Two PNAC'ers disagree w/ Bush's Iraq contract policy...

[phillybri]

I found this over at Liberal Oasis:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/481yjxxw.asp

Contracts for Iraq: Reverse the Pentagon's Decision
by William Kristol and Robert Kagan

<snip>

A truly wise American administration would have opened the bidding to all comers, regardless of their opposition to the war -- as a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort, building a little goodwill for the future, and demonstrating to the world a little magnanimity.

<snip>

Welcome to the bizarro world!!! :crazy::crazy::crazy:

[chiburb]

1. Bizarro is right...

Krugman (today) says the whole contracts thing is a battle between the PNACers and the grownups:
Snip:
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

Maybe Kristol didn't get the memo?

[phillybri]

2. Kick

:kick:

[KoKo]

3. Check out this quote from the article! Shows you what we Dems are up

against with the sliming PNAC'ers. ON EDIT: I assume Choice #1 "Deviously Smart" would have been the choice of preference.

"A deviously smart American administration would have quietly distributed contracts for rebuilding Iraq as it saw fit, without any announced policy of discrimination. At the end of the day, it would be clear that opponents of American policy didn't fare too well in the bidding process. Message delivered, but with a certain subtlety.

A more clever American administration would have thrown a contract or two to a couple of those opponents, to a German firm, for instance, as a way of wooing at least the business sectors in
a country where many businessmen do want to strengthen ties with the United States.

A truly wise American administration would have opened the bidding to all comers, regardless of their opposition to the war -- as a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort, building a little goodwill for the future, and demonstrating to the world a little magnanimity. "

[AG78]

4. Sigh

As a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort? I hates bribes. I hate that that's the way the world works. If any of those countries take the bribe at any point, I don't know, I guess you lose hope.

PNAC is going to run this planet into the ground...not that there will be any ground left. I despise every single one of those people. There's not a word in any language harsh enough to describe it. Just like there's no word to describe the Nazis or Stalin, or any other group of people that only care about their own short term wants, and will do whatever it takes to get it.

I'm just so tired of them.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. This requires some analysis

Unfortunately, I am a novice at this political stuff.

My way of making sense of this is:

PNAC-er's - especially these two intellectual ones - are IDEOLOGUES. They like the idea of remaking the middle east into "democratic" (and perhaps secular, at least "friendly") states. Never mind the unlikelyhood of that! Their mechanism is conversion to democracy of the states one at a time, in a reverse domino effect (Iraq, Syria, Iran, yadda yadda). I suppose the first few will require force, then the rest will just fall in line when they see how great the others are doing. The US National Security Policy, WMD inuendeo, etc, have been put in place to support this grand plan by applying the completion-backwards principle. These PNAC idea guys are committed in their gut and have expended serious political capital to get this ball rolling. They were after Clinton to bust Iraq. They have been pushing this for almost a decade (ok, im not sure). Anyway, they DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS FAIL, or else they will have egg on their smug faces. They have reasoned that the way things look now, we need as much help as we can get, and maybe NOT pissing off our allies is the way to get it. They are smart and they have their eyes on the big prize, rather than on interim political and financial gains.

Meanwhile, the other side now has considerable POLITICAL and FINANCIAL interest in how the Iraq Adventure works out, not necessarily that it does. There are elements who do not want to lose control of the situation in Iraq to allies, a true coalition or the UN. Furthermore, Iraq has turned out to be a real boondoggle benefitting specific US corporate interests. And when profit motive shows up, you can be sure that other, perhaps better, intentions will be sidelined. So profit & politics are potentially interfereing with accomplishing the real goal we went in there for (as far as public PNAC documents are concerned).

For that matter, who knows exactly when the administration shifted from the PNAC doctrine to the war-on-terra-photo-op/empty-the-treasury-into-halliburtons-coffers doctrine. Maybe there's a clue in Cheney's energy papers.