You see we can't let Haliburton profit from no bid contracts.

Bids have been let. The process requires about one and one half to two and one half years to get going. The only way to rush it is no bid contracts.

So what is it that people want? Process or results? Results without process might cost more and certain people might profit.

If Bush's government spent the money without bidding it was gouging the American people. If it lets bidding slow down the rebuilding it is cheating the Iraqis.

No matter what happens the left gets to complain.

Way cool.

thoroughly discredited reporter, not a credible source.

CWB, got contrary facts? or just ad hominem attacks.

It's possible that CWB is referring to this article - but it would be nice to get more detail re: what he means.

Beyond that, I think M. Simon has probably hit the nail on the head here. If the Iraqi oil account monies could be designated quickly, without the associated red tape, then the whole picture snaps into focus really quickly and the reasons all make sense.

First, regardless of how much of the US taxpayers' money set aside for Iraqi reconstruction has been spent yet, the US has undeniably spent a huge sum doing what nobody else was capable of doing - getting rid of the Saddam regime. If the US was primarily interested in saving money, Saddam would still be killing 5000 people a month.

Secondly, I don't see the problem with spending Iraqi money as long as it is spent on projects that (a) benefitted the Iraqi people and (b) needed to be done sooner rather than later. If the money has been well spent, Iraq is further along on the road to recovery at the time they regain sovereignity than they otherwise would have been. That is, they're civically and in practical considerations stronger than they would otherwise have been, so better able to withstand any early-days attacks from terrorists. The money was spent but something was obtained in exchange.

Thirdly, it is more appropriate to spend Iraqi money on reconstruction than to spend US money. US money if necessary but not necessarily US money. Spending only US money makes the Iraqis dependent upon the Father in Washington. Does anybody want that? There is psychological value in the Iraqis being able to say to "we paid for this ourselves" and that value should not be dismissed. It has often been pointed out that Iraq was not utterly defeated as were Germany and Japan in WWII. So the vector to renewed civil society does not go through total dependence on the conquering power and total rejection of recent national history. In that light, spending Iraqi money on Iraqi reconstruction seems to me to be a fitting strategy.

I have no trouble at all with spending Iraqi money on Iraq's recovery; indeed, I think Patrick is correct that it is a fitting strategy. However, what I'm concerned about in this case is not the question of which money was spent, but the public relations issue. We allocated $18.4 billion for Iraq's reconstruction. If we couldn't spend it as quickly as the Iraqi money because of contracting restraints, the Bush administration should have been pounding the pavement telling every reporter who would listen that they're looking to help Iraq with the money, but much of it is tied up in the bidding process because of the requirements for use (which was probably true; I'm well-acquainted with the pain associated with government contracting). A little preemption of stories like this would go a long ways towards eliminating the press' ability to use them to undermine the mission.

Bottom line: I didn't call attention to this because I think it's a huge screw-up not to have spent the money, but because the way the PR was handled allows it to be perceived as a huge screw-up. Public relations is an important part of this war, and every time the Bush administration drops the ball on something like this it hurts the war effort. Winning the war will be difficult enough without helping the enemy along by shooting ourselves in the foot.

Yes, Joe, I read that article. If I used the same reasoning, I would have to say that Instapundit is thoroughly discredited, too. But--call me idealistic--I find facts more interesting than gossip about their purveyors.

Andrew,

I think I have proved that no matter how the PR was handled the operation could be viewed as a failure for those so inclined.

Simon,

You're correct that, for some people, every U.S. operation will be a failure by definition. But we can at least avoid giving them ammunition with which to convince the people who could go either way. When people make dumb arguments, most people see through them. Something like this gives them a weapon that can actually be effective in swaying minds, rather than just preaching to the choir. That seems a bad thing to me.

As to what could go wrong, once the money starts getting spent, there's some clues on the Federal Times Procurement page. One is possible nonpayment of subcontractors for meals to our troops covering the Iraq reconstruction to the tune of $87M. I gather that Halliburton subsidiary KBR will be a major player in postwar construction, at least when the Agency for International Development takes up the reconstruction.

Is the GAO the one for proper oversight on this? Once the money is released there's the whole question of whether it does some good. The whole point of this war, at least as expressed by the Administration, was a democratic and viable Iraq.

Wasn't it?

