The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting article on the redevelopment of Iraq after the coming war. I got a copy through the Pentagon's Early Bird clipping service, so I lack a link.
The Bush Administration has tested the Wilsonian vision of an "International Civil Society," and found it wanting. "International Civil Society" has failed the audit of war. Multi-national non-government organizations will not be trusted to impliment American post war policy in Iraq.
This has grave implications for the Democratic Party. ***
A short summary version of the WSJ article can be found here.
CTD
The key paragraphs from the version of the article I had are below:
"The Bush plan, as detailed in more than 100 pages of confidential contract documents, would sideline United Nations development agencies and other multilateral organizations that have long directed reconstruction efforts in places such as Afghanistan and Kosovo. The plan also would leave big non-governmental organizations largely in the lurch: With more than $1.5 billion in Iraq work being offered to private U.S. companies under the plan, just $50 million is so far earmarked for a small number of groups such as CARE and Save the Children."
and
"European officials, and even some prominent Iraqi dissidents, have reacted to the current U.S. plans with disbelief. They charge that efforts to keep the U.N. and non-U.S. contractors on the sidelines will delay reconstruction in Iraq and stir deeper ill will toward Washington. Some U.S. humanitarian groups charge the Bush administration has downplayed the difficulty of the postwar work in the hopes of scoring some quick public-relations points."
and
"Senior U.S. administration officials say problems in rebuilding Afghanistan -- including work on the Kabul-Kandahar-Herat highway, a pivotal project that is proceeding slowly -- prove that a multilateral approach only slows postwar assistance. "At least to start, we intend to handle the big jobs ourselves," said one Bush official closely involved in the postwar planning.U.S. officials say they also want credit for the reconstruction. "The administration's goal is to provide tangible evidence to the people of Iraq that the U.S. will support efforts to bring the country to political security and economic prosperity," says a U.S. contract document for up to $900 million in reconstruction work.
Much of the heaviest work will fall to U.S. companies through a growing web of contracts with the Pentagon and the U.S. Agency for International Development. USAID is expected this week to pick the prime contractor for a $900 million job rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, including highways, bridges, airports and government buildings. The agency is also contracting for five other large jobs, worth a total of between $300 million and $500 million, administering Iraq's seaport and international airports, revamping its schools and health-care system, and handling large scale logistics such as water transport. The Army Corps of Engineers is also taking bids for work worth up to $500 million for building projects such as roadways and military barracks. Additional contracts to refurbish Iraq's neglected oil industry would likely be handled through the U.N., which currently administers Iraq's oil exports. "
The Bush Administration, by its actions, is telling the U.N., E.U. and the galaxy of multi-national aid an human rights NGOs that they are not required. American economic and military power are such that, given the American political will to follow through, the Bush Administration can make that stick.
The implications for the American "Wilsonians" are clear. The only way for them to "do good" is through naked unilateral American power. This will be comfortable for Republican Neo-cons, who are "Wilsonians" who don't believe in multilateralism.
For Democratic Wilsonians, this will be disaster. The only way that Democratic internationalists could exert American power was by providing a "patina of multilateralism" to hide the reality of American military power from the anti-war "Jeffersonian" Democratic Party base.
Bush's emerging Iraq precedent will remove that tool from the bag of future Democratic Presidents.
*** Walter Russel Mead's "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy And How It Changed The World" is required reading. This link and this link will help explain the terms "Wilsonian" and "Jeffersonian" in context.
Maybe in the long term,this will be just what the Democrat party needs.It has too much baggage from the last 40 yrs.My family of Roosevelt/Truman Democrats will have nothting to do with the party of the Malibu/Manhatten axis.The Dems attempts to distance themselves from Stalinists and academic anti-semites have been weak.It helps them that the media doesn't stress these groups in news reports,but facts can't be ignored forever.On the other hand,my family is part of a demographic the party wrote off long ago,so it's up to them to come to us.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see the democrats become the party of isolation (and protection) while the republicans take on the crusade of nation (world) building. Considering the roots of internationalism in Wilson and Roosevelt and the tendencies GOPers like Hoover, Coolidge, and Goldwater toward isolation, this would make a rather ironic 21st century.
One way or another the Dems have to develop a coherent foreign policy alternative.
As you note there are two angles to this:
Internationally,
Kofi Annan still did not get it as of this morning when the UN posted a press release (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6479&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect) that concluded,
'Mr. Annan said regardless of how the issue is resolved the Security Council is going to have a role to play in post-conflict Iraq. 'The Council will have to give me a mandate for some of the activities that we will need to undertake. This does not mean the end of the involvement of the UN in the Iraqi situation.' "
Domesticly,
This means Bush will be directing federal funds away from the NGOs that are pets of the Democrat Party. This, combined with campaign finance reform will hurt the donks in '04 when they will be pinched for funds like no time in the last 100 years. But Daschle and Pelosi get it no more than Annan. That is why they will lead their party into at least 40 well deserved years in the wilderness.
