactly what part of defining civilization to mean opposing murderous terrorists do you disagree with?

Finally, the fact that the EU-nuchs reject the 'axis of evil' concept is irrelevant to its merits. And its no more surprising than the fact that they reject the 'axis of Weasel' concept. In any event, whether one accepts or rejects something has no bearing on its validity.

I fail to understand the brouhaha. The Huns and Frogs are being overly sensitive; did they really *expect* to be cut in on construction contracts? That would have been the sound of us stiffing our allies. Great powers don't behave that way. Similarly, did they really expect the new Iraqi government to let the Saddamite debt stand?

You can't sit out the war, supply Saddam with weapons, military advice, and intelligence, and expect us to give you the treasure of American (or Iraqi) taxpayers to line your pockets. That seems an imminently sensible position. If they didn't already understand this, they're even less mature than they (and here I refer to Russia, France, and Germany) seem.

They've already put themselves out in the cold where Iraq is concerned; there is no realistic possibility that they can get back in at this stage. By overreacting this way, what they're really doing is poisoning the chances for the Atlantic "Alliance" to reposition itself.

It all sounds great; punish the French, Germans and Russians. After all, the Iraqi Governing Council can repudiate the Saddam-era debts anyway, right?

Not. Of course they can, but to do that unilaterally might really tick off those countries. And they happen to have a lot of clout in important international organisations such as the IMF, World Bank and several UN organisations. for instance, France, Russia and Germany have 14% of the combined votes in the IMF, compared to the USA's 17%. Throw in mighty Belgium, with 2,5%, and they're even. In the Worldbank, things are about the same.

If they want to, somewhere down the road, they can make life that much harder for an Iraqi Government desperately in need of cash from such organisations. Of course, America can always bail out Iraq itself, but that would be costly.

And we know how long the problems of repudiated debts can linger on, think about Soviet-Union debt, or even Tzarist debt.

It would be better to really get over this debt problem now. France, Germany and Russia know they cannot ever get this money back. So why would they not acknowledge this? Perhaps because they feel insulted?

It's great now to tell those countries what you really think of them. But in the long run, Iraqis might regret it.

Come Jan 2005, this is all going to be of tawdry academic interst when the grownups come back to the White House and we don't have to worry whether malice or stupidity is the prime characteristic of executive-level US policy.

Jeez, Daniel, have you never renegotiated a contract before? The answer to your why on God's green earth would implement this decision just when you're dispatching an envoy to ask these countries to forgive Iraqi debts? is very simple.

Bush is giving the Euros an incentive to repudiate their debt, holding back a carrot (the contracts) so he has something to reward them with when they do. Why do you think the formal announcements regarding the contracting have been delayed, just oh so conveniently while Baker is asking them to, finally, for once, stop their screwing of the Iraqis by repudiating their debt.

If he didn't hold back the contracts, the Euors would have no incentive to repudiate the debt. Oh sure, its the right and decent thing to do, but that obviously weighs little in their calculations.

Further, rewarding those who opposed us by leting them in on the contracts necessarily comes at the price of taking something away from those who supported us - there is a finite amount of money, after all, and every nickel that goes to a German firm is nickel that is not going to an Aussie firm. Of the two, who has a better claim on being first in line?

Really, this isn't rocket science. It boils down to (a) reward your friends and (b) give your not-friends a tangible reason to switch over.

“Jeez, Daniel, have you never renegotiated a contract before?”

Exactly. Daniel Drezner is missing the point. This shot across the bow is to get the attention of our “allies.” How does that old saw go? Money talks and bull excrement walks? Let the negotiations begin. I also hope that our host is not going to be buying a new car anytime in the near future. He will most certainly pay the full list price.

“It boils down to (a) reward your friends and (b) give your not-friends a tangible reason to switch over.”

Americans are easily guilt tripped into thinking that we are always responsible if other countries are upset with us. This self abasement nonsense must cease. There really are instances when we are in the right.

“Jeez, Daniel, have you never renegotiated a contract before?”

Exactly. Daniel Drezner is missing the point. This shot across the bow is to get the attention of our “allies.” How does that old saw go? Money talks and bull excrement walks? Let the negotiations begin. I also hope that our host is not going to be buying a new car anytime in the near future. He will most certainly pay the full list price.

“It boils down to (a) reward your friends and (b) give your not-friends a tangible reason to switch over.”

Americans are easily guilt tripped into thinking that we are always responsible if other countries are upset with us. This self abasement nonsense must cease. There really are instances when we are in the right.

But R C, if we only reward our friends and not our enemies, our enemies have no incentive to become our friends. How could any of us have a sunshiney, lollipop kind of day knowing we've treated their enemies as enemies? That's not nice, and it isn't the way we should act here in our snuggly-wuggly neighborhood, is it?

Bah! Humbug!

By the way whose up there calling Howard Dean a grownup? That's a new one. Yeah, he's a grown up in the sense that Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton are grownups: Bad hair and the refusal look for an idea before talking. Dream on, he'll be lucky to win 5 states in '04. Unless he gets more snuggly-wuggly and lollipop nice, that is. Then he might win 10.

Felix and Mike, at the top of the order, have got it exactly right.

This "dumb" act is meant for the joes, not the wonks. It works on the visceral level. Exactly right, Felix.

And asking nice got us where before? Exactly right, Mike. I thought the left was all about remembering the sins of the past? Hey France, Message received - Heads up, response inbound.

You know, I am willing to accept that there is such a thing as the subtle genius of GW Bush, but I really can't see it here. For one thing, the maneuver with the contracts, while accomplishing very little in real terms, certainly gives Chriac and Schroeder yet another chance to rally their troops behind the tattered old anti-American banner, allowing their peoples the chance to yet again forget about this dynamic duo's inept leadership, moral vanity and botched diplomacy. I can't imagine a better cover for Germany and France to refuse to allow Iraq to repudiate their debt.

Also -- why is it genius or particulary adept diplomacy to appear disorganized and incomptent? Usually you want your advesary to respect you or at least fear you. It's hard to do when Larry Curly and Moe seem to be running the nation'sIraq policy.

Appalled: "Also -- why is it genius or particulary adept diplomacy to appear disorganized and incomptent?"

Yeah, the further evidence (the website and whatnot) kind of makes my hypothesis less likely... I'm not quite ready to assume they're somehow machiavellianly smart enough to plant a story about mis-coordinating their press releases :|

Nonetheless, the effect could be beneficial, if played right.

Mr. Foster,

You're leaving out Mr. Dean (the good one -RC - not the angry one), who also has it "exactly right" with his lesson on the art of business negotiation. I'm surprised that Will missed this. Then again, if my friend were better at this, Ailes would be working for him.

The reason for the apparent dichotomy is fairly simple; THe administration is saying clearly; Actions have consequenses.

