I don't want to overly belabor a minor semantical point, but I think Mr. Lutas is incorrect in asserting that the development contracts we're handing out in Iraq aren't spoils of war (as I claimed here). He says:
The war was only incidental to the contracts from a political point of view (as opposed to national security). ...But take a look at the definition of "spoils" on Dictionary.com and you'll see that definition 1b is "Incidental benefits reaped by a winner...". That's basically what I said, and that's what TML said as well.A spoil of war must, of necessity, be coming out of the hide of the defeated power. If the money is coming out of the pockets of taxpayers in the winning countries or interested neutrals, it might be pork, it might be a political payoff, but it is not a spoil. The term spoil implies that a party is despoiled (dictionary.com defines this as "To deprive for spoil; to plunder; to rob; to pillage; to strip; to divest"). This is a linguistic necessity. But who has been despoiled? Where did the money come from? To speak of spoils of war in Iraq implies that the US is robbing Iraq. That is not true and requires too much explanation to be of any practical benefit other than misleading propaganda.
Anyway, I don't want to get caught up on a turn of phrase. I don't see anything negative about calling the contracts "spoils"; I think it's just being honest. We're reaping some economic benefit from the war, and we're deciding who we're going to share with -- the Iraqis are getting more benefit than anyone else.
The real question is whether or not the Bush approach to this issue is in the long term best interests of the U.S., Iraq, and the world. Are we really well served by Bush's flip response of "call my lawyer," for instance? Is all this inflammatory rhetoric needed? After all, Bush could have told them through diplomatic channels that they weren't getting contracts unless they cooperated more. Is this part of the Bush approach really any way to make the world safer?
I think we've already made it clear to the French, Germans, Canadians and Russians that we don't consider them to be our friends, but is it also necessary to tell them we no longer consider them allies, either?
Is the goal rebuilding Iraq or punishing those who disagreed with us?
We did tell everyone that if they didn't help, they wouldn't get to be involved later. This isn't a new policy.
The French, Germans, et al, have already decided not to be our allies. The decision was up to us. We wanted their help, and asked them for it. They turned us down.
It's important that other countries realize that it's to their benefit to side with us, and to their detriment to oppose us. There have to be consequences.
I'm not asking whether or not these countries deserve contracts. I'm questioning whether denying the contracts really serves our purposes.
Regardless of what Bush says now, I expect that he will end up backpedaling on this issue.
It would also seem that by this we put Tony Blair in a difficult position. It is one thing for us to tell Canada, France, Germany and
Russia to go to hell, but Great Britain doesn't benefit by being further isolated from them.
The problem is twofold with the spoils construction. First, it's a propaganda gimme to the venture's enemies, not evenhanded at all as it provides a nice platform of attack for them later.
The second reason is that to characterize the contracts as spoils implies that those 'incidental benefits' come from somebody other than us. Ooh, look, we moved US money from taxpayers to rebuilding contractors and the Iraqi's benefitted. Who's despoiling who and who is 'us' precisely.
By defining the US, 'us' as those contractors who receive money and not the taxpayers who pay money when the latter group is much larger than the former is falling into a "what's good for General Motors is good for america" moment (and yes, I know, the quote is an urban legend but it's psychologically valid and a useful construct so I'm using it). It falsely furthers the idea that the US, as government policy, pursues corporatism, not free market economics and that's the main reason I'm harping on the whole thing.
Try to restate it without pronouns but labelling all the players in the scenario and the problem becomes much more evident.
Joel: I doubt President Bush will backpedal, but you may be right (I haven't even read the news yet today, heh). Also, the UK is most assuredly allowed to bid on contracts. My understanding is that our restrictions only apply to American money that's being spent.
TML: I see your point that it's American government money going into these contracts. I thought some of the money was coming from Iraq itself (from oil and such). Isn't that the case?
I'm 16 and just starting to get into politic's and stuff like that so i was wondering what country's are supposilbly our allies?
Bill: Supposedly, or in actuality?
In actuality, (in no particular order) I'd say the UK, Australia, Poland, Japan, argh, it's too early in the morning.
There are lots more who like to call themselves our allies, but who actually oppose nearly everything we do.