Yippi-Ki-Yo
Dec. 12th, 2003 01:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_gneechI was listening to a local radio show last night on the topic of the President's "if you were against the war, you get no access to reconstruction contracts" policy, and the various feelings/thoughts/worries that engendered on either side of the debate.
I can see a certain logic to the policy, on a variety of levels. First off, there's the "little red hen" aspect of it. ("Who will help me get rid of Saddam?" said the little red Bush. "Not I," said France. "Not I," said Germany. "Saddam is gone! Who will get in on rebuilding money?" said the little red Bush. "I will!" said France. "I will!" said Germany.)
Second, given Chirac's (sp?) questionable ties to Saddam's regime, it really makes very little sense to let them get anywhere near the place. There are those who suspect that France may have a vested interest in destroying evidence, and if that's the case, a reconstruction contract might be just the foot in the door they could use.
Third, given that the countries were against the war, how dependable would they be at trying to clean up after it? Might they be just as happy, five years from now, to have made a hash of it so they can say, "See, look what a mess Iraq is!"
Now, having said all that, there are also very compelling arguements against the policy. First, there's the matter of competition: if a French or German company can do the job to specs and at the right price, and if we are interested in healthy competition and fair play, aren't we obliged to have them do it? In fact, if that's the case, shouldn't taxpayers demand the best value for their hard-stolen government funds?
Second, there's poor Canada, forced to play third party between two bickering friends. Shutting out Canada, one of the U.S.'s best friends in the world, just because they disagreed on this particular issue, smacks of petty, and petty behavior will always come back to bite you.
Finally, there's just, for lack of a better term, magnanimity. Even if you think France, Germany, Russia, et al. were a bunch of bed-wetting doodyheads, do we really want to engage in doodyheadism ourselves? Sure, it might be viscerally satisfying to toss a big ol' F.U. at various irritants across the pond (the phrase "cowboy diplomacy" comes to mind), but international relations aren't (or at least shouldn't be) about visceral satisfaction. We do have to share the world with these people, after all. There are lots of people out there who will never like the U.S. no matter what we do, but the general populace of France, Russia, and Germany are not among them.
I think, on the whole, the reasons against the policy are more compelling than the reasons for it. My natural inclination is to open up the contracts to whomever, and may the best candidate win. Besides the moral/ethical reasons, it's also just a matter of pragmatism. Who cares how snarky the country of origin is, if the people they send are right for the job?
Of course, the whole point is rather moot because, after all, Mr. Bush is the President, and as such the buck stops with him, whether I like the policy or not. What I think about it isn't going to change it. Whatever else you might think of him, President Bush is motivated by what he thinks is the proper way to do things, not by polls. He's more likely to go around the country trying to convince us that he's right, than he is to wonder what the country's thinking and then make his decision based on that. This makes him a very strong leader, albeit a frustrating one to people who don't like him.
-The Gneech
I can see a certain logic to the policy, on a variety of levels. First off, there's the "little red hen" aspect of it. ("Who will help me get rid of Saddam?" said the little red Bush. "Not I," said France. "Not I," said Germany. "Saddam is gone! Who will get in on rebuilding money?" said the little red Bush. "I will!" said France. "I will!" said Germany.)
Second, given Chirac's (sp?) questionable ties to Saddam's regime, it really makes very little sense to let them get anywhere near the place. There are those who suspect that France may have a vested interest in destroying evidence, and if that's the case, a reconstruction contract might be just the foot in the door they could use.
Third, given that the countries were against the war, how dependable would they be at trying to clean up after it? Might they be just as happy, five years from now, to have made a hash of it so they can say, "See, look what a mess Iraq is!"
Now, having said all that, there are also very compelling arguements against the policy. First, there's the matter of competition: if a French or German company can do the job to specs and at the right price, and if we are interested in healthy competition and fair play, aren't we obliged to have them do it? In fact, if that's the case, shouldn't taxpayers demand the best value for their hard-stolen government funds?
Second, there's poor Canada, forced to play third party between two bickering friends. Shutting out Canada, one of the U.S.'s best friends in the world, just because they disagreed on this particular issue, smacks of petty, and petty behavior will always come back to bite you.
Finally, there's just, for lack of a better term, magnanimity. Even if you think France, Germany, Russia, et al. were a bunch of bed-wetting doodyheads, do we really want to engage in doodyheadism ourselves? Sure, it might be viscerally satisfying to toss a big ol' F.U. at various irritants across the pond (the phrase "cowboy diplomacy" comes to mind), but international relations aren't (or at least shouldn't be) about visceral satisfaction. We do have to share the world with these people, after all. There are lots of people out there who will never like the U.S. no matter what we do, but the general populace of France, Russia, and Germany are not among them.
I think, on the whole, the reasons against the policy are more compelling than the reasons for it. My natural inclination is to open up the contracts to whomever, and may the best candidate win. Besides the moral/ethical reasons, it's also just a matter of pragmatism. Who cares how snarky the country of origin is, if the people they send are right for the job?
Of course, the whole point is rather moot because, after all, Mr. Bush is the President, and as such the buck stops with him, whether I like the policy or not. What I think about it isn't going to change it. Whatever else you might think of him, President Bush is motivated by what he thinks is the proper way to do things, not by polls. He's more likely to go around the country trying to convince us that he's right, than he is to wonder what the country's thinking and then make his decision based on that. This makes him a very strong leader, albeit a frustrating one to people who don't like him.
-The Gneech
