Another Krugman article.
******
A Deliberate Debacle
December 12, 2003
By PAUL KRUGMAN
James Baker sets off to negotiate Iraqi debt forgiveness
with our estranged allies. And at that very moment the
deputy secretary of defense releases a "Determination and
Findings" on reconstruction contracts that not only
excludes those allies from bidding, but does so with highly
offensive language. What's going on?
Maybe I'm giving Paul Wolfowitz too much credit, but I
don't think this was mere incompetence. I think the
administration's hard-liners are deliberately sabotaging
reconciliation.
Surely this wasn't just about reserving contracts for
administration cronies. Yes, Halliburton is profiteering in
Iraq - will apologists finally concede the point, now that
a Pentagon audit finds overcharging? And reports suggest a
scandal in Bechtel's vaunted school-repair program.
But I've always found claims that profiteering was the
motive for the Iraq war - as opposed to a fringe benefit -
as implausible as claims that the war was about fighting
terrorism. There are deeper motives here.
Mr. Wolfowitz's official rationale for the contract policy
is astonishingly cynical: "Limiting competition for prime
contracts will encourage the expansion of international
cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts" - future
efforts? - and "should encourage the continued cooperation
of coalition members." Translation: we can bribe other
nations to send troops.
But I doubt whether even Mr. Wolfowitz believes that. The
last year, from the failure to get U.N. approval for the
war to the retreat over the steel tariff, has been one long
lesson in the limits of U.S. economic leverage. Mr.
Wolfowitz knows as well as the rest of us that allies who
could really provide useful help won't be swayed by a few
lucrative contracts.
If the contracts don't provide useful leverage, however,
why torpedo a potential reconciliation between America and
its allies? Perhaps because Mr. Wolfowitz's faction doesn't
want such a reconciliation.
These are tough times for the architects of the "Bush
doctrine" of unilateralism and preventive war. Dick Cheney,
Donald Rumsfeld and their fellow Project for a New American
Century alumni viewed Iraq as a pilot project, one that
would validate their views and clear the way for further
regime changes. (Hence Mr. Wolfowitz's line about "future
efforts.")
Instead, the venture has turned sour - and many insiders
see Mr. Baker's mission as part of an effort by veterans of
the first Bush administration to extricate George W. Bush
from the hard-liners' clutches. If the mission collapses
amid acrimony over contracts, that's a good thing from the
hard-liners' point of view.
Bear in mind that there is plenty of evidence of policy
freebooting by administration hawks, such as the
clandestine meetings last summer between Pentagon officials
working for Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for
policy and planning - and a key player in the
misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat - and Iranians of
dubious repute. Remember also that blowups by the
hard-liners, just when the conciliators seem to be getting
somewhere, have been a pattern.
There was a striking example in August. It seemed that
Colin Powell had finally convinced President Bush that if
we aren't planning a war with North Korea, it makes sense
to negotiate. But then John Bolton, the under secretary of
state for arms control, whose role is more accurately
described as "the neocons' man at State," gave a speech
about Kim Jong Il, declaring: "To give in to his
extortionist demands would only encourage him and, perhaps
more ominously, other would-be tyrants."
In short, this week's diplomatic debacle probably reflects
an internal power struggle, with hawks using the contracts
issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups from
regaining control of U.S. foreign policy. And initial
indications are that the ploy is working - that the hawks
have, once again, managed to tap into Mr. Bush's fondness
for moralistic, good-versus-evil formulations. "It's very
simple," Mr. Bush said yesterday. "Our people risk their
lives. . . . Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. . .
. The contracting is going to reflect that."
In the end the Bush doctrine - based on delusions of
grandeur about America's ability to dominate the world
through force - will collapse. What we've just learned is
how hard and dirty the doctrine's proponents will fight
against the inevitable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/opinion/12KRUG.html?ex=1072238422&ei=1&en=aab3b4c8400520c6