Those who didn't want to help knew damn good and well, up front, what these would be. The Bush administration said publicly and repeatedly, -- before, during and after the war -- that nations that opposed the invasion would be forbidden from bidding on the more lucrative reconstruction contracts. To complain about it now is bogus.
Sullivan gets it right, on this point:

"...after doing everything they could to undermine the U.S. at the U.N. and elsewhere in order to protect their own favored dictator, they have absolutely no claim on the tax-payers of the United States. The idea that we should reward them for their obstructionism out of our own coffers on the same terms that we are rewarding countries that gave money and lives to help the liberation is a preposterous one. It's tantamount to inviting exactly the same kind of intransigence and betrayal in the future. France in particular went much further earlier this year and last than simply opposing the U.S. on Iraq. The French government did all it could to rally world opinion, lobby foreign governments, and delay the war to Saddam's benefit in order to isolate and humiliate the U.S. They didn't just object; they opposed, plotted and lied to our faces. Forgetting this is absurd. "

“The French government did all it could to rally world opinion, lobby foreign governments, and delay the war to Saddam's benefit in order to isolate and humiliate the U.S. They didn't just object; they opposed, plotted and lied to our faces. “

France is greatly responsible for many coalition deaths in Iraq. Let us never underestimate the importance of Turkey not allowing us to invade Iraq from the north. This almost certainly would never have occurred if the Old Europeans had supported us from the beginning. The French have much American blood on their hands. They must be made to pay a price.

As I understand it this only prohibits them from bidding on the contracts directly. Once the contracts are awarded the companies that get them can start subcontracting them out to anybody they want, including companies from the prohibited nations. So it plays well with the voters at home while allowing French and German companies to take part in the reconstruction.

To be frank I really don't care that much who gets the contracts so long as they can do the job properly. The chief priority should be rebuilding Iraq, if a French company is the one thats best placed to do the job then let them do it.

I think that this is primarily motivated by politics, a lot of people are angry at France and Germany. This allows Bush to tap into that and show that he's willing to punish them. However he doesn't want to slow up reconstruction in Iraq, so this gets framed in such a way that once the primary contracts have been given out anyone can bid on them.

Its very neat, he appeases the electorate while not really limiting the options for companies rebuilding Iraq.

> Bush is giving the Euros an incentive to
> repudiate their debt, holding back a carrot
> (the contracts) so he has something to reward
> them with when they do.

So why not make it explicit by linking the two issues, then? Or has Wolfowitz issued a statement where he promises any country willing to repudiate their debt will be treated like a member of "the coalition of the willing" if they do?
---
One could add contracts in exchange for financial aid and/or manpower (peacekeeping forces, guards, aid workers) as well. Even the neocons agree that both are sorely needed. That is why smarter minds such as Kagan & Kristol are upset because of the Administration's diplomatic clumsiness.

MARCU$

I'm reading a lot of the posts by the more reliable righties on this thread (and Andrew Sullivan's comments), and just think they have got to be living in an alternate universe. The problem is not the policy on contracts, which I don't really agree with, but concede is defensible. The problem is when the policy is announced. Generally, when asking for money for a friend, the favored approach is not "Hi, you're a manipulative jerk and I'm not going to do business with you EVER, but could you let Bubba here keep the 20 bucks you lent him?"

It will help your critical thinking, guys, if you can realize a couple things.
1. Bashing France, while fun, isn't always smart.
2. The Bush administration actually does make foreign policy errors from time to time.

Gentlemen,

I think you miss Dan's point. He didn't disagree with the blocking of bids, rather he said it was clumsily implemented given that we are also soliciting aid for Iraq from the countries on the list. That Canada was on the list despite its $180 million in reconstruction aid, and that Bush then told Cretien that Canada would be allowed to bid, shows how uncoordinated the whole thing was.

I repeat that this lack of coordination says a lot.

What Tom and Appalled Moderate said.

This ain't about stiffin' the Axis of Weasels. This is about givin' them the finger on a fuckin' website while debt renegotiation and reconstruction fund solicitation is being carried out at the same fuckin' time.

Stiffing the French on primary reconstruction contracts is the easiest damn thing in the world when you control the bidding process. Everyone knows this, including the damn French themselves. Putting this shit up publicly on a website, however, is asking them to go take a long walk on a short pier with a fuckin' MEGAPHONE. Which would be FINE, *IF* James Baker wasn't busy trying to convince said French to go easy on Iraqi debt.

And NO, this is NOT some brilliant subtle good-cop-bad-cop-flypaper-quagmire subterfuge, this is a fuckup plain and simple, and in the business world if ya cockup like this ya get to clear your desk and put your potted cactus and portrait of yer kids in a BOX and walk out of the building escorted by security.

It's a damn pity, because I actually like Wolfie, but the man has got to be fired. The CEO's name is Dubya, not Paul, and it's time the White House made this clear, because this cross-fire shit between State and DOD has gone on too long.

Wonderful capo-esque strategy. No blame ever touches George II, because he never touches policy.

The problem being, as we have seen, that a capo who stays in his plausible deniability bubble has no way to tell when things are about to FUBAR; and one who knows and sees only what his advisors want him to know and see has no native expertise or authority to fix anything.

Entertaining, though, really. Watching the George II reign once again cut off its nose to spite its face is great sport.

“Bashing France, while fun, isn't always smart.”

Bashing France, though, is often rational and well deserved. Its present government leaders are vile and devious. This coutry is our undeclared enemy and has the blood of our soldiers on its hands.

appalled moderate, Tom Holsinger, BP all get it exactly right.

What Wolfie just did will not provide even minor relief for Iraq, nor will it help American interests in any way. Instead, this decision has provoked another storm of anti-American headlines over here in Europe. This might of course be justifiable if the issue really were crucial to U.S. interests. But this one isn't...any unbiased analysis will show the Americans have more to gain from persuading previous fence-sitters to contribute financial and human resources to the sagging Iraqi reconstruction effort rather than needlessly opening old wounds from six months ago.

MARCU$

This is troubling only in one aspect: It further shows how good policy takes a backseat to domestic politics for this administration.

Dan is absolutely right. These European companies weren't getting contracts anyway, except possibly as a token to engender political support of the US among the foreign business classes (which would then, presumably, be used to influence foreign governments). But why come out and say it?

The answer is easy. A certain portion of Americans--mostly the Republican base--LIKE to hear strong anti-foreign rhetoric. They LIKE to see the US punish nations that fail to fully support it. In the context of Democratic candidates going on and on about involving a multinational force, this is a viable alternative for the Republican base--"screw multinational forces, we're going to punish France and Germany for being bad countries. If they don't like it, they can go blow each other."

However appealing this is at home, this further poisons relationships with these countries. At some point you really have to ask yourself--is it worth further isolating former allies in order to score political points at home? Especially when the thing that alienates these countries is not a particular action you are taking, but rather, announcing that you're taking it?

By the way, as for the "this shows the populace of those countries that there is a consequence to messing with the US," that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. What would your reaction be if the EU imposed tariffs or capital controls on US businesses for (as an example) invading Iraq without UN consent? Would that "show you" that there is a consequence to messing with the EU? Would it make you reconsider the propriety of your actions?