Not true that this is a failure -- yet -- or that it has to be. The US can point to successful postwar re-builds in the past, the Marshall Plan among others. It can be a success this time as well but it will need some good audits. If private contracts don't do the job, who else? NGOs? I would hope we can do better than that.

We've turned sovreignity over to the interim gov't, and we've still got 98% of the cash in our checking account? I'd have to call that a HUGE success. Frankly, I never understood why the United States should have had to pay for squat. Not only reconstruction costs, but I firmly believe the Iraqis should be given the bill for our military effort, including a nice life insurance payout for the 800.
We're the only nation to have done the work to make this kind of preemptive liberation possible. Those nations who can pay for it, should pay for it. I'm willing to give resonable interest rates and 30 year ammortization. Those nations, like the Sudan, who couldn't pay for it in a million years can have preemptive liberation at a substantial discount.
And no I am not kidding. There is no moral reason why Americans should have to take all the risks and pay all the bills.

Thanks for the clarification, Andrew. But I still say if freeing Iraq from Saddam and returning its sovereignity voluntarily don't get the public relations message out, nothing will.

Worrying about the slow rate of spending reconstruction funds is like worrying that the heart attack victim brought back from the dead by a brilliant surgical team will be a public relations disaster because they left hospital with an unbandaged hangnail.

Will some people be swayed away from sympathy for America by the facts about reconstruction spending? I doubt it. Those who are so swayed were probably lost to us anyway. It's just too small a thing, in the context of the enormous changes over the past year, to have much effect.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the freedom, stupid." (Which remark is emphatically not aimed at Andrew, but at the people who will use the reconstruction spending story to slag America in the way he predicts.)

"Frankly, I never understood why the United States should have had to pay for squat. Not only reconstruction costs, but I firmly believe the Iraqis should be given the bill for our military effort, including a nice life insurance payout for the 800."

Yes, that certainly would go far in helping align Iraq with the U.S. Very productive notion.

Andrew, it's been previously pointed out in many news stories, and by innumerable Iraqis, that a widespread, and seemingly valid, Iraqi belief is that much (not all, much) of the money would be better spent by contracting with Iraqis who could do the required work at least ten times more cheaply, rather than "by the book," and this would also go far towards fighting Iraqi unemployment, which is, of course, one of the key sources of unhappiness there. When they see us, in their view, spending vastly more than necessary to, in their view, enrich Americans, to do the job, in their view, ten times slower than needs be done, it is merely another source of vast resentment, and another item to go into the Americans Did This To Screw Us Conspiracy Theory.

There are doubtless valid reasons in many cases for contracting with Americans; but, as you imply, how things are seen by Iraqis is an aspect whose importance simply can't be underestimated. It's not a "small thing" at all. It's what's in their face, along with the insufficient electricity, etc.

Indeed, hiring Iraqis by subcontractors, or when possible, having Iraqi firms as subcontractors, might go a long ways toward making Iraq viable, and is a hell of a lot more effective than charitable handouts would be.

Further, if the Iraqis are a viable economy again it is quite possible that they can provide a market for US goods & services. Not just pump crude.

Advantage of the money going through US hands is that we can -- if we have good oversight -- keep control of it. If other gov'ts start underwriting the relief what's to stop them from putting stipulations on it, or, worse yet, insisting that it go through NGOs or someone like UNESCO?

There is a precedent for sticking the bill on the loser. That was the Versailles Treaty. Not a good idea.

Bremer was on Fox News Sunday:
"Bremer acknowledged there were slowdowns in spending for Iraq reconstruction, blaming government bureaucracy and delays built into contracting law. But he said $10 billion of the $18.4 billion approved by Congress last year was committed to specific projects, even though the Bush administration has acknowledged only 2 percent of the money has been spent.

"We ... ran into problems with the Washington bureaucracy getting that moved forward and I certainly was among the most critical of that process," Bremer said."

I can tell you that there is a difference in Federal accounting between "spent" and "obligated"; basically, spent means the checks have been cut while obligated means that contracts are out for RFP to find out who can meet the requirement/ bid / getting the paperwork right.

Anyone got a link to the RFP page for these projects?

The report fails to account for the money spent on infrastructure from another reliable source: The Iraqis.

If memory serves, the UN and Senate have complained (no surprise) that Saddam oil money reserves have been unaccounted for by Bremer. I recall reading how billions of Iraqi money have been used to fund infrastructure reconstruction.

