Posted on 23-4-2003
War,
What Its Good For
By Bob Herbert, New York Times, Monday 21
April 2003
Somewhere George Shultz is smiling.
Mr. Shultz, whose photo could appropriately appear next to any
definition of the military-industrial complex, was secretary
of state under Ronald Reagan and has been a perennial heavyweight
with the powerful Bechtel Group of San Francisco, where he previously
reigned as president and is now a board member and senior counselor.
Unlike the antiwar soul singer Edwin Starr who, in an ironic
bit of timing, went to his eternal reward early this month just
as American ground forces were sweeping toward Baghdad Mr. Shultz
knows what war is good for.
And he wanted this war with Iraq. Oh, how he wanted this war.
Mr. Shultz was chairman of the fiercely prowar Committee for
the Liberation of Iraq, which was committed to moving beyond
the mere political liberation of the oil-rich country to the
all-important and conveniently profitable "reconstruction
of its economy."
Under the headline "Act Now; The Danger Is Immediate,"
Mr. Shultz, in an op-ed article in The Washington Post last
September, wrote: "A strong foundation exists for immediate
military action against Hussein and for a multilateral effort
to rebuild Iraq after he is gone."
Gee, I wonder which company he thought might lead that effort.
Last week Mr. Shultz's Bechtel Group was able to demonstrate
exactly what wars are good for. The Bush administration gave
it the first big Iraqi reconstruction contract, a prized $680
million deal over 18 months that puts Bechtel in the driver's
seat for the long-term reconstruction of the country, which
could cost $100 billion or more.
Bechtel essentially was given a license to make money. And that
license was granted in a closed-door process that was restricted
to a handful of politically connected American companies.
When the George Bushes and the George Shultzes were banging
the drums for war with Iraq, we didn't hear one word from them
about the benefits that would be accruing to corporate behemoths
like Bechtel. And we didn't pay much attention to the grotesque
conflict of interest engaged in by corporate titans and their
government cronies who were pushing young American men and women
into the flames of a war that ultimately would pour billions
of dollars into a very select group of corporate coffers.
Now the corporations (not just Bechtel by any means) have a
lock on Iraq, and U.S. taxpayers are obliged to pay the bill.
Among those in Congress who are beginning to challenge this
loathsome process is Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who
is one of the lead sponsors of a bipartisan bill that would
require a public explanation of any decision to award Iraqi
reconstruction contracts without a "fully open, competitive
bidding process."
In an interview, he said, "You look at this process, which
is secret, limited or closed bidding, and you have to ask yourself:
`Why are these companies being picked? How's this process taking
place, and is this the best use of scarce taxpayer money at
a time when seniors can't afford medicine, kids are having trouble
getting access to a quality education and local communities
are just getting pounded? The administration has been keeping
the taxpayers in the dark with respect to how this money is
being used, and that information ought to be shared."
The blatant war-mongering followed immediately by profiteering
inevitably raise questions about the real reasons American men
and women have been fighting and dying in Iraq. President Bush
told us the war was about weapons of mass destruction and the
need to get rid of the degenerate Saddam. There was also talk
about democracy taking root in Iraq and spreading like spring
flowers throughout the Arab world.
The two things that were never openly discussed, that never
became part of the national conversation, were oil and money.
Those crucial topics were left to the major behind-the-scenes
operators, many of whom are now cashing in.
The favoritism, the secretive method by which the contracts
are being awarded and the arrogant and unconscionable exclusion
of the United Nations and even close U.S. allies from significant
roles in the administration and reconstruction of Iraq all contribute
to the most cynical interpretation of American motives.
|