Hell no. If it did anything, it would steel your resolve. And if you are like most fence-sitting Americans, it would tip you in favor of supporting the action that caused the sanctions in the first place. Now: WHAT ON EARTH MAKES YOU THINK THE FRENCH OR GERMAN POPULACES ARE ANY DIFFERENT? It is the height of arrogance to assume that there is any difference between their reactions to the US "punishing" them for their lack of support and the hypothetical case of them punishing us for our lack of support. In fact, it is the ludicrous "American exceptionalist" attitude that makes them despise us.

Nice rant, Joe...

Note that I am absolutely not claiming EVERY anti-American headline over here is justified. Many are not, but why not at least avoid picking verbal fights over trivial matters with the Euros if it provides no tangible benefits whatsoever?! Domestically, it ought to be such a minor issue the President's core constituents cannot possibly regard it as a major issue can they?

I am sure the actual financial setbacks to French/German/Russian contractors resulting from this "punishment" will be modest since they were never going to be major players anyway. As Kagan & Kristol correctly note, a sensible U.S. policy would have matched contracts against financial contributions and/or a willingness to send aid workers to Iraq regardless of how a particular nation voted in March. This would have provided at least some relief to overworked American & British soldiers and staffers, as well as additional international legitimacy plus positive American P.R. abroad.

MARCU$

“The answer is easy. A certain portion of Americans--mostly the Republican base--LIKE to hear strong anti-foreign rhetoric. They LIKE to see the US punish nations that fail to fully support it.”

Thank you for the compliment. I most certainly do “LIKE to hear strong anti-foreign rhetoric” when these foreigners are trying to stab us in the back. The Old Europeans did not offer substantial and realistic reasons for not supporting us in Iraq. No, what motivated them was merely their envy and bitterness toward our preeminent power and influence.

The French leadership is only interesting in sticking it to us. They believe that anything which hurts the United States somehow strengthens their position. Please stop finding phony excuses for their misbehavior.

Hello Dennis, I didn't actually mention any names when I talked about the return of the grownups. The fact that you brought up Dean on your own makes my point. Looking forward to that first Wednesday in November when the transition begins...

BP,

Wolfowitz didn't do anything wrong. He was right.

The problem is the timing of this was not coordinated with renewed solicitation of reconstruction funds. Wolfowitz would have exceeded his authority had he tried to do that. The responsibility for coordinating such things lies with the National Security Council staff, i.e., Condi Rice.

But ultimate blame lies with President Bush.

It wouldn't have taken much to do this right. Leaving Canada off the list of countries not allowed to bid would have done that. Canada sided with France over the invasion of Iraq, but Canada later contributed $180 million to Iraq's reconstruction. France refused to contribute anything.

As for Iraq's odious debts, the do-not-bid list is a useful reminder that refusal to be multilateral results in unilateral consequences. France can negotiate debt reduction or suffer complete debt repudiation.

I repeat, though, that leaving Canada on the do-not-bid list is unmistakeable evidence of a screwup in progress. Dan and others spotted it, and I agree.

“I repeat, though, that leaving Canada on the do-not-bid list is unmistakeable evidence of a screwup in progress. Dan and others spotted it, and I agree.”

Please take a course in Negotiations 101. Canada did not assist us militarily in Iraq. This action will get their attention. A compromise will ultimately be worked out. I advised our host not to go out shopping for a new car. Shucks, in your case---the salesperson would probably raise the price on you!

The Old Europeans did not offer substantial and realistic reasons for not supporting us in Iraq.

How can you possibly say that? Before even getting into the biggest reason why other countries opposed the Iraqi invasion, the relevant foreign governments came to the conclusion that Iraq did not pose a serious and imminent threat to the West, and as such, they were unwilling to go to or support a war. Now, you may disagree with both the factual conclusions reached (though in hindsight, the facts come down firmly in the camp of the "old" Europeans) and the premise underlying their reluctance (i.e., that a threat need be imminent to justify preventative or preemptive war), but how on earth can you possibly say that this conclusion wasn't reasonable?

But the biggest reason that these countries didn't go to war doesn't involve such trivialities as being factually right. The vast majority of those populations opposed going to war or even supporting the war. And do you know what we call nations who refuse to go to or support a war based on the overwhelming sentiments of their publics? I believe we call them democracies.

No, what motivated them was merely their envy and bitterness toward our preeminent power and influence.

Look, I'm not saying that you are wrong. I think you are, but who knows? Bureaucratic decisionmaking involves dozens of variables, and I don't profess to know one tenth of the ones that went into France's and Germany's (and Canada's and India's and Pakistan's and so on) calculus.

But quite frankly, it doesn't matter. To the extent you view any decision by foreign powers that runs the slightest bit contrary to your perception of America's interests as being fundamentally based on a jealousy of America, you are exacerbating the problem. Do you know what Europeans hate about America more than anything in the world? Their notion--which you apparently have confirmed--that Americans view all Europeans as being jealous that they're not Americans. Our cultures--and cultural values--are so similar that only one thing really can seriously jeopardize America's mutually beneficial relationship with the West. And it's precisely the arrogant American exceptionalist view that you have demonstrated.

And this is what it comes down to: You very well may be right. "Old" Europe very well could be solely motivated by a jealousy of the US. France could very well be primarily concerned with "sticking" it to America. But that DOESN'T CHANGE A SINGLE BIT OF CRITICISM about the recently espoused policy. Petty statements designed to signal that we are being retaliatory doesn't help the situation that necessitated retaliation one iota. In fact, it compounds it.

There are essentially four options for improving our relationship with our formerly close allies. The first two are destined for failure for precisely the same reasons--they are, essentially, for either side to punish the other until it gives in. That won't work. As discussed above, the French are no more likely to cry "Uncle" as a result of American punitive policy than vice verse. The third solution--which I think will necessarily result if either of the first two are pursued--is a de facto Cold War between "Old" Europe and the US. That would be devastating economically, and, given enough time, might even be devastating from a military or geopolitical perspective. The fourth solution is an attempt at reconciliation without unilateral surrender. This will be difficult, but success isn't out of the realm of possibility. But we should refrain from doing things like, well, intentionally inflaming "old" Europe for the purpose of scoring political points at home.

In a less snide mode than my previous post, David Adesnik of Oxblog has a more civilized (and very good) explanation of why the restrictions are a bad idea.

Frankly, I am appalled at the President's statement that

"Our people risked their lives. Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that, and that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect."

Those are the words of a corporate mercenary. Those are the words of a man without vision. America earns it wealth from the creativity of its entrepreneurs, not the blood of its soldiers. Many European nations supported the invasion of Iraq because they share our vision of global security, not because they wanted a handout.

Moreover, why should an American corporation benefit from the sacrifices of an American soldier? The 82nd Airborne was fighting for freedom and security, not for Halliburton. [Sure, but couldn't boosting Halliburton be seen by some as a side effect desirable per se? –AJL] Thus, the President owes it to the 82nd and to all of America's fighting men and women to what is in the interest of freedom and security.

These are tough times for the architects of the "Bush doctrine" of unilateralism and preventive war. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their fellow Project for a New American Century alumni viewed Iraq as a pilot project, one that would validate their views and clear the way for further regime changes. (Hence Mr. Wolfowitz's line about "future efforts.")

