James Baker's Mission
As of yesterday, I thought I was getting somewhere in figuring out the new mission of James Baker--former holder of various Cabinet positions, including Secretary of State, and long-time loyal retainer to both Reagan and the Bush family.
Baker is travelling to various countries to which Iraqi debts from Saddam's regime are owing. His mission is supposedly to "restructure" the debt--i.e. persuade creditors to settle for a certain number of cents on the dollar, thus lightening the load for the new Iraq. Just as this mission was getting underway, the Pentagon (specifically Paul Wolfowitz?) issued a statement that only countries participating in the coalition can profit (update: in a big way; sub-contracts may be available) from the reconstruction--that is, only companies headquartered in those countries can bid on the major contracts.
Josh Marshall hinted early on that there was some connection between the two, apparently contradictory initiatives (Baker asking France, Germany and Russia for favours; Wolfowitz reminding them of a decision they won't like from months ago). Then Marshall suggested that this must be a sign of confusion in the Bush administration. "President Bush found himself in the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France, Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq's debts, just a day after the Pentagon excluded those countries and others from $18 billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects."
I started to think, as Jonah Goldberg has suggested, that both carrot and stick are being applied. The Europeans in question can benefit from the profits of reconstruction, or continue to press for re-payment of old debt, but not both. If they hold out on the debt front, they will get nothing (update: in the short term).
Marshall scotches this idea, saying there is no comparison in the amounts of money involved. France and Germany would only get a billion or so each from reconstruction, at most; they are owed billions each. Also, if they would also have to send in troops to get in on the action, this would invite a considerable backlash from their voters.
Now Fred Kaplan seems to tell a fairly coherent story in Slate. (Some of the elements have also appeared on Marshall's blog). Baker has consistently spoken for the "multi-lateralists," including Bush Senior, who did not think it was wise for the U.S. to invade Iraq with so few allies. There were stories that Baker was going to be given a lead role in July, but that didn't pan out. Presumably the hard-liners or neo-cons won that one. Now the "multis" have won a big battle. What has turned the tide, according to Shafer, is that domestic politics are now the top priority. Iraq must look a lot better than it does now, from the President's perspective, by next August: fewer U.S. troops; those that are there less exposed to danger; more non-U.S., especially European troops; and (ideally) a more peaceful situation overall. Democracy in one country? In the entire region? Far less important than they once seemed.
Baker, on this view, is negotiating the very high price that will be paid, in cash and who knows what, to get erstwhile allies to go along and make Bush 43 look good. The Rumsfeld/Cheney crowd, seeing their defeat coming, launched one last stink bomb, saying (actually repeating) that anybody who didn't fight the good fight was out of luck.
Food for thought, anyway.
|
