10 Dec 2003 | Ben Langhinrichs said...

Our U.S. administration doesn't have a clue how to win friends and influence people.

10 Dec 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

[Mathhew] "Does the administration really think this is the way to get its opponents in line?"

[Ben] "Our U.S. administration doesn't have a clue how to win friends and influence people."

C'mon guys - in regards to the Carnegie bullet points, aren't you being a bit judgmental about the administration?

All you have to do is read a majority of the 122 comments in the "Bush Win-Win" post on this very site or any post in most other politically oriented weblogs to discover that the opposition to the administration needs to study up on their Carnegie "best practices" for being a leader and getting along with others as well.

10 Dec 2003 | murdoc said...

I wouldn't mind seeing our gov't a little more up-front about some of the mistakes we've made or allowing opportunities for former close allies to save some face, but pretending that relationships between national governments (especially in times of war) is the same as relationships between individuals doen't help.

I don't think we're doing this to get our opponents "in line." If they're truly our opponents, we're not interested in their feelings. I also don't think this is a slap in the face.

We very clearly said that Allies would get preferential treatment. France, Germany, Russia, and Canada very clearly said they weren't our allies. And now they're crying because we did exactly what we said we would do.

They're not little kids. Acting all shocked by this is silly.

10 Dec 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

It's clearly a slap in the face, intended to teach them that if they don't side with us in the future, they will pay the price.

But it's all so juvenile, it's sickening. Like watching 4-year-olds in a sandbox.

10 Dec 2003 | Carl said...

I'm not sure *any* government that took nearly the full risks of war (costs, lives, reputation, etc.) would invite other countries to participate in bidding on contracts if these other countries didn't want to offer financial aid or troops for the war effort. You can't say NO to helping out in any way and then cry when we don't help you back. They weren't required to help with the war and we aren't required to extend bid offers their way. Simple as that.

10 Dec 2003 | Benjy said...

I posted a response to Wolfowitz's announcement on WatchBlog. This is only going to make things worse in Iraq, both for the Iraqis and us. At least it increases the likelihood that the Dems can beat Bush...

10 Dec 2003 | Carl said...

At least it increases the likelihood that the Dems can beat Bush...

This will have zero outcome on the election. It will be a non-issue in about 5 days after the press find something else to write about it.

10 Dec 2003 | dmr said...

I'm less interested in the Carnegie points applied to government as I am to being critical of others about art, design, ideas, copywriting, etc. Being in several meeting settings (at a large state .gov agency) where people took things very personally when points weren't directed at them and honest and open criticism was seen as demeaning of others work efforts. I find similar things in art school crits where people find that truly being critical is steping on peoples toes, being negative about work is mean and is usually taken personally and creates defensive and injured postures, even tho criticism was posed in constructive terms.

The Carnegie points seem false and sugar coated to spare people's feelings; I don't think we need more of that in the world. If you can't accept criticism then you probably shouldn't participate in creating or stating anything, because it's all about a dialogue and failing to be realistic and honest in a dialogue is disingenuous.

Absolutely nothing is more frustrating to me at this point in my life than this idea; I guess I tend to rub people the wrong way because I don't go out of my way to pretend I know someone or care to make them feel good. If you aren't a personal friend of mine, why do I owe you speech that is overtly and disingenuously friendly in posture?

10 Dec 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

I agree that some of the Carnegie points are saccharine; I sure wouldn't want to have a boss who behaved that way all the time. I want direct orders, not questions. I prefer being told that I fucked up when I fucked up than to have to deal with indirect, passive-aggressive nonsense.

I especially detest working with people who have painstakingly trained themselves to follow any of the bazillion programs like Carnegie's that exhort you to "just do these seven things and you will change your life." It feels too fake, too forced.

However, it is a fact of life that most people tend to take criticism personally. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do. And you're likely to be a better leader if you cultivate loyalty and respect among your followers instead of bitterness and fear. Sometimes that means biting your tongue or sugar-coating the criticism. After a while you can figure out whch people can take it and which ones can't.

There are plenty of examples of great leaders, teachers, and managers who flout Carnegie's advice. And there are probably examples of great leaders who follow it. It's trite to say it, but There is No One Way. I think the best way is to just be yourself. If you've got the qualities inside you to be a great leader, you'll be one. If not, you won't.

10 Dec 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

To follow up on my previous post...

I think - again, in reference to the bullet points in the original post by Matthew - that the dems / libs that would continually pelt us with their anti-Bush rhetoric, cool their jets for a bit and start posting their criticisms more in the context of the Carnegie model.

We all understand hes not liked very much by this crowd got it. Now, start offering some workable solutions / suggestions.

To continue on spouting the hatred much longer is only serving to shoot more holes in your foot.

10 Dec 2003 | murdoc said...

Not a slap in the face in the sense of an unprovoked action or a knee-jerk reaction unrelated to the situation that prompted it.