Instead, the venture has turned sour — and many insiders see Mr. Baker's mission as part of an effort by veterans of the first Bush administration to extricate George W. Bush from the hard-liners' clutches. If the mission collapses amid acrimony over contracts, that's a good thing from the hard-liners' point of view.

So let's review:

The countries that took supported the U.S., placing the lives of their citizens and the political fate of their governments on the line , THESE governments should be treated exactly the SAME as the governments that risked nothing and made political capital out of their opposition.

I don't think so.

Apparently, being French means never having to say you're sorry.

I don't buy it. Let France hate us. Let them seethe with anger as their nation sags further into debt, recession and social-welfare state decline.

A new "Cold War?" Hardly. When the Franco-German bloc's main power-projection tool is a French aircraft carrier that can't be trusted to leave port without losing its propeller, we don't have much to fear.

Why is it the US must always be at fault? Our government is not perfect, but Old Europe's foreign ministers aren't fit to lick Metternich's boots.

If France and Germany are prepared to destroy the entire underpinning of their strategic defenses and economic well-being because of a diplomatic gaffe, what does that say about THEIR policy brain trusts?

Speaking of horrible diplomacy, what American politicans have been running around comparing German or French leaders to Hitler? Oh wait, that was what THEY were doing to US.

What has to happen for people to realize France no longer considers herself a strategic ally and hasn't for some time? Do they have to spray paint it on desecrated war graves? Oh wait, they did...

Sometimes we are dealing with countries that actually disagree with our policies and dream of replacing us at the top of the global order. Sucking up to them may soothe the ego of sophisticates, but it's horrible foreign policy.

The Bush administration has made a brilliant move: Britain and Australia have been vindicated and brought even closer into our alliance. France and Germany are now going to have to rethink their own strategies.

Now maybe they will.

Let me just say, as a German who has observed two decades (oh yes) of growing anti-Americanism: it doesn´t matter anymore "how these words play in Europe". Our media will turn anything into anti-US propaganda. I have yet to see anybody over here think about American feelings as hard as you think about ours.

Maybe the announcement was not necessary. But is there any indication that Russia or France were going to give up the billions Saddam owed them? Never. Nor will there be any troops, or contributions, or any kind of help, no matter what you do. You already asked nicely, remember? You think Bush is not subtle enough? How often do Schroeder and Chirac have to kick you in the groin before you notice that we are not in your camp? These politicians couldn´t have stated their fundamental opposition to US foreign policy more clearly. Now they need you to fail. They need Iraq to fail. Isn´t that obvious? It will remain that way at least (maybe) until Germany gets a different government.

Let me just say, as a German who has observed two decades (oh yes) of growing anti-Americanism: it doesn´t matter anymore "how these words play in Europe". Our media will turn anything into anti-US propaganda. I have yet to see anybody over here think about American feelings as hard as you think about ours.

Maybe the announcement was not necessary. But is there any indication that Russia or France were going to give up the billions Saddam owed them? Never. Nor will there be any troops, or contributions, or any kind of help, no matter what you do. You already asked nicely, remember? You think Bush is not subtle enough? How often do Schroeder and Chirac have to kick you in the groin before you notice that we are not in your camp? These politicians couldn´t have stated their fundamental opposition to US foreign policy more clearly. Now they need you to fail. They need Iraq to fail. Isn´t that obvious? It will remain that way at least (maybe) until Germany gets a different government.

“To the extent you view any decision by foreign powers that runs the slightest bit contrary to your perception of America's interests as being fundamentally based on a jealousy of America, you are exacerbating the problem. “

You should immediately obtain a copy of Jean-François Revel’s --Anti-Americanism.-- He completely agrees with me. Also, why are you so lacking in knowledge concerning this problem? There is abundant evidence to justify my position. Are you spending too much time with the “mainstream” media? That might explain everything.

“Our cultures--and cultural values--are so similar that only one thing really can seriously jeopardize America's mutually beneficial relationship with the West. And it's precisely the arrogant American exceptionalist view that you have demonstrated.“

We are not similar to the Old Europeans in significant ways. They are far lazier, more socialistic, and tend to wait for America to pull their rear ends out of the wringer. Have you already forgotten the Balkans’ tragedy? Thank God that Bill Clinton sent our troops to stop the killing.

“Wolfowitz is deliberately sabotaging Baker's mission (which is now guaranteed fruitless). “

Baloney! The exact opposite will occur. We now have their attention---and this will likely encourage them to do their part for the Iraqi people.

The countries that took supported the U.S., placing the lives of their citizens and the political fate of their governments on the line , THESE governments should be treated exactly the SAME as the governments that risked nothing and made political capital out of their opposition.

That's not the point, as you would know if you read Dan's post or my comment. As everyone has agreed, French and German companies weren't going to get any significant portion of the rebuilding contracts under any circumstance. The question is whether this is just done as a matter of course, or whether it is done and announced in a "be on notice that we're officially punishing you, you cheese-eating surrender monkeys" sort of way.

I don't buy it. Let France hate us. Let them seethe with anger as their nation sags further into debt, recession and social-welfare state decline.

Good attitude to have. Given that France and Germany collectively probably exert more influence on the EU than every other member combined, let's officially adopt the position that these two countries can go to hell, thus poisoning are relationship with the largest economic power in the world (again, when viewed collectively).

What's not to understand about the (pretty straightforward) observation that we could have done precisely the same thing we're doing now, but without intentionally stirring up anti-American sentiment abroad?

Speaking of horrible diplomacy, what American politicans have been running around comparing German or French leaders to Hitler? Oh wait, that was what THEY were doing to US.

So what? So frickin' what? Is announcing to the world that we're officially punishing Germany and France going to make that any better? Regardless of what some minister (who was subsequently fired, if I recall) said about Bush, is the current solution--which is sure to whip up even more anti-American sentiment--an effective solution to the problem of deteriorated American-European relations? At some point, you're either going to have to decide whether a solid relationshipt between America and Germany and France (and thus, necessarily, the EU) is a goal worth pursuing. If the answer to that is yes, then the recent announcement was a horrific policy blunder.

Sucking up to them may soothe the ego of sophisticates, but it's horrible foreign policy.

Right, because awarding the vast majority of rebuilding contracts to American and other coalition companies--but not officially announcing that we're punishing France and Germany--is "sucking up" to the French.

The Bush administration has made a brilliant move: Britain and Australia have been vindicated and brought even closer into our alliance.

Was there any need to bring them closer? Was that need so pressing that it couldn't be served without an official policy of retaliating against non-coalition members? Something that--even if it wasn't plainly obvious to them--a phone call to Blair or Howard couldn't have solved?

Please.

This was done for domestic political reasons. It was done to placate those Americans who like to hear that it's official government policy to screw over France and Germany--international relations consequences be damned.

France and Germany are now going to have to rethink their own strategies.

Again, I've tried to be polite, but this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. What would you do if the EU "punished" the US for their actions in Iraq? Would you change your position? Or would it become hardened?

Why do you think your average German or Frenchman is going to be any different?

