The White House is having an uphill climb with its request for reconstruction funds for Iraq. Everyone on Capitol Hill seems pleased as punch to spend $60-odd billion on military needs related to Iraq (and Afghanistan), but is caviling at the $20b request for Iraqi reconstruction; the Senate is instead pushing to make it a loan.
Hmmmm.
On the one hand, a basic twofold argument is:
1. We could certainly use $20b in additional domestic spending. Why just give it to the Iraqis?
2. Iraq sits on gazillions of dollars in oil reserves, so isn’t likely to be short of money in the long-term.
Still, it worries me. Third World debt is a hot ticket item, and it’s ironic that many of the Administration’s foes, ordinarily lobbying to forgive debt, are now pushing to saddle an effectively newborn economy with still more debt — especially one that already owes $200b to other countries (like France and Russia). Folks who criticized the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure during sanctions and the war are now unwilling to make the US foot the bill.
(And it isn’t just Dems, by any means, though they’re the ones beating the domestic aid angle most strongly.)
And if that proposed debt is tied to oil in one fashion or another, it’ll sure make it look like “it was all about oooooiiiillllll”! Odd that the petrocratic White House would be fighting such a proposal, then, in the case (especially since their ostensible cronies in Halliburton, etc., get paid regardless, right?).
So I don’t know. I don’t want to throw money away, but I sort of feel like we owe it to the Iraqi people, for the (justifiable) wars, for the (ultimatley ineffective) sanctions, and, heck, for going along with Saddam Hussein (as pretty much everyone else did) for decades. And if the EU were willing to pony up more than just the pittance (or, hell, forgive some of the massive debt owed), it would also go a long way to helping.
Hrm. Pity if, after all the bloodshed and debate over freedom, democracy, sovereignty, diplomacy, and terror, we blew it over money.