OxBlog

# Posted 12:52 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS: This is another issue I got a lot of mail about, so I thought I'd post some of the comments I got while I was away in California. JH writes that

Regarding the President’s statements on who we will spend our money with, W speaks for the soldiers when he says none want to have to guard the ELF contractors and their supply lines reeking of Brie, and unless the Germans come in to build breweries they can stay home too. In addition approx. 40-50% of the work force for our defense industry served in uniform. They are a vital part of our capabilities and not corporate beggars.

Agreed. I reject the simplistic arguments of all those who portray defense contractors as malicious parasites (even if major reforms in the military procurement process are needed.) Still, the issue in Iraq is what's best for the people of Iraq and the struggle for democracy. Moreover, American companies should have no problem competing in an open marketplace that includes French and German corporations.

On a different note, MK asks

Why should the United States give U.S. taxpayer money to countries who:
1) resisted U.S. efforts in the U.N. in every possible way,
2) lobbied against and slandered us privately and publicly in Europe and the Mideast,
3) never contributed any troops, and
4) likely supplied Sadaam with intelligence and possibly equipment in the war against the U.S.?

It is the U.S.'s money, why should they get it? Don't you think that's the height of hypocrisy, to do everything possible to slander the President and his administration, to obstruct the war effort, and then to cry that they're not getting American dollars to rebuild a country they could have helped relieve from oppression and tyranny?

First of all, some hypocrisy on the part of the French and Germans may have to be tolerated in the best interest of Iraqi democracy. Perhaps more importantly, there is a big difference between French and German corporations and the French and German governments. It is not clear to me why punishing the former is a particularly effective way of threatening the latter.

On a related note, B argues that

[Russia, France and Germany] were
owed by Saddam something in the neighborhood of 20 billion dollars. A debt these nations claim the Iraqi people now owe. It would be better for us and the Iraqi people if these debts were wiped off the books. But that ain't going to happen unless we have some leverage with those nations. Such as these contracts.

Given that no more than a small share of US contracts would go to Russian, French, and German corporations, I'm not sure how much leverage they would provide in terms of pressuring those governments to forgive Iraqi debt. Besides, my understanding is that the governments of our nominal allies are the ones who hold Iraqi debt. Why would they let go of it in exchange for payments to the private sector?

While there were many more readers who wrote in with well-written and well-thought out comments on this issue, most of their main arguments have been brought up by the three letter-writers whose arguments are excerpted above. So thanks to everyone who took the time to write in. Your thoughts are always appreciated.

PS For some good blogospheric criticism of my arguments, check out this post from Steve Sturm.

(1) opinions -- Add your opinion