They're not going to say "oh, no, we're in big trouble if we don't support American military operations in the future." They're going to say "Who the f*ck does the US think it is? Punishing us for not supporting an unprovoked war? F*CK. OFF." Just as we would say if we were in the same boat.

they happen to have a lot of clout in important international organisations such as the IMF, World Bank and several UN organisations.

Um... being ignored by the IMF, World Bank, and United Nations is about the best thing that can happen to a developing nation. Their track record, to date, doesn't inspire confidence.

If they want to, somewhere down the road, they can make life that much harder for an Iraqi Government desperately in need of cash

Iraq has $383,000,000,000 in debts and foreign obligations. That's 14 times its GNP. The drawback of having world bankers dislike Iraq is dwarfed by the reality of that debt.

That aside, this isn't really an American decision. Eventually -- hopefully soon -- Iraq will be self-governing. If you think the people of Iraq are going to live in poverty for the next couple of generations in order to pay back a bunch of fat-cat Europeans who lent money to their former oppressor, you're nuts. That debt is going to be repudiated if it isn't forgiven first. There's just no doubt about that.

You're also forgetting that people who loan money want to make money. They act based on whether they think they'll get the money back and turn a profit. It's one thing if Government A borrows money, blows it off, and asks to borrow more. It's a safe bet they'll blow that off, too, so you probably shouldn't lend them anything.

On the otherhand, if Dictatorship A runs up a lot of bills, and then gets deposed by Democracy B, which tears up those bills -- that doesn't tell you anything much about Democracy B's credit-worthiness.

“Let me just say, as a German...”

My great grand parents on both side of my family tree are from Germany. It’s a long story, but my last name should be Kreidler. Thus, no one can rightfully accuse me of hating a particular ethnic group. There is even an outside chance that my ancestors lived in an area of France that is now part of Germany! The French have taken anti-Americanism at least one step further than the Germans. I am also very aware that the East Germans who lived under the domination of the Soviets perceive America in a less flattering manner than those living in the West. Then again, Gunter Grass apparently always lived in the Western sector.

Also, why are you so lacking in knowledge concerning this problem?

Gee, thanks.

There is abundant evidence to justify my position. Are you spending too much time with the “mainstream” media? That might explain everything.

Yeah, that's precisely it. There is a mainstream media conspiracy to hide the fact that all Europeans are anti-American solely because they are jealous of Americans.

No, wait a minute, I've lived in Europe for significant time periods. I even married a European. And in my experience, to the extent they are anti-American, it's usually for a variety of reasons, including policy disagreements, feelings that American culture is replacing their own, and a variety of legitimate or unfounded other reasons. But again, you know what I've found to be the biggest cause of anti-Americanism? The perceived attitude that Americans believe that any and all anti-Americanism stems exclusively from a European jealousy that they're not Americans. And regardless of whether this is correct or not (and please note, I am not denying jealously very well could play a significant role in European anti-American attitudes), dismissing all European criticism as "pure jealousy" is immature, infantile, and most importantly, utterly unproductive.

We are not similar to the Old Europeans in significant ways. They are far lazier, more socialistic, and tend to wait for America to pull their rear ends out of the wringer.

Another good attitude to have! Maybe we should just point out that their jealousy--which is the sole cause of any anti-American feeling--stems from the fact that they, too, could be Americans if only they weren't so lazy.

“...stems from the fact that they, too, could be Americans if only they weren't so lazy. “

I can only go by the facts. Their unemployment numbers are higher and they take off more work days than we do. The French even have a law prohibiting a worker from spending more than 35 hours weekly on the job. Isn’t that correct? America dominates in almost every area of science and intellectual endeavor. Why are the Old Europeans so far behind us? We must not forget that our great grand parents who emigrated to America were usually the losers of their respective societies. I suspect that my own great-grand parents, for instance, were marginally illiterate. The so-called winners stayed behind. Hell, what happened to these elite members of European society?

Their unemployment numbers are higher

True. They have chosen to go with an economic model where unemployment benefits are more generous, and low-paying jobs are, typically, better paying. The result undeniably is higher unemployment numbers. Would I choose such an economic model? Probably not. Do I think that makes them "lazy"? Probably not.

The French even have a law prohibiting a worker from spending more than 35 hours weekly on the job. Isn’t that correct?

Yes and no. Roughly, the same workers that we require overtime pay for, the French limit to 35 hours a week in a (misguided, in my view) attempt to promote higher employment. As for managerial and professional positions (and again, I'm being overly simplistic), no such hourly limitations apply. And the French are in the process of scrapping these limitations, as they realized that this made economies of scale impossible (thus negating their attempts to increase employment).

Again, let me reiterate--the French in particular, and much of Europe, have chosen an economic model that I wouldn't. I don't think this makes them lazy. Just as I don't think our minimum wage and overtime rules make us lazy vis a vis China or India.

America dominates in almost every area of science and intellectual endeavor.

Um, no. American institutions do quite well (though I think you downplay European and Asian contributions). But much of that comes by way of foreigners, who follow the money to American universities and companies.

But anyway, this is all completely off topic. Even if you are right, and Europeans dislike America solely because they are jealous of Americans, and they are jealous solely because they are lazy, it still doesn't follow that a policy of open and notorious retaliation and punitive measures is in accord with American interests.

appalled moderate:

Hey, I think you're on to something with this "critical thinking" of yours.

Of course, the situation is not (as you said) "Hi, you're a manipulative jerk and I'm not going to do business with you EVER, but could you let Bubba here keep the 20 bucks you lent him?"

It's

"Hi, you've acted like a manipulative jerk on this issue, and we're not going to reward you by letting you make money off it. Also, Bubba here is not going to give you twenty bucks to make up for the twenty bucks you loaned to a sadistic thug who brutalized him for 30 years."

Keep sharpening those skills ...

Joe:

"A certain portion of Americans--mostly the Republican base--LIKE to hear strong anti-foreign rhetoric."

No, we like to see strong, firm and decisive stances. Rewarding France and Germany for utterly craven behavior doesn't qualify.

"They LIKE to see the US punish nations that fail to fully support it."

Nice dodge words. What you actually mean is that we "like to see the U.S. punish nations that actively oppose U.S.-led toppling of brutal, sadistic dictators because said toppling runs contrary to their own self-interest." Guilty as charged, although it would make us happier if said nations would have simply set aside their own self-interests and worked toward the common cause of freedom, democracy and not having people's eyes gouged out by paramilitary thugs.

"However appealing this is at home, this further poisons relationships with these countries." Really? How so?

"By the way, as for the 'this shows the populace of those countries that there is a consequence to messing with the US,' that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. What would your reaction be if the EU imposed tariffs or capital controls on US businesses for (as an example) invading Iraq without UN consent?"

Joe, think about how stupid your own comparison is. The U.S. is not proposing tariffs or capital controls. Why would we -- they'd hurt us just as much as the Europeans. And by extension, why would the Europeans? But there *is* a relevant "what if" scenario you could have proposed. It's "What if the positions were reversed: The Europeans asked for help toppling Saddam, we refused and actively worked to oppose it. Now the Europeans are awarding contracts for rebuilding Iraq, and excluding America. How would we react?" I'll tell you how I'd react: "Why on Earth should we expect any differently?"

