Stardate 20031210.0902

(On Screen): In a long-anticipated move, the Pentagon has now released guidelines on the bidding process for some $18 billion in contracts in Iraq. Bids will not be accepted from companies in nations whose governments opposed the war. The White House defends this policy. US deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz justifies it thusly:

It is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, Coalition partners and force contributing nations.

Which is in fact correct. If nations who offered substantial help are treated exactly the same as those who did their best to impede us, then why in future should we expect anyone to feel they need to help us?

This policy is correct, and is something I advocated last March.

Some will claim that all of this is motivated by spite. It is not. It is, rather, motivated by the fact that if we do not retaliate against the French after their recent performance, other nations will be encouraged to act in the same way towards us. It is clear to the world that American friendship is valuable; it must be equally clear that American enmity is expensive. That way we encourage other nations to cooperate with us.

And there are also likely to be tangible short-term benefits from doing so, as the Wolfowitz memo points out:

Every effort must be made to expand international cooperation in Iraq. ... Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts.

Coalition partners share in the US vision of a free and stable Iraq. The limitation of sources to prime contractors from those countries should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members.

The Canadian government is pissed, and pointed out that Canada pledged $180 million for rebuilding at the recent donor's conference, and might withhold it. Says deputy PM Manley:

If these comments are accurate ... it would be difficult for us to give further money for the reconstruction of Iraq. To exclude Canadians just because they are Canadians would be unacceptable if they accept funds from Canadian taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Myself, I'd prefer that Canada withhold their Islamic militants, but one has to admit that Manley has a point. It would be politically difficult for the government of Canada to explain to Canadian voters why they were giving money when their own companies were excluded.

The French and Germans are pissed, too.

Government spokesman Bela Anda said the decision went against "a spirit of looking to the future together and not to the past" after the deep trans-Atlantic rift over the Iraq war.

Said "spirit of looking to the future together" being Schröder's way of saying, "Hey, Georgie-baby, never mind all the nasty things we've been saying about you and our bitter opposition to the war. We Germans forgive you, so let's let bygones be bygones, OK?" Said "spirit etc" also being something the Bush administration has been treating like the advances of a used car salesman.

I'm reminded of a jibe made once in Congress by Barney Franks in response to a speech being made by an aggrieved Republican complaining about how they were being treated by the Democrats, who at the time were the majority. Franks interrupted the speech with a parliamentary point of order asking if it would be acceptable to use the term "crybaby" in a speech before the House.( After the chuckles died down, the ruling was that it would not be acceptable.)

French reaction has been muted so far, but a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry said it was studying whether the US policy violated international law. (And have now gotten the EU involved in that.)

They can't make the threat the Canadians are making, since France and Germany pledged nothing. All they've been offering is sage advice and incessant criticism. You don't suppose they might threaten to stop doing that, do you?

We should be so lucky.

Update: Meanwhile, Europe's chattering classes are up in arms.

Update: More here. (The Democrat