This is very clearly in response to their actions (or lack therof) leading up to and during the Iraq campaign. But to simply call it a "slap in the face" makes it sound unjustified.

Maybe an "asked-for slap in the face"?

10 Dec 2003 | Benjy said...

This will have zero outcome on the election. It will be a non-issue in about 5 days after the press find something else to write about it.

I didn't mean that this issue directly will impact the presidential election. I was looking down the road to the effects this policy will have on the situation in Iraq. I think that this move will reduce the likelihood that the UN, France, Germany, etc. will offer anyu additional assistance. This means that the U.S. will continue to pay the "lion's share" of the high price of rebuilding Iraq -- both in terms of dollars and lives. When Bush is forced to ask Congress for more money and when American soldiers continue to die on a regular basis, it's certainly going to reduce Bush's chances next fall.

10 Dec 2003 | Carl said...

According to this articles, companies likely to benefit most come from Britain, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, South Korea, Poland. Albania, Bulgaria, Denmark, Honduras, Hungary, Kazakhstan and the Philippines also stand to gain.

Seems like we're sharing plenty. They shared with us, we'll share with them.

10 Dec 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

Actually, France and Germany will benefit somewhat, if even secondarily because Halliburton (the supposed big "winner" in all of this) has 7 offices in France and 5 in Germany.

Funny, they even have a Russian language version.

10 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

For once, I agree with Carl. This will have zero effect on the election.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The Bush folk said this would happen a long time ago. It's a remarkably stupid way to conduct foreign policy - "Despite the fact we've been allies forever, screw you. Oh, but will you please help give some money to pay for the reconstruction? That'd be great." -but it's consistent.

My biggest issue with this was the official explanation that this was being done because of "national security." Bullshit. Everyone knows why this was done. Have the balls to admit it. I'd respect this administration more - not much more, but definitely more - if they were honest about motivations rather than trying to pretend the obvious is something other than it is.

10 Dec 2003 | Mike said...

So let me get this right- some countries opposed the war for various reasons and chose not to participate. But if there's money to be made in the aftermath, they're all over it. What's that all about? I can respect standing up for your ideals. Just stick with them and be consistent. There's no respect in tossing out your ideals when it simply benefits you to do so. There's the rub, no? Ideals have pros *and* cons.

11 Dec 2003 | Justin said...

There is no balls behind the "national security" statement. It's not really a surprise to any nation that non-supporting nations would probably be excluded as punishment for not standing behind the US. It just striking that at a time when the gov't is trying to appeal to the international community for more involvement - to prove that this effort is about international peace and democracy, not oil and power - it would also be punitive in an "tit-for-tat" manner. Playing backhanded international politics may not have much impact in the election, but it will be remembered by all nations - supporting or not.

It's a hardline attitude that those countries didn't take the expense and shouldn't reap the rewards, but national security?. No soup for you! The slap in the face isn't being left out of contracts, it's being fed thinly-veiled lies. There's nothing Carnegie about that, and doesn't do anything to encourage cooperation.

11 Dec 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

What money are we talking about exactly?

If it's exclusively US donated money, then Wolfowitz is welcome to divide it up between his corporate buddies as he sees fit.

What makes this ridiculous is that a good chunk of the money is actually donated by countries that will be excluded, such as Canada. I bet they feel like suckers now....

11 Dec 2003 | MrAnonymous said...

I couldn't be happier about this, but not just to punish these EU-niks for failing to agree with the US. It's not fair for them to reap the profits of something they refused to help create.

11 Dec 2003 | mark said...

America seems to not understand why people see it as the bad guy, yet it continually demonstrates its arrogance to the rest of the world. How can people not question its motives when it awards contracts in this way?

I think there is a massive opportunity lost here, if america had opened up the bidding it would not only get better value for its own money (and for the iraqi people) it would allay some of the, often irrational, fears that the war has been all about money. Face it, some of these large american companies are best places to win the contracts anyway, whether there is competition from non-coalition countries or not.

At the very least bids should be independently audited to ensure that there is no one taking advantage of the situation. Little things like this can mean so much in a place like the middle east where I have spent a lot of time. People are highly suspicious of the coalition and whether it's fair or not people are thinking that the americans care nothing about the people of iraq and everything about the money.

Continued arrogance like this will lead to deaths on the ground, the administration has to realise that it needs to be open, it can't continual with this "with us or against us" b.s. or it will continue to alienate its allies and raise the ire of those that will tip the balance in the "war against terrorism" .

11 Dec 2003 | Ben Langhinrichs said...

We very clearly said that Allies would get preferential treatment. France, Germany, Russia, and Canada very clearly said they weren't our allies. And now they're crying because we did exactly what we said we would do.