Perhaps the most illuminating thing in this whole discussion was the Krugman quote: "Instead, the venture has turned sour."

I agree. Now let us bow our heads and pray:

It doesn't matter that 22 million Iraqis are out from under Saddam's bootheel. It doesn't matter that, looking strictly at the numbers, more people are alive today as a result of the invasion than have been killed since. It doesn't matter that Saddam never satisfactorily demonstrated to the world, as numerous U.N. resolutions required him to, that he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't matter that electricity, water, medicine, schools etc. are all at or above pre-war levels, and climbing. It doesn't matter that most Iraqis want America to stay in Iraq -- at least for the near term -- and the great majority expect life will be better in five years. It doesn't matter that Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials repeatedly emphasized that this endeavor would be long, difficult and dangerous. It doesn't matter that we've been in Iraq a mere seven months -- a microblip in historical terms -- and nothing in world history suggests we should be done by now. It doesn't matter that the blogs are filled with excerpts from LIFE and other magazines in the mid-to-late 1940s talking about how difficult the occupation is, how things are bogged down, how many doubt it is possible to "win the peace." It doesn't matter that Iraqis now have a chance to build the only stable, peaceful democracy in the Arab world.

No, what matters is that, in rehabilitating a crushed, 30-year victim of Stalinism, we haven't achieved the overnight success that Bush didn't promise us. Oh, and Rumsfeld is a jerk.

Amen

“...it still doesn't follow that a policy of open and notorious retaliation and punitive measures is in accord with American interests.”

I hope you are not buying a new car in the near future. Once again, our policy is negotiable. We got their attention---and now the real discussions can begin.

“But much of that comes by way of foreigners, who follow the money to American universities and companies.”

You are dodging the reason why they had to leave their home in the old country. They left because America has become the preeminent nation in the world. You are inadvertently making my case for me! Thank you for your kindness.

Last but not least, why are the Old Europeans so anti-Semitic? Gee whiz, are the Jews also acting arrogant and exceptionalistic?

Hey Alaska Jack:

I can just see you at the First Yukon Savings & Loan serving as somebody's credit reference. After calling the loan officer the tool of the capitalist conspiracy, and first cousin to a wombat and mistress to a flea bit houndog, you beg her to consider the case of Ms. Pretty, who was left by her no good husband who used to beat her. Now, there may be no question that the bank ought to lend the money. But how likely do think it is that they will do so?

Look. Wolfie and Bush screwed this one up as a matter of tactics. And Iraq is too important for these kind of foul ups to continue.

No, we like to see strong, firm and decisive stances. Rewarding France and Germany for utterly craven behavior doesn't qualify.

This is beginning to border on surrealism--it's almost as if you didn't read Dan's post, or my lengthy comments. No one is suggesting that anybody "reward" France and Germany for their nonsupport of the Iraqi invasion. Indeed, nobody is suggesting that the US do anything that it wasn't going to anyway--namely, give out contracts to American and other coalition companies. The only problem people have--and it's a problem that people of all ideological stripes have professed--is that an official, stated policy of retribution towards France and Germany is a Very Bad Idea that serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to whip up the Republican base who LIKES to hear we're "punishing" these countries. But any suggestion that only giving out contracts to American and other coalition companies without officially stating that this is the policy is somehow "rewarding" France or Germany is Orwellian at best.

What you actually mean is that we "like to see the U.S. punish nations that actively oppose U.S.-led toppling of brutal, sadistic dictators because said toppling runs contrary to their own self-interest."

No, I meant what I said. A certain portion of the American people likes to see the US government take the position that it is officially "punishing" nations that disagree in any manner with US activities. I mean it in the military, economic, and geopolitical contexts. Some Americans are very big into the "you don't agree with me, go f*ck yourself" philosophy. Traditionally, our government (Republican and Democratic alike) has done a very good job of ignoring these sentiments and concentrated on enacting a policy that is more beneficial to America's long term interest.

Really? How so?

This would be a long comment. But to address it quickly, (1) it further hardens public opposition to American positions in those countries, and (2) because they can't be seen to be caving to American "punishment," it decreases the likelihood that foreign governments will toe the American line in the future.

Joe, think about how stupid your own comparison is. The U.S. is not proposing tariffs or capital controls. Why would we -- they'd hurt us just as much as the Europeans. And by extension, why would the Europeans?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, you miss the point. My hypothetical was just that. My broad point is that the idea that one nation can officially take the position that it is "punishing" another for following the overwhelming wishes of its populace is ridiculous. Just as American opinion would only harden in such a scenario, those who expect a different result from the Europeans are deluding themselves. Human nature is what it is.

How would we react?" I'll tell you how I'd react: "Why on Earth should we expect any differently?"

Sort of proves my point, doesn't it? Would it make you any more likely whatsoever to say "on second thought, we should have supported Europe? Of course not. You profess it wouldn't make a difference--I speculate that it would likely make you more stubborn in your opposition to the hypothetical European invasion.

I hope you are not buying a new car in the near future. Once again, our policy is negotiable. We got their attention---and now the real discussions can begin.

We'll see. If this is a negotiation strategy, and the end result will be trading contract participation in exchange for loan forgiveness, then I'll be impressed. I would think that the way that the administration has approached it--by taking a hard line that it is retaliating against certain countries--might make it politically impossible for those countries to negotiate, but I am more than willing to be proven wrong.

You are dodging the reason why they had to leave their home in the old country.

No, I'm not. What do you think the phrase "follow the money" means? American universities have endowments orders of magnitude greater than foreign institutions. Foreign scientists come here because they will have more money to pursue their research. In a similar vein, American companies typically (though not universally, and this is changing in some fields) pay a lot better. People come here for that reason, too.

Last but not least, why are the Old Europeans so anti-Semitic? Gee whiz, are the Jews also acting arrogant and exceptionalistic?

"Old Europeans" are so anti-semitic primarily because of exploding Muslim populations. There is also a historical anti-semitism component that was and is absent in American society, but I think its impact pales in comparison to the former variable.

“No, I'm not. What do you think the phrase "follow the money" means? American universities have endowments orders of magnitude greater than foreign institutions. Foreign scientists come here because they will have more money to pursue their research. In a similar vein, American companies typically (though not universally, and this is changing in some fields) pay a lot better. People come here for that reason, too.”

Yes, but did a genie in a bottle snap his fingers to make us this wealthy? Why is America so much richer than the Old Europeans? What did they do wrong?

Great negotiating strategy there, David T! The old "hit 'em over the head with a 2X4". Unless we recant on the contracting (probably in a way it's not TOO obvious), the loan forgiveness will be as illusory as the WMD. It's amazing how David T. and Alaska Jack really like to think of America as a big bully.

If the so-called reconstruction of Iraq were being done for the maximum benefit of Iraqis, or even just to do it as inexpensively as possible, then obviously it works best to let all technically-competent contractors in on the bidding. So the premise is false. The reconstruction of Iraq will be just another stage for the real show: that the Administration is determined to eliminate any pretense of cooperation or multilateralism, and to bend the rest of the world to our will. I am not one of those who thinks this is a good idea. A separate repply to Alaska Jack follows.