I've got no problem with laying aside pompous UN officials, or giving a good finger in the eye to overly political groups, but I worry that we're going too far -- restricting reconstruction contracts to US companies looks and smells like colonization.
Ray,
So why didn't you say it "smacks of racism" too?
Those who reward enemies are commonly called "losers". Those who advocate rewarding enemies are commonly called "clueless", and less commonly called "enemies".
Colonialism is a bad word only for our enemies.
Ray's point is valid, Tom. It would be a serious injustice if British, Spanish, Czech, Australian companies et. al. weren't also invited to be part of the rebuilding. These guys aren't enemies, and many took real risks on behalf of the USA. While rebiulding Iraq is job #1, rewarding these countries for their help is also important.
France and the U.N. can kindly go to hell - but countries that have been real friends (note: doesn't include mine - Canada) should be treated like real friends.
Having worked in the field for USAID for over 10 years, I would not be so eager to hand decision making for reconstruction over to them. Their programatic administration is peopled largely (not exclusively - but those people tend to leave ASAP) by pseudo intelects with gross delusions of power and the need to control. Beware of little people with great power.
The only problem is that the EC, UN and World Bank are palpably worse.
Joe, Ray conflated not rewarding our enemies with not rewarding our friends, and I called him on it. I am familiar with the tactic.
Given the comments of Joe, Alexander, Ray and Tom, having USAID run the show might not be a good idea. We do need to keep our friends involved -- they'll keep us honest and they'll keep us moving forward in building that "Axis of Eagles" that the 21st Century will need.
So an "Iraq Rebuilding Commission" needs to be brought together with representatives from the Eagles -- US, UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia -- along with very helpful countries such as Japan, Kuwait, Qatar, Italy, Portugal, Czech Republic, etc. Appoint a chair person who is impeccable, administratively talented and politically astute, and let them get to work. Over time, mix in Iraqis that we've vetted, and gradually turn the process over to them.
The right NGOs could be brought in, but the heavy lifting of rebuilding would be done by the Eagles. Sorry, no room for the EU, UN and World Bank.
Just a thought.
Tom, Joe:
Joe's point wasn't something I had specifically thought of; my point was rather that it's not in our interest to be overly choosy about the companies doing the reconstruction.
Our criteria should be whatever will get the job done quickly, effectively, and well for the Iraqi people. In the long run, nothing will serve America's interest better than having Iraq do well, and I worry that the fringe benefits of restricting the rebuilding to American (or even allied) companies will outweigh the gains.
Freezing out, say, Japanese, Korean (South!), Singaporan, Taiwanese, Aussie, or Indian contractors doesn't make all that much sense from that perspective (hey, in the unlikely event that the Froggies can contribute on an even playing field and the Iraqis even want them there, why not?).
If we restrict the pool too much, companies freed from significant market competition might do a shoddier or lackluster job, or engage in blatant profiteering. It'd be a mess if America were perceived to be profiteering off the people of Iraq. I've given up on "Arab" or "European" (in the NYT sense) public opinion. I worry more about the opinion of peoples who matter: the people of Iraq who see the reality on the ground, and the free peoples of the world who wish us well in this endeavor.
We have an overwhelming political stake in making sure that we, America and our allies, get the credit for freeing and building a prosperous, democratic Iraq. On the other hand, we want the rebuilding to be done well. I think it's possible to do both, and I worry that restricting the pool of contractors might undercut that last in a heavyhanded attempt at ensuring the former.
Is it unrealistic to expect that "we" will eventually dispense with the bloated, self agrandizing, pickpockets at tha U>N. The whole structure must go. The purpose of that body is simply the redistribution of {our} wealth, and the meddling in the affairs of selective nations. The main reason for their existence, if we wish to be generous in conceeding that they indeed have a legitimate purpose, is to depopulate the world. Their agenda of "contracept and sterilize" has continued for too long, with too many sheeple being duped into believing that "population control" is a noble aspiration. What the hell, pin a title on yourself, wrap yourself in the cloak of "compassion", and you"ll get away with genocide even. The UN must go and all the fat phonies with it..
Please consider this article on the subject of International NGOs.
Relief agencies refuse to work with US
By Sandra Laville in Kuwait
(Filed: 12/04/2003)
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/12/waid12.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/12/ixnewstop.html