Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Bribery no way to lead

Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003 | 8:45 a.m.

TO THE VICTOR goes the spoils.

Sounds perfectly fair to me. In fact, that system has worked very well since it was first implemented, probably around the time of the caveman when he learned that whatever the fellow he bopped on the head had at the time of his demise now belonged to the successful bopper.

In fact, the concept of the vanquished giving up his lands, personal property, women and children and any other earthly effects has long been the standard by which armies, countries, pirates and other marauders have lived. So why should it be any different for President George W. Bush ? That's the question and I dare say that most Americans will agree that, when it comes to who gets what in Iraq, President Bush is right.

Right about what, you may ask? It is his administration's declaration this week that only those countries which supported the United States' war effort in Iraq to oust Saddam and protect the world from his so far nonexistent weapons of mass destruction can share in the very generous spoils of war reconstruction, courtesy of the American taxpayer. That's the kind of policy that makes perfect sense to most people. Until you give it an extra thought, which I did just a moment or two after I first heard the news and cheered the policy.

So, let's see how this policy will work. First of all, countries like France, Germany, Russia and our neighbor to the north, Canada, will get not one penny of the multibillions of dollars you and I have shelled out to make Iraq a better place. I suppose if they wind up as a low-level subcontractor they might see a dime or two, but that's quite unlikely since the same guys who came up with that policy will be scrutinizing the bidding process and will most likely be unfavorably disposed if they see those countries anywhere on the return address lines of the bidders. Oh, yeah, if I remember correctly, Mexico didn't think it was a good idea to attack Iraq without United Nations sanction so, if they are also shut out, that would be both of our neighbors and two of our largest trading partners who will not see one dime of American foreign aid to Iraq. That shoul d make for a spectacular good neighbor policy going forward I suspect.

So let's see just who will get a piece of the action should their winning bids make them the kings of the spoils war. I don't have to name more than one country which stands to make billions should its name be placed at the top of the heap to make most people realize that there is something akilter in Bush's plan to reward his friends and punish the others. How does Saudi Arabia sound?

That's right. Because in the aftermath of Sept. 11 the Saudi government felt at least a twinge of guilt for its complicity in the death and destruction it abetted against the United States, it gave some miniscule help and lip service to our country's efforts to remove the evil dictator from Iraq. So, now we have the prospect of the country which aided, abetted, paid for, trained and spawned most of the murderers of 9-11, being able to reap billions of United States' dollars, over and above the billions of United States dollars they already reap from our energy policy, which refuses to accept the fact that alternative energy sources make good financial and environmental sense. Apparently, it is sufficient that snubbing the Saudis makes very bad political sense to the White House.

And countries like Germany, for example, which disagreed with the United States about war with Iraq but which supports us in our efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan and in most other hot spots around the world and which, by the way, has the technology and contruction prowess matched by few other countries in the world, will get shut out. The result of that policy could mean that Iraq -- that means the United States -- will pay for reconstruction and may not get the best available. That for certain won't be the first time that has happened but, for an administration that says it believes in best practices, it sets a bad precedent, don't you think?

And what about Mother Russia? It is still close to broke with its largest asset being many thousands of nuclear warheads which can be sold on the black market for cold, hard cash. Do we really want to thumb our noses at the one nuclear power in the world which can do us great damage just because it needs money we won't let it earn?

The most disturbing part of the "victor-spoils" policy though, is the bribe effect it will have on our friends and enemies going forward. It is clear beyond question that this administration wants to give incentives to countries around the world to follow our lead into wars of our choosing by promising them economic bounties or economic ruination, depending upon the curtain they choose. Now I, like the rest of you, know that our country is never wrong -- even in the face of considered opposition by longtime friends and allies -- but this policy will ensure that never again will the United states be said "no" to for fear that the spoils will not be shared. So the ultimate capitalistic endgame is brought into play by the ultimate capitalistic country to get its way. It is called bribery.

Worse yet, countries will follow our lead anywhere, even if it means destroying a country that doesn't deserve it just so they can all share in the plum contracts designed to rebuild it. How sweet it is but how wrong it could be if the morality of United States' military intervention is rooted in the basest desire of man, the desire to make a buck.

I am not saying that our country will make its decisions based on money and not what is important -- right and wrong -- but the kind of policy followed by the Bush administration in Iraq will lend credence to legitimate fears by many that being the most powerful country in the world -- economically and militarily -- carries a responsibility to lead with a semblance of moral justification, some of which might be lost when money gets in the way.

What all this means to me is that there must be a better way in the 21st century for the United States to lead the world than by a caveman system of spoils, the first casualty of which is to hurt some of our real friends and reward those who helped destroy the World Trade Center.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.