I'm not surprised we are doing it, but politics often demand that you actually reevaluate your positions. I don't think this will effect the outcome of the elections or anything as mundane (from a global perspective) as that. The problem is that since that time, we have discovered that this is going to take more time, money and global commitment than we expected, so Bush has been actively trying to solicit money and attention from these same countries. In keeping with that trend, he has been downplaying previous disagreements and trying to involve the UN more heavily. In that light, these latest pronouncements are follish, as they emphasize the very "we are in it for the spoils" appearance that Bush is travelling around trying to dispel. It is this lack of consistency about the current message that I disagree with, not about adherence to our very clear message earlier.

Again, this will make no difference to the American electorate, imho, but it will make a real dent in the latest administration efforts to put old differences behind us.

11 Dec 2003 | Toby said...

I would have no problem snubbing the French, Germans or Russians if it weren't for the fact that some of their companies (well the German's) could be high-quality, low-bidders for some of these contracts.

Perhaps it should be used as a bartering chip: Russia, Germany or France could forgive the Iraqi debt incurred for military buildup during the Baathist reign and then take part in the construction. (I have a link around here somewhere...)

The French and Russians were more than happy to sell weapons to Iraq (way more than the US ever did, btw, during the Iran/Iraq War), so they should be willing to forgive some debts for civilian needs, at least.

11 Dec 2003 | Matt said...

Added this update to post: Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals (NY Times)

White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the Pentagon's directive...Several of Mr. Bush's aides said they feared that the memorandum would undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had opposed the invasion of Iraq.

11 Dec 2003 | JF said...

Perhaps it should be used as a bartering chip: Russia, Germany or France could forgive the Iraqi debt incurred for military buildup during the Baathist reign and then take part in the construction. (I have a link around here somewhere...)

That is what Bush is proposing... "If these countries want to participate in helping the world become more secure, by enabling Iraq to emerge as a free and peaceful country, one way to contribute is through debt restructuring," Bush said.

11 Dec 2003 | pj said...

I find it very funny that GWB tries to persuade France, Russia and Germany to forgive Iraqi debts rigt after telling them that thay have nothing to expect. For me it looks like "let them pay us back first!".

If the Iraqis already could not choose, who destroyed their country, it should be left to them to decide, who builds it up again (I wouldn't like to have my home built up by a polish company either). After all they have to pay for it with their oil.

11 Dec 2003 | JF said...

After all they have to pay for it with their oil.

After all, the US is paying for it. These contracts are US-funded contracts. And that $87 billion is not from Iraqi oil, it's from US taxpayers.

11 Dec 2003 | pj said...

But there are clear statements that the US wants to be refunded by the Iraqis through their future oil sales - that's why the biggest concerns are to rebuild the oil industy asap.

From that point of view those $87 billion rather seem to be an investment. The sad thing is, that many soldiers lifes belong to this investment, too.

11 Dec 2003 | p8 said...

The iraqis aren't getting very good value for their money with Bechtel

"According to Iraqi education officials, Bechtel budgeted about $20,000 per school for repairs. That budget may not seem like much compared to U.S. rates, but laborers here work for $2 to $7 a day. Bechtel subcontracted out the work to Iraqis for an undisclosed amount."

"In almost every case, the paint jobs were done in a hurry, causing more damage to the appearance of the school than in terms of providing a finish that will protect the structure," a recent Army investigation into Bechtel's work found. "In one case, the paint job actually damaged critical lab equipment, making it unusable."

So US taxpayers should be glad with foreign competition. They would have to pay a lot less than $87 billion, most of which is going into the pockets of the chickenhawks anyway.

11 Dec 2003 | JF said...

So US taxpayers should be glad with foreign competition.

Your logic for this is? A bad paint job?

And, BTW, there is foreign competition -- it just doesn't include France and Germany and a few others who *could* contribute but decided not to help with the first phase of this "project."

11 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

But there are clear statements that the US wants to be refunded by the Iraqis through their future oil sales

There are clear statements, but it can be argued that they're exactly the opposite. The administration fought very publicly and aggressively against making a good chunk of the $87 billion special appropriation loans to be paid off in part through Iraq's oil sales. (I dont' remember what the final resolution of that bill was.)

12 Dec 2003 | p8 said...

"Calling it price gouging, Sen. Mark Dayton said Congress should investigate reports that the government is paying an average of $2.64 a gallon to the Halliburton Co. to import fuel to Iraq. That's more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, according to a New York Times report on Wednesday. "The Halliburton deal is legalized greed at the expense of the American taxpayer," said Dayton, D-Minn."
source

Halliburton paid for Bush, so it's only fair that they get to fool the US taxpayer.

If the US taxed the corporations instead of letting them tax the US taxpayer, they could pay the United Nations for the costs of reconstruction and pay them for peace-keeping.

12 Dec 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

Halliburton - hallischmurton..

