Battle To A Stalemate

The enormous cost of the full blown battle to a stalemate - aka the war in Iraq - is still being calculated, and sadly will continue to be tallied for years to come. A very comprehensive account of the pure symphony of bad decisions of the Bush administration was just presented on the PBS news show "Frontline" on Monday and Tuesday. Though if you have been only a tiny bit alert, you'll recall most of these very public fumbles of foreign policy. (And you can watch the 4 and a half hours of the program here online.)

Like many other Americans, I never thought moving into military action against Iraq, especially the way the Bush administration handled it, was good or just or intelligent. I write this today not to indict anyone, but to offer some hopefulness that the true nature of American ideals will emerge and correct our passage. I admit that I have grave doubts of such wisdom emerging. Perhaps, at best, we will simply reach the end of an era of failures.

We have witnessed years of consistently poor leadership, marked by emotional infighting and herky-jerky policies and strategies, which have left the nation in a war-ravaged mess. The cold reality with us today is that we remain years away from a clear resolution to the war. Pulling out now is no solution, continuing with current strategies (or the lack of them) is likewise no solution.

I am not one of those people who see the President as the sole motivator and source of all things good and bad in America. But to deny a constant pattern of failed and foolish decisions which had dire consequences is to ignore what history will soon confirm. His appointed leaders of so many agencies - from the Justice Dept. to FEMA - have left wide-ranging wreckage. His administration has demanded revisions to our notions of liberty with no sign of improvement. Far from it.

Not long after taking office, President Bush was quoted as saying that he and the Congress should strive to earn "from our fellow citizens the highest possible praise: Well done, good and faithful servants.". There's no doubt that whatever else is said, few will use such words to describe the last eight years of leadership.

5th Anniversary of War in Iraq

When the announcement of a trip to the Middle East by V.P. Cheney was made, reports said it was a push for a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. But the V.P. was there to also say that after 5 years of American-led warfare in Iraq the U.S. and the Iraqis were living in the best of all possible worlds.

Whatever your views the fact remains we are and will remain in the country well into the next year, the next administration and for who knows how long. Casualties, costs both economic and ethical, and more are still to be counted. I mourn for our losses and for the future. Seems all the decisions that led us there and those made in the early days were - at best - full of colossal blunders.

Continuing coverage is here, and here. Attention and knowledge of what's happening is falling away.

Perhaps in 2010 (or beyond) we'll have some effective new policies in place. Perhaps.

In Vermont, something I have never, ever heard of before - two towns have issued "arrest on sight" orders for the President and Vice President, due to war-related issues. Is it worth noting that while the presidential pair have made many trips to Iraq, they won't go to Vermont?

3 Reasons

Briefly, here are three reasons the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan matter and why the support for such efforts overseas and the Bush presidency continues to disappear.

-- Inside the world of war profiteers:
"Inside the stout federal courthouse of this Mississippi River town, the dirty secrets of Iraq war profiteering keep pouring out.

Hundreds of pages of recently unsealed court records detail how kickbacks shaped the war's largest troop support contract months before the first wave of U.S. soldiers plunged their boots into Iraqi sand.

The graft continued well beyond the 2004 congressional hearings that first called attention to it. And the massive fraud endangered the health of American soldiers even as it lined contractors' pockets, records show."

Taxi To The Dark Side:



No End In Sight:

A Vast Database of Deception

A searchable database of information on the constant, repeated and intentional distortion of facts by the Bush administration as they argued for military action in Iraq was presented by the Center for Public Integrity this week.

Their report cites over 930 instances of false information being provided the national and international worlds. And sadly, the general response to the report is a rather exhausted yawn. "It doesn't even matter anymore," said a friend of mine.

I disagree for reasons best summed up by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post:

"And yet there are plenty of reasons why the deceitful run-up to war is not old news. For one, the war goes on. For another, government credibility remains severely damaged. And then there's the fact that the president has never really been held to account for his repeated falsehoods."

Why do we tolerate the selling out of our credibility and our history, and the dismissive attitude for the lives of American soldiers?