It doesn't matter that Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials repeatedly emphasized that this endeavor would be long, difficult and dangerous.

For obvious domestic political reasons, the Bush Administration going into the war had downplayed the scale and duration of a post-war occupation mission. When then-Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told legislators that such a mission would require several hundred thousand U.S. troops, his assessment had been immediately dismissed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as "wildly off the mark." Wolfowitz explained that "I am reasonably certain that (the Iraqi people) will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down." Six weeks ago [April 2003–AJL], Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was still suggesting the U.S. force in Iraq could be reduced to 30,000 by the end of the year. But the prevailing assessment in Washington appears to be shifting to the idea of a figure closer to Shinseki's.

You want to know why people were shocked at the $87Bn request? Because the Administration TOLD US it was going to be inexpensive, that Iraq would pay for it all with oil. Here's the head of USAID on Nightline telling an incredulous Ted Koppel that the US taxpayer will be out only $1.7 billion for reconstruction.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

I'll tell you what, Alaska Jack, you bring in one—ONE—pre-war quote from the Administration predicting a long occupation (not meaningless drivel like "As long as it takes", which could be anywhere from ten minutes until the freezing over of Hell; and not a long general war on terror), and we'll take it from there.

“It's amazing how David T. and Alaska Jack really like to think of America as a big bully.”

Big bully? No, I just don’t want us to act wimpy. It is also very telling that you are incapable of distinguishing between not letting people kick you in the teeth and being a bully. This speaks volumes on how liberal Democrats view the use of American power. Is George McGovern ghost writing for you?

“...or even just to do it as inexpensively as possible, then obviously it works best to let all technically-competent contractors in on the bidding. So the premise is false. “

I doubt seriously if the Iraqis who value democracy have many kind words for the French and other Old Europeans. The latter did absolutely nothing to free them from Saddam. I’m sure they see it the same way we do.

Hi, David Thomson! Howeareya?

I doubt seriously if the Iraqis who value democracy have many kind words for the French and other Old Europeans. The latter did absolutely nothing to free them from Saddam. I’m sure they see it the same way we do.

The fact that France and Germany didn't believe our fairy tales about WMD (which turned out to be untrue) is not what I would call kicking us in the teeth. But I guess when you buy into this type of paranoid fantasy, any intrusion of reality is excessively resented.

Dear all,

What's scary is when persons like Holsinger - who has essentially advocated genocide as a viable option, Newt Gingrich - who said US policy had gone off a cliff in Iraq, and William Kristol and Robert Kagan - whom Thomson's posts would paint as being somehow as European appeasers, have all come out strongly criticizing policies (The original Weekly standard calls the policy "stupid") and yet apologists are attempting to argue some sort of method to this madness.

It just goes to show that they will spin anything, and that there are fools who will rationalize any policy however self-defeating and self-destructive. That is the immediate lesson that can be drawn from this debacle. Yet the work of these fools is not unrewarded. For they know that they must at least keep the pretense of a debate going, to keep support for the Bush 2004 campaign going.

Insofar as reason does inform their blind belief and denunciation of the most credible reports contrary to their talking points sheets, it is the sure knowledge that to keep political support viable for the President that they must deny however obvious and egregious the error any blame to be ascribed to the Administrative competence of GW Bush.

This being the single greatest and credible argument against his re-election, that he might really be a dullard and a cretin. So if necessary, if President Bush fell into a foaming fit of madness and accidentally stabbed a foreign head of state with to death with a letter opener, they would describe such an act as an inspired message of foreign diplomacy whose motives are inscrutable to us mere mortals. This is the extent to which they are ready to extend this farcical debate. If necessary they will deny that blue is blue, or that A is A, or that 1 and 1 make 2 in whatever twisted contorted fashion is necessary to support their pre-decided conclusions. This is the sad state we have been reduced to, when such tactics have purchase upon the American public.

Hey!!! Alaska Jack is Back!
Let the accountability begin.

Hey Jack, just finished the rest of the posts down thru 3PO, and loved appalled's dig on you. Catch the hillbilly reference, there "yukon"? And you don't even qualify as "fly-over country" Hah.

At the risk of the dreaded 'AH' attack, let me remind you that 'Appalled' was the one who said that it takes more personal courage to write journalism articles than it does to charge bullets and barricades.

'nuff said.

Werner has made the best comments so far. Thanks Werner, for such clear thinking.

Too many people posting here don't seem to understand some basic facts. France has NEVER been a good ally since the French Revolution. Only half of Germany has been a good ally, but only after we and the Soviets destroyed them. Russia has only recently become polite, but they are still far from being allied with us.

These three nations are our enemies. Like Werner says, it makes no difference what we do or say, the French and the Germans live a dream of finally becoming the rulers of Europe and vying with the US for world power. NATO is moribound and will soon be no more than a relic.

We owe these countries nothing. There is no reason we should even bother being polite to them after the way they've been treating us. It makes no sense to pander to them, they will still hate us.

Canada was going to give the US money to help Iraq. Now they won't. Ergo, this policy sucks.

Besides, the financial costs of invading iraq would be far higher for France and Germany than any tax revenue they would receive from the reconstruction. I don't think this will change their minds next time.

Canada was going to give the US money to help Iraq. Now they won't. Ergo, this policy sucks.

Since it has been acknowledged that there was a 0% chance of Canada winning any of the first-lne contracts and Canadian firms are still eligible for sub-contracts, I'm fairly certain that the new Canadian prime minister will see it for what it was, a symbolic slap, with no practical consequence. Once the ritual outrage has faded, I doubt the contribution will change, especially since the new prime minister has made improving USA relations a priority.

Given that openly supporting the war would have meant a regime-change in Canada (and may possibly do the same in Britian), he has to be a little subtle. For example, we've sent everybody we could to Afghanistan, so while we'd *love* to help in Iraq, but we're all booked up. :-).

Actually Paul Martin was livid. The daily show showed a clip of him blowing a fuse. That's really the problem with the policy; on Martin's first day on the job, Bush publicly slaps him in the face. How long do you think he'll stay pro-US?
I think Dan's point is that making such a public insult, rather than a quiet snubbing, is stupid. Most people here disagreeing with him don't really address that point, prefering to rant about how evil France is.

This is just fascinating. Reading the comments, you can easily identify the commenters who have had rsponsibility for major negotiations (they see the announcement and timing for what it is) and those who have not (they are incapable of seeing that a negotiation is, in part, giving the other side two alternatives - one relatively good one, if they do what you want, and one not-so-good one, if they don't).

When I do this, I generally put both alternatives on the table at the same time, or if the other side has a history of being recalcitrant, I lead with the bad alternative by . . . wait for it . . . a day or so. This approach gets miraculous results.

Bush, old poker player and major league baseball executive that he is, knows all about positioning an offer.

Sym, you don't seem to realize that the timing was perfect, and it is better to be public when snubbing people as bad as the French. This isn't a lesson to France, which is lost to us, it is a lesson to others to not be as "evil" (as you say) as France is.