This argument of the big, bad Halliburton annoys me. Do you think they just appeared and will be the prime contractor on this "project" because of the Bush / Cheney relationship?

C'mon. Halliburton has been a prime in the rebuilding effort of every war since Vietnam. In fact, according to this article from the National Review, Halliburton was a favored contractor of the Clinton administration who actually afforded them a higher profit range than the one they currently enjoy today.

From the article:
"...Halliburton has said that while the LOGCAP that was in effect from 1992 until 1997 called for a one-to-nine percent profit range, the LOGCAP in effect now calls for significantly less, a one-to-three percent profit margin."

12 Dec 2003 | p8 said...

So did Halliburton get away with overcharging under Clinton too?

And how does bidding for contracts work?
In the Netherlands we had a big scandal where contractors had meetings before biddings. The winning company, the company that would bid for the contract for the lowest price, would get the contract and overcharged 10% which would be divided among the other companies.
When the only bidding for the big contracts can be done by closely tied US companies this doesn't happen?

Why aren't more contracts offered to the iraqis?

Frustrations growing as Iraqis are locked out of their own reconstruction work

"Waxman says: 'The administration took only nine days to enter into a sole-source contract worth up to $7bn with Halliburton. Yet it now says that rebidding the contracts is so complex that it can't be done in less than nine months.'"

"Contracts have not necessarily led to Iraqis being employed, and we have reports that in some cases they are squeezed out by 'cheaper' South East Asian labour."

So these overcharged contracts are paying in part for underpaid labour. Where does all that money go?

The iraqis charge less and work faster. And think of what could happen if the unemployed iraqis had jobs.
This is a Win-Win-Win situation.

What do US taxpayers care in whose pockets the money goes (Iraqis or the Chickenhawks). They certainly won't be seeing any.
The reactions of people saying: "punish these EU-niks" are pretty funny considering they are the ones getting over-taxed(punished) because of this.

12 Dec 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

[p8] "Waxman says: 'The administration took only nine days to enter into a sole-source contract worth up to $7bn with Halliburton. Yet it now says that rebidding the contracts is so complex that it can't be done in less than nine months.'"

Yeh, those bad conservatives and their big money interests. I'd bet the libs would neve...

Wait! What's this?...

Again, from the National Review...

"In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans.

As the record shows, Halliburton won big government contracts under the Clinton administration, and it won big government contracts under the Bush administration. The only difference between the two is that Henry Waxman is making allegations of favoritism in the Bush administration, while he appeared untroubled by the issue during the Clinton years."

12 Dec 2003 | p8 said...

So US politics (dems en cons) is owned by big money interests. That's nothing new.
But did the conservatives make allegations of favoritism during the Clinton administration? If not, why?
And I can't remember Gore getting paid Halliburton.

12 Dec 2003 | Mark Fusco said...

[p8] - "I can't remember Gore getting paid Halliburton..."

Perhaps not. But this is an interesting article from US Dept. of Energy at the time Gore was USVP with strong ties to Occidental Petrolium.

As you say "...US politics (dems en cons) is owned by big money interests. That's nothing new."

13 Dec 2003 | p8 said...

ONE, No American company that did business with Saddam Hussein while he was brutalizing his own people should get a contract. This clause would exclude most of the cronies of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

TWO, The managers and directors of any company that is found to have overcharged the American people under these contracts should go to jail. (The Pentagon says that Halliburton has already overcharged them by $61 million for gasoline.) If Ashcroft still wants to hold anybody without benefit or trial or counsel, he could start with these folks.

THREE, Since the plan is based on consideration of "those who risked their lives," all profits beyond reasonable and necessary expenses (subject to rigorous independent auditing) should be divided among the families of coalition soldiers who lost their lives in the invasion or suffered long-lasting disabilities. Or is the president under the impression that the lives of Halliburton, Bechtel, Fluor etc. executives were at risk?

FOUR, Since Iraq is pre-eminent among "countries that have risked lives" in this conflict, an amount equal to the total value of all contracts should first be set aside for direct reparations to the families of Iraqi civilians killed or maimed by coalition forces.

from Counterpunch

13 Dec 2003 | Derek K. Miller said...

Um, what happened to those Carnegie leadership points?

18 Dec 2003 | noni said...

My friend told me about your web site and I really enjoyed it. Very nicely done. Very interesting articles!

19 Dec 2003 | Jas Miller said...

Yeah the no-soup-for-you slap in the face usually only breeds more of the same (depending upon how stupidly stubborn one is). A response in "kind" would be the higher power. Then again, when a mosquito soxx my blodd, I generally smash it betwixt my flesh, rather than suck it back. Perhaps that puts it out of its mysery. I'm still scratching for days after, either way. So what then? Move to California? :)

16 Jan 2004 | Jerman said...

This topic is one we will tackle later in this article, but it refers to making sure that your application and the dock aren't fighting it out for supremacy of the screen.