Within a matter of months, the current administration will leave the enormous disasters it has created for others to clean up. The administration followed it's falsehoods by boldly denouncing negative criticisms as unpatriotic or treasonous. If no accountability exists now, should America ever expect it -- at any level of society -- at all?

Without Restraint

"He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct." (via)

That's the quote that popped into my head after reading about yet another case of military contractors in Iraq accused of criminal acts.

This time it's allegations of a gang rape so brutal the victim's breast implants ruptured and a coverup of the allegations. (Not only the contractor, KBR, is involved, but also the State Dept and the Justice Dept.) How disgusting, how illegal must events become before decisive action is taken?

More and more evidence and reports arrive in a steady supply of contractors who have somehow been given the ability to act with no rules, no oversight, no accountability, no boundaries -- all in the name of bringing Democracy to the Middle East. There are currently 70 open and active investigations regarding fraud and abuse in contracts for the war in Iraq.

Newly invented security firms, like Blackwater, and longtime US corporations, like Halliburton and KBR, are among the players in a game where billions in tax dollars flow to them with little attention given to what, if any, objective is sought.

Documentary films like "Iraq For Sale" made the point long ago.

Legislative efforts, like the War Profiteering Prevention Act, are in limbo and await approval.

On Wednesday, Congress approved another round of spending for the war - though it was less than half of what the president had asked for.

Congressman David Obey commented that long-lasting change and correction will occur when Americans: "elect more progressive voices to the United States Senate" and "elect a president with a different set of priorities."

Conservatives who ferociously bellow about fiscal and moral values should be leading the charge to eradicate wanton lawless behavior by US companies bilking the taxpayers of billions, and smothering the US foreign policy in slimy behavior. But they are not. Voters who ignore that failing will once again endorse behavior without restraint.

I Read The News Today, Oh Boy ...

Blackwater, one of the private security firms in Iraq funded by hundreds of millions of tax dollars which provides armed military-style support for US forces and businesses, has had it's license revoked according to Iraqi officials. Confusion surrounds what this may mean, confusion surrounds what happened as they were escorting a convoy of US State Department vehicles, and secrecy surrounds the contract they (and hundreds of others) have with the US government. The Guardian has more on the dispute.

This follows a report from the Washington Post that the US military is in urgent need of help to provide support services to soldiers as more and more soldiers are being placed into combat patrols.

"With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties," according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq."

Oh boy ...Each time the current White House leaders announce their strategy in Iraq is working, we learn that much of that strategy is in the hands of secret government contracts or that we regular folks just don't understand the strategy. An accurate account of how many contracted soldiers are operating in Iraq remains unknown, and the same lack of accounting is in place for their activities, their casualties, their wounded. While they are there in the name of the US, residents of the US know little of what they do.

"Many Americans are under the impression that the US currently has about 145,000 active duty troops on the ground in Iraq. What is seldom mentioned is the fact that there are at least 126,000 private personnel deployed alongside the official armed forces. These private forces effectively double the size of the occupation force, largely without the knowledge of the US taxpayers that foot the bill."

More on this information, supplied to Congress in May, is here.

Last week's publicity push for the "success" in Iraq continues to be a muddle of information, or as Fred Kaplan wrote in Slate:

"President Bush's TV address tonight was the worst speech he's ever given on the war in Iraq, and that's saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional."

Oh boy .... If I just stop reading the news, maybe it wont' matter.

Opinions are hardly a measure of reality, still it's worth noting, as Steve Chapman does:

"By March 2006, 60 percent of Americans said the war was going poorly. Yet all Petraeus claims to have done is lower the carnage to the level it was then—a level most people found unacceptable. If this is progress, then treading water should be an Olympic event.

Likewise, his plan to withdraw 30,000 troops by next summer would merely mean reverting to the number we had before the surge. Assuming he's right, we'll have spent a year and a half making an arduous journey from Point A to Point A."

