Counterpoint to the Contracts for Coaltion Countries

A conservative case for allowing companies from non-coalition countries makes its way to the Weekly Standard. To wit, authors William Kristol and Robert Kagan argue that the policy of contracts could either have been dealth with much more quietly or used as a carrot to tempt the Euros to the U.S. interests:

A deviously smart American administration would have quietly distributed contracts for rebuilding Iraq as it saw fit, without any announced policy of discrimination. At the end of the day, it would be clear that opponents of American policy didn't fare too well in the bidding process. Message delivered, but with a certain subtlety.

A more clever American administration would have thrown a contract or two to a couple of those opponents, to a German firm, for instance, as a way of wooing at least the business sectors in a country where many businessmen do want to strengthen ties with the United States.

A truly wise American administration would have opened the bidding to all comers, regardless of their opposition to the war -- as a way of buying those countries into the Iraq effort, building a little goodwill for the future, and demonstrating to the world a little magnanimity.

Interesting points. I'm not sure if I would agree that the expected outcomes for the latter two scenarios would actually come to fruition; however, they do provide fodder for an argument to the other side. I'm not convinced that we should let bygones be bygones in this particular issue as of yet--an issue which is, I am beginning to think, more symbolic than punitive.