Comments on: AWB Overboard

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:53:50 +0000

Tim, one of the assumptions was that founder members of the Coalition of the Willing would be at the front of the queue for reconstruction contracts. There was a lot of bitterness in the Australian press when it became apparent that Halliburton would get the lot.

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:45:05 +0000

So, err, Howard’s support of the war was to save the AWB from having to pay more kickbacks?

By: yabonn

yabonn — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:23:45 +0000

From my point of view, there’s even more to it than some hypocrisy from the war-nuts.

The Outrage about Corruption and Assorted Bad Things move worked very well recently. One can expect it will become a classic : more opportune discoveries of the corruption of unfriendly dictators, of the u.n. etc, etc.

The annoyment of the facts (there is corruption, we’re doing it too, duh) is minor : it comes much later – and no one cares – or it doesn’t even come – “for privacy reasons”, as the Duelfer report delicately puts it.

By: rdb

rdb — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:20:47 +0000

Since IOKIYR can’t apply to a monarchist like Lord Downer of Baghdad, can we hope this will be his Paddington Bear?

By: McDuff

McDuff — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 04:59:52 +0000

Which is like saying, if you support urban conurbations that will support museums and galleries, you have to accept, as part of the overhead, an elevated percentage of murders per year.

And is this not the case?

I get the objection, I just think your example picked didn’t make the case particularly well, as this is exactly the trade off (or, part of it) that we city-dwellers make to enjoy our hedonistic, artistic lifestyles.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 04:06:18 +0000

I’ve rewritten to clarify my point. Thanks for picking me up on this, Roger.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:48:11 +0000

John, okay. But the you had to accept part then seems sort of bizarre—more like, you had to anticipate.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:26:56 +0000

Roger, to clarify my point, the question is whether, because Oil-for-Food (or Iraqi reconstruction) is affected by corruption, you should reject the program (as many warbloggers have said in relation to Oil-for-Food). I didn’t say you shouldn’t get indignant; in fact I explicitly said the opposite, that those who could be caught should be prosecuted

By: roger

roger — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 02:51:24 +0000

Usually, I like reading John Quiggin. But this comment seems very silly:

“If you supported feeding Iraqi children or attempting to repair the damage caused by the war, you had to accept, as part of the overhead, the fact that those with power in Iraq would seek to skim money off the top, and that they would find willing accomplices in this task.”

Which is like saying, if you support urban conurbations that will support museums and galleries, you have to accept, as part of the overhead, an elevated percentage of murders per year.

I don’t have to accept the fact (if that means something like, not get indignant) that American contractors have skimmed millions and perhaps billions from Iraq’s construction funds. Cities should fund police departments. The U.S. Justice department should prosecute corrupt contractors. And my Epictetus like sense that fate will have its way is particularly disturbed when I read about cases like Custer Battles, in which the U.S. government actually has excellent evidence that the company skimmed money through sham corporations and decided not to prosecut because the CPA, the injured party, was not part of the U.S. Government.

John can take the long view—I’ll stick with the redneck feeling that criminal monkeys with power in D.C. should be investigated, prosecuted, and jailed to the full extent of the law.

By: fifi

fifi — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:53:26 +0000

It’ll all be worth it if we can save baby Noor.