Oh boy ... If I just stop reading news, opinions, accounts of debauched/depressed elected officials and celebrities, national and international banking woes, details of items sold in the US which might kill me or deform children, who's being abducted, who's been found, if I just turn off all the radios and TVs and this internet, and just sit quietly with all the doors locked and the shades drawn down tightly ... then maybe I can pretend all is well and just getting better all the time. I'll be a model citizen!

The Bush Failure Continues

Years have passed and thousands are wounded and dead and the best ideas from the Bush White House regarding Iraq is to keep on the same course? It all seems more than a bit mad.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was made based on flat out lies, and there were little if any plans on what to do in that country past 30 or 60 days. Billions pour into the effort, billions are wasted.

After hearing just what was expected from Gen. Petraeus, even staunch GOP supporters like Senator Elizabeth Dole said:

"The difficulty of the current American and Iraqi situation is rooted in large part in the Bush administration's substantial failure to understand the full implications of our military invasion and the litany of mistakes made at the outset of the war."

Time is ripe for a reality check and for fresher, more honest minds to step forward. This war was botched from the get-go, so why trust these same folk to frame the debate?

"What if all that Bush has left us to choose from is different degrees of dishonor?

We can't leave, because the civil war will escalate, terrorists will be emboldened, and Iraq will break into hostile fiefdoms. We can't stay, because the U.S. occupation is inciting violence, discouraging political accommodation, draining our treasury, straining our armed forces, and costing the lives of American soldiers. Yet those are the only two options, and there is little reason to think they will look any better in one year or five or 10."

Also worth considering in the current debate:

"What progress have we made that will be sustained after we leave? If all we've done is tamp down the violence in some places by putting a lot of troops there, then once we leave, all that progress will be reversed. Only if there's some reason to think that the progress we've made will outlast our presence have we achieved anything. Lasting progress depends on political reconciliation, and Ambassador Crocker had precious little to offer."

The History Mash-Up, or Bush's Vietnam Redux

Five days ago I attempted to corral and correlate my thoughts and those of a few others in response to a brain-twisting speech on warfare and history from President Bush, and ultimately I found my efforts, though accurate, fell short of the mark I was hoping to make.

The overwhelming collision of factual errors, misconstructions and misrepresentations of history itself were not simple to catalog and comment upon.

Thank goodness for the insightful overview and spot-on analysis from Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings. I'll include some quotes from the post below, but I do hope you find the time to read the entire post:


"Before getting to the details, let's consider the overarching premise: that the choice we now face is whether to keep fighting and ultimately prevail, or to withdraw and abandon the Iraqis to their fate. As I see it, this premise is completely false. If we keep fighting, there is no reason whatsoever to think that we will "prevail", and every reason to think that we will simply sacrifice a lot of American and Iraqi lives for nothing. If we withdraw, we will abandon the Iraqis to their fate, and that is a horrible thing. But a lot turns on whether you think that there is anything we can do to avoid the bloodshed that will follow our withdrawal. I do not think that there is. If I'm right, then unless we are prepared to remain in Iraq until the end of time, we will, at some point, have to leave, and that bloodshed will probably follow.

If staying in Iraq will not lead us to "victory", but will only postpone the consequences of our withdrawing at a terrible cost both to us and to the Iraqis, then the decision before us looks very, very different. But Bush does not stop to consider this possibility. He frames the question in a way that ensures that the only possible answer is the one that he wants, and then, surprise, he gets it.

But Bush's fundamental assumption about the nature of our choice is not just false; it's a profound evasion of his own responsibility. I think it would have been very difficult to create a functioning, legitimate government in Iraq, difficult enough to make invading a bad idea even without all the other reasons to oppose it. However, I also think that success was not impossible. That it is impossible now is largely this administration's doing. They never, ever appreciated the magnitude of the task they had taken upon themselves, the care and concentration and resources that it would require, or the consequences of getting it wrong. They dismissed the plans of others, and forbade their own people to plan. They allowed an insurgency to develop and to arm itself from stores of weapons that they never bothered to secure. They did not send in enough troops to ensure basic security to the people of Iraq, and ridiculed those who suggested that this might cause problems down the line. They made catastrophic decisions -- disbanding the Iraqi army that our soldiers are now risking their lives trying to reconstitute, imposing a de-Baathification regime that the Iraqi parliament is now trying and failing to undo -- and they made them in a careless, thoughtless way that still takes my breath away.

