Hmmmm. I wasn’t quite clear that the Wolfowitz Directive limiting contracts to companies from coalition countries had such a prospective, rather than simply retrospective, aim.
I went and looked at the actual document this evening (or, I guess, actually this morning) and I keyed in on this passage. I start from the section that’s been widely quoted. But look at what comes after (italics added)…
4. 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. Thus, it is clearly in the public interest to limit prime contracts to companies from these countries.
5. Every effort must be made to expand international cooperation in Iraq. Since May 2003, Coalition forces other than those from the United States have increased from 14,000 to 23,700. U.S. force levels, accordingly, have decreased by approximately 12,000. Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts.
6. Coalition partners share in the US vision of a free and stable Iraq. The limitation of sources for prime contractors from those countries should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members.
This raises a number of <$Ad$>questions in my mind. One is how much the reasoning represented here is the actual reasoning behind the directive and how much this is simply a bureaucratic fiction designed to satisfy some regulatory requirement in order to get a desired policy put through.
What I mean is this: Is this actually what they’re thinking? What they’re trying to accomplish? Or did the relevant regulations make them have to say this in order to get to the desired end of barring bids from French and German companies?
That question aside, what it sounds like is that we’re trying to use the contract bonanza to leverage more foreign troops into Iraq for next year. You Dutch guys want contracts? You Kuwaitis? You know the price …
The line about “future efforts” rather begs the question of whether there are going to be any “future efforts.”
Frankly, this raises more questions for me than it answers. But I think this plays into the issues we’ve been discussing about Baker’s mission and the question of Iraq’s debt.