Admit it. We don't "need" France or Germany, or any other country in the world. We're barely trying in this war as it is. If we were forced to use our full might it would be very expensive but there is no combination of nations on this Earth that can hurt us more than we can hurt them. Some seem to have not realized that.

We are not tyrannical to our friends like the Athenians to the Delian League. If our friends insist on sitting this one out, generally we wouldn't mind too awfully much. It is the active antagonism of France and Germany, even their belligerence of providing Iraq weapons, that must be punished loudly, publicly and humiliatingly. I think we've been far too polite so far in not pointing their complicity in sustaining Hussein's reign of torture.

Wow...lots of "interesting" stuff here. I have a couple of questions for RC Dean, David Thomson, and Yukon Jack:

Do you think a negotiation between nations on foreign policy issues is the same as a negotiation between two business leaders over the price of a widget? (Hint: think about the fact that leaders on both sides have to get re-elected)

Do you think we don't benefit at all from a good relationship with France and Germany? (Hint: think about the cars you see on the road, and the films that are shown in German and French cinemas)

Do you think that every relationship in the world has a winner and a loser? (Hint: think about your relationship with your neighbor or local storekeeper)

Do you think that complete and constant openness about your feelings is always the right thing to do? (Hint: think about how you deal with co-workers)

I am interested to read your responses.

Felix,

This is well down the page now...

The false frame is civilization DEFINED BY A SINGLE POLICY OPTION versus terrorism.

In short, one can select civilization and still be against the war in Iraq.

Moreover, one can be anti-war and still be a citizen, patriot, friend, spouse, ally...take your pick.

I very much doubt the average German or French citizen, apparently as distrustful of democracies that use force too much as they are of "evil" states that haven't used force in some decades (because they are deterred), will reverse their position on the war because of a few lost contracts.

Um guys, I hate to break in here but it seems to me that most of the posters are reacting to the media reports about the supposed motivation of the directive rather than reading the directive itself. Here’s the actual document in question:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/redevelop120503rfp.pdf

If you read points 4-6, it makes it clear that it is establishing a condition that a bidding country make a “contribution of force” (i.e. send troops, security, and supportive personnel to stabilize Iraq) as a condition for bidding as a general contractor for US-funded contracts. There is nothing in here about excluding some countries or saying that some countries are automatically ineligible.

In other words, this is not a “slap in the face” for those who oppose the war but rather a carrot to provide an additional incentive for more countries to send in troops which providing an additional incentive for nations who are contributing to the security to continue to do so.

"Bush, old poker player and major league baseball executive that he is, knows all about positioning an offer."

Yeah, I understand the Supreme Court is ruling 5-4 that Texas is not the lamest team in the league.

Daddy's friends can't help poor W now.

Well, so much for honesty as a virtue. It seems to me that those who are saying that announcing that the countries who oppose us in Iraq will not get any contracts is a mistake because we simply could manipulate the bidding of the contracts so that, for example, France, would be allowed to bid not not win any contracts. This seems to be a faulty argument for at least two reasons: First, if the bidding is truly public, then the LOSERS of the contracts are going to know that they submitted a better bid, and, it seems to me, would be willing to make that fact public. I can see the headlines now "Fraud in Iraq contracts: Bush administration stears contracts to friends". I think that would hirt more than the current bad publiticy over the contracts, and just make the US look corrupt as will as stupid. Second, how long do you think it would take France and Germany to realize, that, Gee, no German or French company got any Iraq contracts? Do you suppose that then they might use the information agencies they have at their disposal to drop a hit to say, The New York Times, or the Washington Post? Hummm? Do you suppose there would be just as big a flap as what is happening now? Only this time flavored with the taint of skullduggery and deceet? At least this way the true point gets across, " .. you don't play with us, we don't play with you" instead of a confusing tail of corruption and dishonesty.

Do you think a negotiation between nations on foreign policy issues is the same as a negotiation between two business leaders over the price of a widget?

Yes, I do. All negotiations involve the same basic dynamics - mutual interests, saving face, etc. Business leaders and politicians both want to save their jobs, and negotiate accordingly. Its all human relations and conflict management. The bottles change, but the wine is the same.

Do you think we don't benefit at all from a good relationship with France and Germany?

It depends on what we sacrifice for that "good relationship." I define a good relationship as a two-way street that does not involve one country opposing and exploiting the other. Actively undermining our foreign policy and then expecting to have unfettered access to our tax dollars does not fit my definition of a "good" relationship.

Do you think that every relationship in the world has a winner and a loser?

Not at all. I love win-win deals. Sometimes, though, someone has to lose to make the point that it is better to be with us than against us. Old Europe maneuvered itself to that point.

Do you think that complete and constant openness about your feelings is always the right thing to do?

God no. Quite the contrary - I much prefer people who refrain from oozing all over me.

However, this has nothing to do with "feelings." This has to do with who is eligible for contracts, and why. No feelings involved - just hard-nosed business and power politics.

RC Dean,

Thank you for your response. I think that where I disagree is that I believe that relations between nations can really only work well when it is not about "hard-nosed business and power politics." I think that when the relationship is viewed in those terms you do end up using techniques in negotiations like carrots and sticks.

It seems that everything works better when negotiations are more along the lines of how you work with a co-worker where you find mutual interests and work towards those.

Sure it pisses the hell out of me that France especially was not putting forward productive solutions in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. But I guess I would like to see the US be the bigger party and look past the faulty frame the French were using where it was, "that which weakens the US, strengthns France." I would hope that our actions since then would have been enough to demonstrate to France that they can cause difficulty for the US, but they can't dictate policy to the US.

Given that I think the main point has already been made I would hope the US could have been more accomodating and at least not rub salt in the transatlantic wounds. The only way we can work together in the future is if we just start ignoring the disagreements of the past. Sure that would be not really open and honest, but that is often the only way that two sides can continue to work together.

RC, you're logic makes even more sense given today's news.

Oldman - I imagine Baker will begin his negotiations with " Well, well, well...."

Mr. Tommyg,

While I am as surprised and excited about Saddam's capture as anyone, and more than willing to credit Bush for it, personally I don't see any fashion other than sheer sentimentality that this capture will improve Baker's negotiating strength. It admittedly will take the sting out of the public backhand given a few days ago regarding the contracts. That may offer some increased public diplomacy maneuvering room, but when it comes down to it nations pursue their interests and prestige and none of these factors have significantly changed with Saddam's capture.

I am more than willing to stipulate that euphoria over Saddam's capture may negate the negativity generated by the contract blow-back, but in the long term it hasn't significantly given any motivation for the debtor nations to reschedule much of Iraq's debt. The US still isn't exactly a popular negotiating party in practically any multinational arena nowadays from trade to military cooperation to WMD proliferation issues.

Just don't see any real big change on that score TommyG.

! RC Dean Triumphant!

aka: Guess who's coming to the negotiations table?

Oldman, You're right - we're not that popular in the multinational negotiations arena. But it appears to be working just the same... (g)

As for the rest of this threads doubters - be principled and post your congrats to RC Dean.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???