"I recall reading how billions of Iraqi money have been used to fund infrastructure reconstruction."

Do you also recall specifically what these "billions" have been spent on? A "billion" dollars is an awful lot of money in a poor and war-ravaged country like Iraq. "Billions" is way more. Somehow, I doubt this money was spent productively, or there would be significant consequences. Got a cite?

What are the projects?

Big projects can move quickly once they are planned and pre-start action is done. The big spending often happens in year 2 or 3, not from the start.

Given the ongoing sabotage and theft of power lines, the sabotage of pipelines and all kinds of security issues it would be more amazing if it HAD been spent.

Let me fly a kite: the Iraqui money may have been spent on straight material purchases and labour for small projects and easily-delivered stuff direct to people. Infrastructure takes longer, and is harder.

We hear so much about the Arab's sense of humiliation, and about how it is expressed is weird conspiracy theories and murderous rage. Well, why are they so humiliated?
Because they haven't done anything of worth.
Even their liberty was bought, fought, and paid for by the Americans.
Now, if the situation were reversed, how would you feel about that? Would you want that debt on your hands? Or more exactly, would you want to carry that debt forever, unable to pay it off?
Why is the idea of turning the Iraqis from welfare recipients to partners such a bad idea? Why dismiss it out of hand? And why should the American taxpayers pay for Iraqi liberty?
It's not a rhetorical question.

Bush and Bremer DID fail, so far, on spending. Why is there a Spirit of America drive for better PR and sewing machines? Because Bremer failed.

I'm really, really sorry that, in OCT or so of last year, Bremer vetoed allowing local Iraq city councils to have budget making responsibility and spending authority.

They should have been making many, many decisions on what to be fixed, first, and how -- and local leaders should be getting credit, and criticism (too much, too little, bad way) in using money for Iraq reconstruction.

All the troops should have gotten many more millions for military discretionary spending, with documentation AFTER the fact, rather than approval before the fact. I'd even argue that MOST gov't and EU and World Bank spending has too much before spending paper work, and not enough after spending evaluation and critique (UNSCAM!).

Ambassador Negroponte should try to get some 100 million for the troops to distribute as they see fit -- sewing machines, new schools, new frisbees, new hospital beds, new stereos; what the troops think will help with real Iraqi people.

There should be municipal bond referendums, where each Iraq city votes on whether to borrow money for reconstruction. The US should guarantee uptake of the bonds at some reasonable yield rate (possibly in currency conversion to hide interest rates), and the Iraqi locals should be rebuilding their city themselves -- with loans, not grants, but with full Iraqi decision making.

It was PR silly to be focussing so much on the big projects, first. The Bush PR on Iraq has to be considered poor. How many notes from the official CPA site have been quoted here, for instance?

Old CPA site will become the new US Embassy in Iraq.

I'm recently back from working for the CPA in Iraq. Don't ask how or where; I won't tell you. It was a wild ride. Some very good and very bad times. The security got worse the whole time I was there. My son is still there, unfortunately.

Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) money was spent on relatively small (say, less than $1 mil) projects and purchases. A lot went for the budget of the Iraqi ministries. Some went to direct grants to Iraqi civil society organizations, NGOs and educational institutions.

The paperwork and procedures were abbreviated. The single guideline was that the money had to be spent "for the benefit of the Iraqi people." Other than that, you could find any need, plan a project and obligate the funds. The amount of money we had was really not the constraining factor: we were really limited in our ability to travel, plan, meet and survey projects as security deteriorated. We tried to have competitive bidding: the contracting officers that I knew did a great job soliciting these bids and building relationships with the local builders and other contractors. Sometimes things were sole-sourced out of necessity.

It was all cash, lots of it. So much that the smell of those fresh Franklins would fill a large room.

pedro:

You seem to have forgotten that the invasion was justified on three points: WMD, terrorism and Ba'athist crimes against the Iraqis. The first two are for our own security and, in most people's minds, the thing that made war necessary. Why should Iraqis pick up the tab for US security?

Colt:

There may be something in what you say.

pedro:

ditto.

I'd certainly prefer the Iraqi's to spend their oil money on infrastructure instead of palaces, a la Hussein. What better investment than in their own county, rather than sitting in banks in (Oil for Food, anyone?) Switzerland or France?