And now, when all this carelessness and stupidity is having its inevitable effect, Bush pretends it doesn't exist. The only way we can fail, he says, is if the American people and their representatives withdraw their support -- ignoring completely his own role in making failure inevitable. And he adds that if we withdraw our support, that will constitute a failure of will and an abandonment of the Iraqi people -- ignoring completely both the extent to which his administration abandoned them from the outset, and the extent to which Americans' support of withdrawal reflects a loss of confidence in his administration and its basic competence."

------

"If he had any shame, he'd be hiding under a table right now, wishing the earth would swallow him."

Ripping Into The War Profiteers

One hell of an intense indictment on the private contracting in the 'war on terror':

"And just maybe, reviewing this appalling history of invoicing orgies and million-dollar boondoggles, it's not so far-fetched to think that this is the way someone up there would like things run all over -- not just in Iraq but in Iowa, too, with the state police working for Corrections Corporation of America, and DHL with the contract to deliver every Christmas card. And why not? What the Bush administration has created in Iraq is a sort of paradise of perverted capitalism, where revenues are forcibly extracted from the customer by the state, and obscene profits are handed out not by the market but by an unaccountable government bureauc­racy. This is the triumphant culmination of two centuries of flawed white-people thinking, a preposterous mix of authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire profit­eering, with all the worst aspects of both ideologies rolled up into one pointless, supremely idiotic military adventure -- American men and women dying by the thousands, so that Karl Marx and Adam Smith can blow each other in a Middle Eastern glory hole.

It was an awful idea, perhaps the worst America has ever tried on foreign soil. But if you were in on it, it was great work while it lasted."

The full report from Rolling Stone is here.

National Guard Cheers For Iraq Withdrawal

A meeting this past weekend for the National Guard Association in Puerto Rico heard an earnest plea from the Governor of the island state which resonated loudly with the Guard's leadership:

"The war in Iraq has fractured the political will of the United States and the world,” he said at the opening of the 129th National Guard Association general conference. “Clearly, a new war strategy is required and urgently.”

Acevedo said sending more troops to Iraq would be a costly blunder.

“By increasing the number of National Guard and reserve troops, we put our soldiers in danger for the umpteenth time since the beginning of the global war on terrorism,” said the governor, adding that U.S. territories and states need Guard reserves in the event of natural disasters and domestic disturbances.

Acevedo, a Democrat, has called on Washington to withdraw troops from Iraq in the past, but has not been a vocal critic of the war.

Col. David Carrion Baralt, the Guard’s top official in Puerto Rico, said Acevedo received a standing ovation.

“Maybe the [officers] were not expecting those kinds of comments, but having a dialogue is the point of conferences like these,” Carrion said by phone."

Report from the Army Times.

Bush's Use of History 'Perverse'

The speech this week from our President on the war in Iraq and previous warfare in US history left me, as usual, utterly confused as to the point and the methods used in his deductions. Historian John Dower of MIT heard the President reference a book by Dower on the reconstruction of Japan following World War 2 and was pretty angry at said usage:

"They’re desperately groping for a historical analogy, and their uses of history are really perverse.

"In the case of Iraq,” Dower said, “the administration went in there without any of the kind of preparation, thoughtfulness, understanding of the country they were going into that did exist when we went into Japan. Even if the so-called experts said we couldn’t do it, there were years of mid-level planning and discussions before they went in. They were prepared. They laid out a very clear agenda at an early date."

Notable as well is the recent history - a 2002 editorial by Dower - in which he outlined 10 reasons why the success in Japan could not be applied to Iraq in any way. The interview with Dower is here.

A spokesperson for the White House responded to Dower's outrage:

"While professor Dower may disagree with the applicability of the quote, the president in no way endorses his view of Iraq."

Wha??

