With Saddam Hussein finally in custody and the future of Iraq looking a little more secure, we're hearing calls for President Bush to rip up the list of countries that the United States has deemed eligible to bid on prime contracts for rebuilding Iraq. Mr. Bush should stick to his guns; that list of 63 countries, all of whom helped the American-led coalition, was good policy. But it's important to be clear about why it is a good idea - because in the piñata grab for the $18.6 billion in reconstruction contracts, some basic points have gotten lost.

First, it is wrong of critics to frame inclusion on the list as a "reward" to our allies, or to say that countries left off it, like Russia, France and Germany, are being "punished." Taxpayer-financed contracts should never be doled out as a reward - that is precisely the kind of mind-set the United States needs to be trying to banish from Iraq, where the previous regime operated entirely ran on patronage.

Rather, the list is predicated on deciding which countries can best be trusted to oversee huge rebuilding contracts in ways that square with the American goal of promoting a stable, free Iraq. As Mr. Bush put it, "friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that." Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz noted another prime concern: "protection of the essential security interests of the United States."

In any case, Old Europe's indignation over the list is a marvel of hypocrisy. When Saddam Hussein specified under the oil-for-food program that that the billions generated by the program all flow through one French bank, BNP Paribas, French President Jacques Chirac did not indignantly demand, in the interest of fair play, that the business be divided among banks of various nations. It is also curious that Russia, which in its own post-tyranny days received billions in aid, only to default on its debt 1998, is now demanding back from free Iraqis every nickel it cheerfully loaned to the dictator.