But on the other hand, it's quite remarkable to witness the rollicking foreign policy ineptitude of the Busheviks who continue to demand (i.e. beg, but with steely resolve) assistance while offering little or nothing in return in a very public way.
DRM
=============================
(subscrip. required)
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB107110227327382900,00.html
Iraq-Contracts Feud Reopens Wounds U.S. Plan to Limit War's Opponents In Reconstruction Sets Obstacle To Overall Peace Efforts in Iraq
By CARLA ANNE ROBBINS and NEIL KING JR. Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The Bush administration says it wants help in Iraq, but somehow it can't stop infuriating the countries that could shoulder more of the load.
The latest provocation came this week, with the Pentagon's decision to bar Iraq-war opponents including France, Germany, Russia and Canada from bidding on $18.6 billion in prime contracts for Iraq reconstruction. The reaction from those governments, which said they hadn't been briefed on the decision, was one of unalloyed fury.
Germany called the ruling "unacceptable," while Canada threatened to cut off further reconstruction aid to Iraq, and Russia signaled it would take an even harder line against forgiving Baghdad's debt. The European Union's executive body said it would investigate whether the U.S. is violating World Trade Organization agreements.
Early Thursday, the Pentagon delayed a scheduled conference for companies seeking reconstruction contracts. Originally planned to take place Thursday, it will be delayed eight days, until Dec. 19.
The conference, in which the contract requests were to have been made public, was delayed by scheduling conflicts of retired Adm. David J. Nash, the top U.S. official in Iraq who is overseeing the issue, a spokesman said Thursday. DOW JONES REPRINTSThis copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit: www.djreprints.com. • See a sample reprint in PDF format • Order a reprint of this article now.
"The requests for proposals have not been formally issued as of today," Mr. Nash's spokesman, Charles Krohn, wrote in a statement. "The delay is a result of decisions made by the Department of Defense." Mr. Krohn declined to comment on whether the delay was linked to the dispute over the Pentagon directive limiting involvement by Iraq-war opponents.
Taken by Surprise
The White House scrambled to defend the policy Wednesday as part just deserts and part inducement for better behavior. Spokesman Scott McClellan said it was "totally appropriate" for the U.S. to exclude noncoalition members from bidding on contracts. And countries not on the list, he said, could join in by sending troops to Iraq. President Bush heard the complaints first hand when he called the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's official debt. Speaking privately, officials said that the timing and tone was disastrous and certain to make it much harder to pry troops, aid or debt-forgiveness out of furious allies. But they said that the president had decided that the policy would stand.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, said Wednesday that the bidding process wouldn't begin for several more days but insisted that any delay was driven by the need to work out the legal language and ensure that Iraqi companies got fair consideration -- rather than a retreat from the plan.
U.S. officials said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz drove the decision, but that the rest of the Bush national-security team, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, signed off on the general idea with little objection.
Officials acknowledged Wednesday that they were surprised by the fierceness of the European response, blaming the harsh language of the Pentagon memo, which portrayed the exclusion of U.S. allies as "necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States." Some officials said that the wording was intended to head off any legal claims. But others said that Pentagon aides had argued in private meetings that they couldn't be sure that French and Russian contractors -- some with a long history of dealing with Saddam Hussein -- wouldn't be infiltrated by anticoalition spies, although no one expected the Pentagon to even hint at it publicly.
It was that purported threat to security that seemed to trouble European officials most. "The decision itself is not a surprise," said Karsten Voigt, coordinator of U.S.-German relations in the German Foreign Ministry. "But to announce it in such a way, with such argumentation, I find not only strange, but not the best expression of political wisdom."
Lingering Anger
U.S. officials said the decision mainly reflected the White House's political calculation that "we couldn't spend taxpayers' dollars on countries that weren't on our side," according to another aide. But at base, officials say, it is also a powerful sign of how angry President Bush and his top aides remain toward the Europeans for not supporting the war -- and their suspicions that many of those leaders still aren't rooting for a U.S. victory.
U.S. officials say they aren't sure whether that fundamental trust between Mr. Bush and the French, in particular, can ever be restored. But eager for more military help, and smarting at election-season attacks on Mr. Bush's unilateralism, U.S. officials had been pushing for some reconciliation in recent weeks, especially with members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Donald Rumsfeld, the usually irascible secretary of defense who once dismissed France and Germany as "Old Europe," was particularly conciliatory when he met with NATO defense ministers last week, talking about the need for better communication.
Pondering Role for NATO
The administration's ideas for NATO, still taking shape, range from the alliance taking over command of a multinational division or a critical function like border security, to NATO -- under a U.S. general -- leading the entire peacekeeping mission, once the Iraqis regain sovereignty.
Officials caution that such ideas are still in their infancy, but they worried Wednesday that hope for moving forward may have been seriously damaged by the contract dispute.
The Pentagon directive also sparked anger in Washington. "This action will only feed the perception in the Middle East that Iraq is viewed by the U.S. as a spoil of war," said Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade representative under President Clinton.
The administration move drew fire in Congress, too. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called the ruling "shortsighted and ill-advised." Greater economic involvement in Iraq by the excluded countries, he said, "could lead to greater international military and diplomatic support."
Some of the international furor may be a bit overblown. Companies from all but a few countries such as Libya or Syria, for instance, will be allowed to vie for subcontract work, which is where the vast majority of the $18.6 billion in U.S.-funded work will go.
Prime contractors typically take only a small percentage of the value of a contract. And relatively few companies anywhere in the world have the capabilities and past experience to qualify for the 26 prime contracts, which will oversee work ranging from oil-field reconstruction to equipping the Iraqi army.
Previous Work May Count
Contractors will also have trouble ignoring the French and German companies who built much of Iraq's infrastructure, and will now be called upon for spare parts.
Some European companies were still expressing optimism Wednesday. Jochen Munker, responsible for the Middle East at the German Chamber of Commerce, noted that German companies are already working in Iraq as subcontractors -- with possibly more work to come. Siemens AG, the German industrial conglomerate recently landed a subcontract to help rebuild a mobile-phone network in Iraq.
Others believe that growing anti-U.S. sentiment could even work in their favor. "It's getting more and more anti-American there, so non-American companies are likely to benefit," said Vincent Picard, project engineer for French engineering firm Gemco International.
Still others suggested that the decision could spark a new European interest in acquiring U.S. businesses, as a way into Iraq.
European companies could take advantage of the strong euro and weak dollar to "buy U.S. companies on the cheap in order to broach Pentagon-controlled markets," said Maurice Marchand-Tonel, president of the French American Chamber of Commerce in Paris.
No sooner had word of the directive gotten out than U.S. embassies and the State Department were hit with a flurry of complaints and queries from governments around the world. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer called Mr. Powell first thing Wednesday morning. "We have gotten questions from other governments and we're responding to those questions," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.
With the EU and others charging that the decision violated international procurement rules and threatening to bring the issue to the WTO, U.S. officials insisted there were no grounds for action because international-aid programs are exempt from WTO scrutiny.
The decision, said Mr. Boucher, "is definitely consistent with international procurement rules."
U.S. trade officials were nevertheless irritated that the Pentagon tried to dabble in international trade law by invoking "essential security" concerns in making the exclusions.
That argument was unnecessary, they said, because the main contracting authority responsible for Iraq, the Pentagon-led Coalition Provisional Authority, does not fall under WTO obligations.
Bush officials expressed concern that a WTO suit would increase tensions with the EU, but said they had little doubt that the U.S. would win if it came to blows.