This careful picking and choosing of words and historical meaning is a disservice to our current deployment of troops and our hopes for success in Iraq. Instead, what I am constantly seeing, is a policy in search of a strategy, actions which go in search of meanings after the action has occurred.

Distorting the past, the present and fumbling for the future - is this the best the White House can do?

It's Working, Eventually, Maybe

First, we were successful.

Yesterday, it was like Vietnam.

Now, Tennesse's senators say the "strategy is working" although the U.S. needs to adopt the bill from Alexander to change the strategy. He also added that the US should not interfere with who is leading the Iraq government.

????

On The Senate's Debate About Iraq and War

As I write this, the U.S. Senate is voting on whether or not they will vote on the Levin-Reed amendment, which demands overall changes to the way war is waged in Iraq. With 60 yes votes needed in order to proceed, it fell short, with 52 votes.

After watching much of the debates, here are some thoughts I'd like to share.

There are sound reasons for the Senate in Washington to debate the policies and issues regarding not only the war in Iraq but also the 'so-called' Global War on Terror. While I heard some senators, such as John McCain, Mitch McConnell and others complain the debate is a 'waste of time' or 'usurping the president's authority', where else but in a vote on the funding mechanisms of the war should elected officials publicly debate the policies involved? It was with wisdom the founders of the nation gave different branches of government different responsibilities when it comes to waging war and creating policy in general.

The majority of the nation is debating the war policies and has been for many many months. The reason the GOP lost their majority in Congress is because voters wanted a new approach, new debate, new consideration of how best to succeed. It was a clear signal that the public demands challenges to the President's policies, even if it is a certainty that the U.S. Senate cannot alter the course of the Bush/Cheney war policy.

Serious debate on our policies is an indication of the strength of the nation, not a sign of weakness, Weakness is to abandon legislative oversight and debate. There were many veterans groups in Washington yesterday to call for a 'staying of the course' and many were there to challenge such a plan and call for change.

The elected officials in Iraq are the ones who need to exert the maximum effort to control their own country, to be responsible for securing safety and charting the course for their own future. The U.S. attention needs to be focused on terror threats that have been increasing their capabilities.

I watched many hours of the debate in the Senate last night and this morning, and did not find it a stunt or a manufactured drama. It was one of the few times I heard serious debate about how best to find success, as the current course has not brought success. I heard some of the logic (or lack of it) from members of both sides of the Senate on what has happened and what should or could happen. Media coverage mocking the discussions misses the point of the debate entirely.

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana spoke most forcefully last night on the fact that the current policy has abandoned an earnest effort to capture or kill bin Laden and his top leaders. She also rebuked the senior senator from Tennessee in her speech. You can hear and see her speech via this link.

She also introduced legislation as well, making the destruction of al-Qaeda our top priority:

"Introduced as an amendment to H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization Bill, the proposal states that "it shall be the policy of the United States Government that the foremost objective of the United States in the Global War on Terrorism is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other leaders of al Qaeda, and to dismantle the al Qaeda network."

The Landrieu plan repositions U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to root out and combat al Qaeda forces, authorizes $3.6 billion for counter-terror programs in the region and reestablishes Alec Station, the CIA mission to hunt down Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants.

The mission had been aborted last year after the Bush Administration determined that bin Laden no longer posed a threat to the United States. An intelligence report due out today, however, is expected to describe al Qaeda's strength as having returned to pre-9/11 levels.

"Our brave soldiers and Marines, sailors and airmen, answered the duty call of 9/11," Sen. Landrieu said. "But our nation's focus has been misdirected, allowing al Qaeda to flourish while the White House pursues a flawed strategy in Iraq. Nearly six years after orchestrating the deaths of 2,997 people, Osama bin Laden remains at large, rebuilding his network to strike again. Holding him and the other perpetrators of that horrible day to account can be no less than our foremost priority. We must redouble our efforts to deliver justice where it is due, root out evil where it hides and destroy al Qaeda's capacity to act out its desire to destroy America."

Consistent with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, the Landrieu proposal boosts support for Afghan Security Forces and NATO forces in Afghanistan and for increased security cooperation inside Pakistan. It also adds funding for translators and translation technologies, drug interdiction and counter-drug activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and operations to secure the Pakistani and Iranian borders.

As the U.S. draws down combat forces in Iraq, the Landrieu amendment would limit the mission of remaining combat troops to protecting U.S. and Coalition personnel and infrastructure; training, equipping and providing logistical support for the Iraqi Security Forces; and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. Combat resources could then be repositioned as needed to support the bolstered mission of Operation Enduring Freedom and the NATO International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

Under the Landrieu plan, every unit deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan would be required to meet the baseline C-1 readiness standard. Units would not be permitted to deploy without the proper training and full complement of equipment required for their specific mission.

"Where al Qaeda and other terrorist groups exist in Iraq, this plan would continue to empower our forces to strike, and strike hard," Sen. Landrieu said. "But a fish rots from the head, and we've spent too much time chasing the tail. We must make sure our skilled men and women in combat have the clear mission and full resources they need to focus their fight at the top, where it belongs."

The Strategy of Confusion

There are as many confusing and conflicting opinions about the war in Iraq and the 'war on terror' as there are stars in the sky. The dim light of these distant objects are somehow the basis of mystical interpretations, indicating signs and wonders of what may be or may not be. I'm surprised we aren't getting cable news updates from outside the cave of the Oracle of Delphi.

"Within the last week we have been told that Al Qaeda is weaker, Al Qaeda is stronger, Al Qaeda is coming, Al Qaeda is here, and that we are fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here except, somehow, maybe, they’ve found there way to our shores. Add to this Homeland Security Chief Chertoff’s “gut feeling” that we will be attacked even though there is no credible evidence. (via TPM)

Then today comes another assessment, which has been three-years in the making, that America is facing a persistent threat, but it's worse in Europe.

Maybe these claims and warnings are all just Weapons of Mass Confusion, driven by the idea that the nation's leaders should never be specific about success or failure in order to confuse The Enemy. But my 'gut feeling' is that the leadership is some seriously sad disarray.

For sheer obscenity, however, nothing tops this company which is selling fake boobs to support the troops.

We have no need of fake boobs, there is enough boobishness already.

UPDATE: Also see this post from R. Neal. I saw the 'press briefing' he mentioned and it was hardly informative but was quite confusing.

The War of Words on Iraq

Intense debate today in Congress about the status of the war in Iraq and what the next steps should be or could be, all airing on CSPAN for the next few hours.

Lots of clips and snippets and rhetoric will filter through the news services from this debate, some will moan and wail that the Democrats are evil whiny quitters, and some will find members of the GOP as the only true patriots in America.

Boiling down the vast complex issues regarding Iraq to li'l quotes is a fool's errand.

James Joyner of Outside the Beltway has some thoughts worth pondering on the interim report regarding the status of the "18 benchmarks" necessary for progress in Iraq (didn't we already claim an accomplished mission?):

"Essentially, despite AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) comprising something like five percent of the insurgency, we have diverted most of our resources to combating it. And we’re failing. Not only is AQI stronger but, as another report being released today suggests, al Qaeda in general is enjoying a resurgence.

Meanwhile, the ISF (Iraq Security Force) continues to be an undependable, lackluster fighting force four years into the game. That, despite their training having been headed up by the counterinsurgency guru who’s now in charge of the whole shebang.

To be fair, the full complement of troops that made up the Surge are just now coming into place. When this was announced, President Bush warned that we would not see immediate results ...

"At the same time, the Iraqi government is, by the White House’s own admission, making essentially no progress on any of the meaningful milestones. It has long been an article of faith among both supporters and critics of the war that it would not be won militarily but politically. There’s not much sign that either are happening."

One item of note -- it is astonishing to me to hear numerous congressmen dismiss as 'irrelevant' that the U.S. was given false information to justify the invasion, or that the strategies of the last 4 years have yielded little success. We are where we are, they say. And yet somehow, for Congress to urge and support a whole new strategy is the most dangerous act imaginable.

