OIL is generally believed to be the reason behind American insistence to ‘liberate’ the Iraqi people, but taking control of the oilfields is not the only concern of the US government, which is keeping the other eye on post-war reconstruction contracts. And, the cutthroat nation that they are, the Americans have never tried to hide their true intentions. They started talking of commercial contracts as soon as they had started destroying Iraq.
Come to think of it, the way the war has gone thus far, it is difficult for the world to believe the pre-war US assessment of Iraq’s military capabilities. Bluff was perhaps the only ‘weapon of mass destruction’ that the Iraqis had, and have paid a heavy price for it.
Getting back to commercial contracts, US federal spending under the reconstruction head is likely to reach into the tens of billions of dollars. Some of America’s largest industrial companies, naturally, stand to gain in astronomical proportions.
Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, writing in the Fortune, says the US government officials have been “preparing for months to use American companies to rebuild the country”. Starting at the end of January, a division of the State Department called USAID has been “actively looking for contractors to fix Iraq’s seaports and infrastructure and to help guide its banking and educational systems once the war is over”.
To be precise, he says, USAID sent out requests for proposals to rebuild eight separate parts of Iraqi life. One $7 million contract, for personnel support, was “already awarded to the International Resources Group on February 21”, which was some three weeks before the US declared war on Iraq. A second $4.8 million contract for management of the Umm Qasr port in Iraq was awarded on March 24 to Seattle-based Stevedoring Services of America.
“Six additional contracts are pending, and some of these could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Four of these requests for proposals (RFPs) deal with seaport administration, airport administration, capital construction and logistical support, and were issued on February 12. In addition, a public health RFP was issued on March 3, and another RFP for primary and secondary education and local governance was issued on March 4.”
The Bush administration is shying away from putting too precise a number on the cost of reconstruction, but it recently requested nearly $75 billion to pay for the war itself and some post-war activity. And this was only a down payment.
Bidders for the biggest construction projects include Halliburton, which Vice-President Dick Cheney once ran as CEO; the Bechtel Group, whose board includes two former Republican cabinet officers, and Fluor, which has ties to several former government officials. Other companies in the hunt, according to the New York Times, include the Parsons Corporation, the Louis Berger Group, and Washington Group International.
The international community (read European dissidents like France, Germany and Russia), have already made their discomfort known on this count. They may want non-American companies to bid as well. Writing elsewhere in Fortune, Marcuss Gee has underlined the emerging scenario with a write-up titled, Next US-Europe fight will centre on running Iraq.
“It was all smiles and handshakes when the US Secretary of State met with European colleagues in Brussels. Both sides are keen to patch over the ugly Atlantic rift that opened up over the US-led war in Iraq. European leaders have taken pains (recently) to make it clear that they hope the United States and its allies win their fight to overthrow Saddam Hussein.”
The US, Marcuss has noted, has also been reaching out to its transatlantic friends. “But, for all the friendly noises, the United States and its European partners are heading for another big fight. The issue: who runs post-war Iraq.”
After taking the risk of waging the war, “Washington is in no mood to stand politely aside once the fighting is over.” Can these two opposing positions be bridged, asks Marcuss. While those not part of the coalition are bending backwards under pressure from their own corporate sectors, “Washington seems determined to press ahead with its own plan”.
Washington Post, which has been pro-war all through, said in a recent editorial that a “secretive Pentagon-led group is already far advanced in plans to unilaterally install a post-war regime dominated by Americans and Iraqi exiles — one that would effectively exclude not only the United Nations, but also European and Middle Eastern allies whose support will be essential to stabilizing the country.”
The Post, however, differed with the government policy, arguing that such an administration would contribute to the perception that the United States is an occupying power, not a liberating power, determined to install a puppet government. “This narrow approach could compound the diplomatic damage of the war, and expose the United States and its soldiers to large and unnecessary risks.”
But such an advice is unlikely to get much of an audience in the White House in view of the economic recession that is setting in, and has to be taken care of if Bush has to have any chance of re-election. Writing in Forbes, Jeremy Gaunt says investors have already begun to look beyond the war in Iraq to the “rickety state of the US economy”. A financial analyst quoted by Jeremy says that as the war “enters its final throes, investors’ attention is swinging back to the state of the economy which remains weak”.
While the post-war sentiment is getting considerable attention in the Western press, it is the war itself that continues to occupy the centre-stage, which it should. With the inevitability well in sight, there is much speculation about what will prompt the US-led allies to officially declare an end to the military campaign.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked at a press conference at what point was he going to declare victory. After a long pause, all he could say was: “That’s a tough question.”
Marcus Gee, writing this time for the Canadian Globe and Mail, says there is no question the rule of Saddam Hussein and his regime is coming to an end, but “the difficulty is knowing when precisely that end has arrived.”
He has drawn a scenario where even if Saddam was still at large and some of his forces still fighting back, US commander Tommy Franks “might move his headquarters from Doha to a secure area of Iraq as a symbol of the coalition’s control. Jay Garner, who is to head the reconstruction effort in Iraq, “could follow and quickly set up the skeleton of an interim administration to replace Mr Hussein’s.”
Saddam’s death or capture would be the most powerful sign of victory, but, in case the coalition doesn’t get him, “Washington is making sure not to make that a condition for victory”. As for the time of proclamation, Marcuss says Washington is being “careful not to jump the gun”, as any premature declaration of victory would make the coalition look foolish.
Whenever it comes, the victory, as the US and its cronies will like us all to believe, will ‘liberate’ 23 million Iraqis. On ground, they have already ‘liberated’ thousands of Iraqi innocents ... liberated from the throes of life, now resting in eternal peace ... many many more who have been liberated from the need of having to carry their limbs, now faced with a crippled life ... and there will surely be still more who would have been liberated from the need to keep their their mental and emotional balance.
On another level, they would have liberated many an American corporation from the worries of an economy in recession.
The Barbarians built mountains of human skulls to showpiece their power; Corporate America will surely build a financial empire to show its might. The world watches on.
OIL is generally believed to be the reason behind American insistence to ‘liberate’ the Iraqi people, but taking control of the oilfields is not the only concern of the US government, which is keeping the other eye on post-war reconstruction contracts. And, the cutthroat nation that they are, the Americans have never tried to hide their true intentions. They started talking of commercial contracts as soon as they had started destroying Iraq.
