The Iraq Reconstruction Bonanza
Editorial
The New York Times
October 1, 2003
Complaints about the $20 billion down payment that President
Bush wants for the reconstruction of Iraq are going in the wrong direction.
There's no question that the United States has an obligation
and clear interest in rebuilding the country it invaded. The cost cannot be
whittled down through political compromise or disguised as a loan.
The real problem is that without strong legislative safeguards
and oversight, billions of taxpayer dollars are sure
to be wasted through insufficiently competitive contracts
to politically connected firms like Halliburton and Bechtel.
That has largely been the pattern until now. Congress also needs
to make sure that reconstruction programs do not fritter
away their resources by relying on expensive American
workers and supervisors when qualified, reliable and currently
unemployed Iraqis could easily do the work.
These issues need to be addressed through explicit language
in the financing legislation now taking shape. Striking the right
balance is going to be tough for lawmakers facing elections in
which they will have to explain why they are paying for a new
postal system or schools in Iraq when they
are not paying for those things back home.
It is clear that the White House cannot be left to manage
the process on its own. The Bush administration's promises
of more competitive bidding and more use of Iraqi labor are
welcome, but difficult to put much faith in. It is hard to enter
the debate over postwar Iraq without tripping over a
business associate or political ally of the White House.
Vice President Dick Cheney has insisted that he severed
his financial ties to Halliburton, his former employer
and holder of an exclusive contract in Iraq. Just two weeks ago,
he said on television that he has "no financial interest" in Halliburton.
But a recent report by the Congressional Research Service
suggests that this is true only if you don't count the stock
options Mr. Cheney continues to hold and $367,690 in
deferred compensation he has reported receiving so far
while vice president - on top of the $20 million severance package
awarded in 2000.
Mr. Cheney's aides argue that he does not participate
in the awarding of contracts, that he has insurance
guaranteeing his deferred salary if things go badly
for Halliburton and that he will give his after-tax proceeds
from the sale of options to charity. But Mr. Cheney has not disclosed the
full options agreement. His aides also note that he has complied
with existing ethics rules. Unfortunately, that still leaves
the unsavory image of the vice president cashing checks
from a former employer while it profits from a huge no-bid contract.
On Tuesday, The Times reported that President Bush's
former campaign manager and other businessmen with
close ties to the White House have
formed a business designed to use their connections
to help other companies share the postwar bounty.
Senator Frank Lautenberg and other Democrats are right
to call for hearings on Halliburton's contract. But Congress
should look beyond that deal and work out fair and clear
rules for awarding future contracts with public disclosure.
Unless Congress puts an end to this kind of profiteering,
American taxpayers are almost certain to be saddled
with much higher long-term reconstruction costs. The rebuilding
of Iraq's shattered public services and vital infrastructure, already
behind schedule, will be subjected to
further dangerous delays. As the elections approach,
Mr. Bush will find himself facing even louder demands than
he's now getting from the conservative right and the liberal
left to cut the nation's financial and military losses. Bowing
to these pressures could have disastrous results. The
faster Iraq's economy and society are restored, the sooner
American troops can safely return home without leaving
behind a new breeding ground
for terrorism.
nytimes.com
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |
