TPM Reader CH chimes in on military contracting …
I just wanted to chime in again on the contractor issue because in my own military experience, I arrived at my duty station in late 1997 and even at that point my unit was losing senior enlisted who decided to get out and, as you stated, do what they were doing anyway but privately and for substantially more money. This continued over my five years of service, and one of the factors that led to my leaving military service was that I could look up the chain and see the proverbial rats fleeing the ship. These were individuals with 12-16 years of service too!! They could retire at 20 years, but decided to leave and go private. My colleagues and I would often debate the merits of privatization back at that time as well. I worked in military intelligence, and I think this was one of the first areas to go private. It never made sense to us that the U.S. Government would pay a contractor 10 times (or more) what we were making to do the EXACT same thing and with no guarantees that the results would be on par with ours or better. From my experience and that of my friends, we also came to know certain contracting operators WERE in fact incompetent. This stemmed from the fact that private companies jumping into the bidding process to get a piece of the pie had never before done the work that we were doing. If/when they would win the bids, they would just hire whomever and throw them at the mission. This, naturally, caused some trouble. Furthermore, there were issues of morale in places like JTF-Guantanamo when private contractors were treated far better than military members doing the same jobs. In some cases, people who were called up out of the IRR left Gitmo only to come back as private contractors too. I don’t blame hard-working people for jumping the military’s ship in favor of much better pay and treatment, but it would seem that an argument could be easily made to show that an increase in the military’s size and ability to carry out the operations needed WITHOUT private contractors would be beneficial to everyone. Well, everyone except for those making the money…which, in my and most of my colleagues’ opinion is 100% mercenary work. I still don’t blame those who choose to do it because they’re just taking advantage of where things are now, but we should call it what it is and not delude ourselves into thinking that it is anything but war-fighting for hire.
Was Blackwater cost-cutting behind the 2004 ambush of those four US security contractors, the ones whose bodies were mutilated and put on public display? That’s what a new report says.
It’s an ugly story of cost-cutting and efforts to undercut a competitor, based on testimony from Blackwater employees and internal reports.
After hedging last fall, Hillary reiterates her opposition to torture.
The Sunlight Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense have put together a new site with a database of over three-thousand earmarks with tools you can use to investigate their probity and usefulness yourself. Are they of use to the districts of the earmarker? Or are they favors for fundraisers? You can dig in, find out, and then share you findings with other users.
On the contracting issue we’ve been discussing, here’s one amendment I want to put on everyone’s radar. Sens. Webb (D-VA) and McCaskill (D-MO) have introduced an amendment to create a bipartisan commission specifically to investigate the contracting processes in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The text of the amendment still appears to be in flux. But my understanding is that its brief would include both the policy dimensions of the issue and investigating wrongdoing. So far the two have only been able to get out-going Sen. Hagel (R-NE) on board on the GOP side of the aisle. Out-going Sen. Warner (R-VA) spoke against it yesterday on the floor, saying he would oppose it because it would pull jurisdiction away from the Armed Services Committee.
A friend of the site sent along a reminder of the exchange President Bush had with a student back in April 2006 while speaking at Johns Hopkins University:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. It’s an honor to have you here. I’m a first-year student in South Asia studies. My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.
THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Help. (Laughter.)
Q I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter.) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against — over our American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I wasn’t kidding — (laughter.) I was going to — I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I’ve got an interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation — I don’t mean to be dodging the question, although it’s kind of convenient in this case, but never — (laughter.) I really will — I’m going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That’s how I work. I’m — thanks. (Laughter.)
Late Update: Here’s video of the exchange:
Broder …
The spectacle Tuesday of 151 House Republicans voting in lock step with the White House against expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was one of the more remarkable sights of the year. Rarely do you see so many politicians putting their careers in jeopardy.
The bill they opposed, at the urging of President Bush, commands healthy majorities in both the House and Senate but is headed for a veto because Bush objects to expanding this form of safety net for the children of the working poor. He has staked out that ground on his own, ignoring or rejecting the pleas of conservative senators such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, who helped shape the compromise that the House approved and that the Senate endorsed.
The Post has more on the battle over SCHIP renewal here.
Broder gets the key dynamic right. And this is one reason there is an as-yet-unrevealed though in many ways profound antipathy for President Bush among many congressional Republicans. He’s not running again. And he couldn’t care less how much he damages his party over the next 18 months. Often political leaders face a choice — stand for principle and possibly have a strong political issue at the next election or achieve some substantive accomplishment. Here the Dems appear to have every likelihood of achieving both. They’ll probably get SCHIP and while also having the president inflict what may turn out to be a fatal political wound on a number of House Republicans. He’ll bring them down in the noble cause of keeping lower and middle income kids from getting health care.
Since his house was raided by the FBI, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), a titan of pork, has kept a low profile, but he’s speaking out now in a spat with Alaska’s GOP governor over her de-funding of the notorious Bridge to Nowhere.
The only thing more dismaying than the Bush Administration’s continued fear-mongering is that it continues to work.