Canada Has No Call on Iraq Contracts

The Globe and Mail ^ | December 12, 2003 | Marcus Gee

[quidnunc]

Let me try to understand this: Canada sat on the sidelines as its greatest friend went to war against a vicious tyranny in Iraq, and now it's offended that Canadian companies might not get to take part in Iraq's reconstruction?

Come on, Canada. It is the Americans and their allies who are fighting and dying in Iraq. It is the United States that is putting up most of the tens of billions of dollars needed to rebuild the place. Is it so outrageous for Washington to say that only companies from the United States and allied countries will get the right to bid on reconstruction contacts?

For countries such as Italy and Spain, each of which has been plunged into national mourning recently over the killing of their nationals in postwar Iraq, it is a very small reward for the enormous sacrifice they are making. To suggest that Canada should get equal status with countries whose soldiers are coming home in body bags is chutzpah on a grand scale.

Yet that is exactly what Paul Martin is saying. On Wednesday, he found it "difficult to fathom" why Washington would restrict bidding on $18-billion (U.S.) in reconstruction contracts to the 63 nations that supported the war in Iraq. Mr. Martin says Canada deserves an equal shot at the contracts because it is sending aid to Iraq and troops to Afghanistan to join the war on terrorism.

Well, let's be clear. Ottawa sent troops to Afghanistan at least in part so it wouldn't have to send troops to Iraq. With our soldiers tied up in the Afghan mission, Ottawa can say to Washington: Hey, we'd love to come help you in Iraq, but we have a previous engagement. Very convenient.

And why does sending 2,000 soldiers to Afghanistan for 12 months exhaust the strength of our military? Because we have been free-riding on the United States. It is only because our friends next door have the world's biggest and most expensive military that we can get by with a toy army. Americans subsidize not just our defence, but the social programs we are so proud of, which would not be nearly so generous if we had to pay for full-fledged armed forces.

As for our non-military aid to Iraq, Canada has spent $225-million so far — a tidy sum, but a raindrop in the sand compared with the more than $80-billion that Washington plans to spend just for starters.

-snip-

[fiscally_right]

I think its right what Washington is doing, they just need to be more tactful about it. If I were a Canadian, I wouldn't be offended that Canada couldn't take part in contracts, I'd be offended that the Wolfowitz called by country a "national security risk."

[fiscally_right]

by=my

[Destructor]

"Let me try to understand this: Canada sat on the sidelines as its greatest friend went to war against a vicious tyranny in Iraq, and now it's offended that Canadian companies might not get to take part in Iraq's reconstruction?"

Aw, go put some vinegar on your fries, and shut up!

[MegaSilver]

You have a point. But I don't think Wolfowitz called Canada/France/et. al. "national security risks"; I believe he merely said that allowing nations who had not helped us out with troops in Iraq would be exposing ourselves to national security risks. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I have heard that if the nations do NOT forgive Iraqi debt that was run up under Saddam, they will not receive the contracts.

If they erase the debt, they will be welcome to the contracts.

Anyone else hear about this?

[vanmorrison]

Both you and FiscallyRight are dead wrong! Canada is, indeed, a GREAT "security risk". Wolfowitz' remarks were DEAD NUTS ON!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Somebody gets it.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Istead of seeking genuine reconciliation with the US and lending support, Canada bombarded us with lobbyists interested in separating us from our money while their politicians call the president a Nazi and Americans ignorant.

Screw the Canadian government. We are not their bit**.

[fiscally_right]

But Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia and Turkey are not security risks because they're in the Coalition of the Willing?

[Shermy]

It's a bargaining point.

REad these stories together with the ones about Baker making the tour to get Iraqi debt relief.

France, Germany, etc. have got an ace up their sleeve...they can go after the billions of Iraqi funds tied up in Euro banks via the UN Food for Oil program.

[Orblivion]

But Canada DID help out in Afganistan a LOT. Not to mention they suffered severe casualties due to a friendly fire incident caused by an American Pilot. Granted canada is a socialist loser country. They did sacrifice some and should be included to some degree. France and Germany, they can piss off. We destroyed their defense industry when we removed Saddam from power and now they are just pissed.

[azhenfud]

Better yet, coalition forces shouldn't be placed in a position of having to protect civilian contractors who come from countries that have no means nor costs of providing a means of protecting them while they make money during the rebuild.

[vanmorrison]

What kind of straw man argument are you trying to lay on me to muddy the waters illogically? I was specifically addressing the fact that the Canucks are a security risk. It is also true that Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are security risks, as well. But two wrongs don't make a right, as they say. And trying to obfuscate the issue with the Canucks by throwing in these others is perpetrating a logical fallacy.

[SJackson]

You’re right that security was the deciding factor.

Uzbekistan and Turkey were coalition members, however Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Quatar, and the UAE were all NON coalition members added to the list. Maybe the Saudis and Egyptians can help run the schools.

Determination and Findings

Coalition members

[philosofy123]

I believe he merely said that allowing nations who had not helped us out with troops in Iraq would be exposing ourselves to national security risks

If Canada, France, and Germany are not a security risk in fighting along side our troupes in Afghanistan, what logic do you or Wolfowitz have that they would be a threat to security. The threat to security is the Moslem fanatics who are blowing up the oil pipelines, and the power lines. Do you suppose if a Canadian firm sent a bunch of engineers to do some work in Baghdad, they will go out and blow things up? Do you remember the American soldier that tossed a grenade at his colleagues’ tent in Afghanistan? That was a Moslem American soldier. We need to be honest with our selves as far who our friend is, and who our enemy is. I know for damn sure that our (all the West) common enemy is fanatical Islam. If we are to get FULL cooperation from our allies, we need to start to learn not insult them.

[MegaSilver]

Both you and FiscallyRight are dead wrong! Canada is, indeed, a GREAT "security risk". Wolfowitz' remarks were DEAD NUTS ON!

Read my post again. I wasn't criticizing Wolfowitz, nor was I denying that Canada's policies make it anything short of an open floodgate in the river of illegal North American immigrants.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Hiya!

[NeoCaveman]

But the media does seem to enjoy creating panic.

Canadians have no balls!