I have often wondered what the status of unrest and warfare might be in the mideast today has our strategy been to establish a thriving, successful non-terrorist-ridden nation in Afghanistan first before diverting attention to the nation of Iraq.

I likewise wonder if a society such as ours, who stand irritated in front of a microwave oven fuming mad over how long it takes to cook food, is taking time to think rationally about this war. I also remain befuddled that the nefarious goals of a few hundred or few thousand of radical terrorists are enough to confound politicians and elicit emotional squeals of fear from so many.

In a few months when new elections for office in Washington are held, I'd wager American voters will have the final say and the plans of the current administration will be abandoned.

Outsourcing the War in Iraq

Listening to the demands from the White House regarding the funding of the war in Iraq, the drumbeat message appears to be "must have money for the troops." Shouldn't citizens and representatives be asking how much money is given to private contractors versus how much actually goes into the US military?

Between 100 and 200,000 private contracts provide the military with laundry services, meals, latrine operations, transportation of materials, and an unknown number of private and heavily armed security forces. Without these contracts, could the military today conduct any operation? And does that mean that the White House is now lobbying for businesses to receive tax dollars?

On May 10th Jeremy Scahill testified before a Congressional Committee about what has become the "outsourcing" of the war in Iraq and the questions such operations bring --

"Many Americans are under the impression that the US currently has about 145,000 active duty troops on the ground in Iraq. What is seldom mentioned is the fact that there are at least 126,000 private personnel deployed alongside the official armed forces. These private forces effectively double the size of the occupation force, largely without the knowledge of the US taxpayers that foot the bill.

"These forces work for US companies like Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp as well as companies from across the globe. Some contractors make in a month what many active-duty soldiers make in a year. Indeed, there are private contractors in Iraq making more money than the Secretary of Defense and more than the commanding generals. The testimony about private contractors that I hear most often from active duty soldiers falls into two categories: resentment and envy.

"They ask what message their country is sending them. While many soldiers lack basic protective equipment--facts well-known to this committee--they are in a war zone where they see the private soldiers whiz by in better vehicles, with better armor, better weapons, wearing the corporate logo instead of the American flag and pulling in much more money. They ask: Are our lives worth less?"

Scahill notes that 40 cents of every dollar for the war goes into private contracts, and asks about the wisdom of relying on the profit motive for private firms working in Iraq. Does it simply create a shadow army?

Also testifying was Robert Greenwald, who's film "Iraq For Sale" (previously mentioned) reports on the war profiteering taking place in Iraq. Congressman Jack Kensington (R-GA) does not seem much interested in investigating the use of tax dollars, but quizzes Greenwald on the money made by those who report on the war profiteers. It's an amazing video.

The recently vetoed legislation on funding, however, would have had minimal effect on private contractors:

"The legislation vetoed by the president last week would not have reduced the use of private military operators in Iraq. As originally passed in the House, the Democrats' plan would have cut only about 15 percent, or $815 million, of the supplemental spending earmarked for day-to-day military operations "to reflect savings attributable to efficiencies and management improvements in the funding of contracts in the military departments." But even that mild provision was dropped in late April by the Democrats, who said they needed to hold more hearings on the contractor issue. Instead, they moved to withhold - not cut - 15 percent of total day-to-day operational funding, but only until Defense Secretary Robert Gates submits a report on the use of contractors and the scope of their deployment. Once the report is submitted, the 15 percent would be released.

While the discussions have centered on accountability, fiscal responsibility, and oversight, the big question that Congress has not confronted is: Should the U.S. government even be allowed to use mercenary forces, whose livelihoods depend on war and conflict, to help fight its battles in Iraq?"

Thought For The Day

As a confrontation over government authority and warfare is gearing up, a Thought for All Those In Washington --

"Self-deception proves itself to be more powerful than deception.

We all make similarly irrational arguments about decisions in our lives: we hang on to losing stocks, unprofitable investments, failing businesses and unsuccessful relationships. If we were rational, we would just compute the odds of succeeding from this point forward and then decide if the investment warrants the potential payoff. But we are not rational--not in love or war or business--and this particular irrationality is what economists call the "sunk-cost fallacy."

via