Military Contractors Flush with Profits from the Iraq War

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
If you think the U.S. has only 160,000 troops in Iraq, think again.

With almost no congressional oversight and even less public awareness, the Bush administration has more than doubled the size of the U.S. occupation through the use of private war companies.

There are now almost 200,000 private "contractors" deployed in Iraq by Washington. This means that U.S. military forces in Iraq are now outsized by a coalition of billing corporations whose actions go largely unmonitored and whose crimes are virtually unpunished.

In essence, the Bush administration has created a shadow army that can be used to wage wars unpopular with the American public but extremely profitable for a few unaccountable private companies.

Since the launch of the "global war on terror," the administration has systematically funneled billions of dollars in public money to corporations like Blackwater USA , DynCorp, Triple Canopy, Erinys and ArmorGroup. They have in turn used their lucrative government pay-outs to build up the infrastructure and reach of private armies so powerful that they rival or outgun some nation's militaries.

"I think it's extraordinarily dangerous when a nation begins to outsource its monopoly on the use of force and the use of violence in support of its foreign policy or national security objectives," says veteran U.S. Diplomat Joe Wilson, who served as the last U.S. ambassador to Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War.

The billions of dollars being doled out to these companies, Wilson argues, "makes of them a very powerful interest group within the American body politic and an interest group that is in fact armed. And the question will arise at some time: to whom do they owe their loyalty?"

Precise data on the extent of U.S. spending on mercenary services is nearly impossible to obtain -- by both journalists and elected officials--but some in Congress estimate that up to 40 cents of every tax dollar spent on the war goes to corporate war contractors. At present, the United States spends about $2 billion a week on its Iraq operations.

While much has been made of the Bush administration's "failure" to build international consensus for the invasion of Iraq, perhaps that was never the intention. When U.S. tanks rolled into Iraq in March 2003, they brought with them the largest army of "private contractors" ever deployed in a war. The White House substituted international diplomacy with lucrative war contracts and a coalition of willing nations who provided token forces with a coalition of billing corporations that supplied the brigades of contractors.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the ratio of troops to private contractors was about 60 to 1. Today, it is the contractors who outnumber U.S. forces in Iraq. As of July 2007, there were more than 630 war contracting companies working in Iraq for the United States. Composed of some 180,000 individual personnel drawn from more than 100 countries, the army of contractors surpasses the official U.S. military presence of 160,000 troops.

In all, the United States may have as many as 400,000 personnel occupying Iraq, not including allied nations' militaries. The statistics on contractors do not account for all armed contractors. Last year, a U.S. government report estimated there were 48,000 people working for more than 170 private military companies in Iraq. "It masks the true level of American involvement," says Ambassador Wilson.

How much money is being spent just on mercenaries remains largely classified. Congressional sources estimate the United States has spent at least $6 billion in Iraq, while Britain has spent some $400 million. At the same time, companies chosen by the White House for rebuilding projects in Iraq have spent huge sums in reconstruction funds -- possibly billions on more mercenaries to guard their personnel and projects.

The single largest U.S. contract for private security in Iraq was a $293 million payment to the British firm Aegis Defence Services, headed by retired British Lt. Col. Tim Spicer, who has been dogged by accusations that he is a mercenary because of his private involvement in African conflicts. The Texas-based DynCorp International has been another big winner, with more than $1 billion in contracts to provide personnel to train Iraqi police forces, while Blackwater USA has won $750 million in State Department contracts alone for "diplomatic security."

At present, an American or a British Special Forces veteran working for a private security company in Iraq can make $650 a day. At times the rate has reached $1,000 a day; the pay dwarfs many times over that of active duty troops operating in the war zone wearing a U.S. or U.K. flag on their shoulder instead of a corporate logo.


AlterNet: War on Iraq: Flush with Profits from the Iraq War, Military Contractors See a World of Business Opportunities
 
So, what bothers you guys the most? ... The fact that private workers in a war zone can make up to $1000 per day including overtime, or the fact that the American taxpayer is paying to rebuild infrastructure?

Vi
 
So, what bothers you guys the most? ... The fact that private workers in a war zone can make up to $1000 per day including overtime, or the fact that the American taxpayer is paying to rebuild infrastructure?

Vi

Neither, What pisses me off the most is that they also use private contractors to do jobs that the Military usually do for themselves.
Like the Quartermaster corp.
During the beginning days of the war they used Haliburton to deliver ammo to the troops on the front lines. Needless to say that the fire fight was going on too strong and Delivery was put off until the fire fight died down....
The Quartermaster Corps does not have that luxury, Haliburton had put our troops in even greater danger by pulling that crap....
My point is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
So, what bothers you guys the most? ... The fact that private workers in a war zone can make up to $1000 per day including overtime, or the fact that the American taxpayer is paying to rebuild infrastructure?

Vi
Mostly the fact that Cheney privatized the support part of the military when he worked for Bush I and started a war under Bush II to capitalize on his restructuring. I was in the ordnance core for a while during Viet Nam and made 90 bucks a mo. I wonder what those guys would have been paid to do my job then. When you're spending taxpayer money to your buddies, Haliburton etc, it is like the big Govmt. cheeze giveaway, right VI. Talk about government cheeze, hallileuya!
 
These private companies work for their profits...leave it to med to compare them to "cheese giveaways".....holy cow!
Before you lefties get you panties all in a bunch, why don't you look at the profit margins of these companies.....hard to use the word greed when compared to other industries....these are relatively anemic profits indeed!
But it does not matter when one is afflicted with Cheney hatred.
:mrgreen:
 
Wavels there is no reason to privatize Parts of the Military... It wasn't broken in the first place... Like I said before, if it ain't broke don't try and fix it. Besides, the Army Quartermaster Corps and do it for less than a 1/4 of the price that private contractors can....
 
That is a valid point Mr. Dank. I tend to agree with you.
However, Bush and Cheney were not the ones to institute this process; Clinton used Halliburton for his military exploits as well.
 
That is a valid point Mr. Dank. I tend to agree with you.
However, Bush and Cheney were not the ones to institute this process; Clinton used Halliburton for his military exploits as well.
I guess you're not as smart as you think. Cheney was the one that began privatizing the milatary under bush I, then went to work for Haliburton. Working for Haliburton and getting Government contracts as an ex cabinet member (Secretary of war, defense, or what ever he was) seems like a no brainer to me. It was Cheney that started this shit, and then capitalized on it after starting the Iraq war
 
The fact whether Clinton or Bush started it, isn't relevant. Just that fact that they are doing it isn't right.
 
Yes, we need the Army Corp of Engineers on the job. After all ... they did a great job on the levees in Na-lins! :blsmoke:

Vi
 
Mostly the fact that Cheney privatized the support part of the military when he worked for Bush I and started a war under Bush II to capitalize on his restructuring. I was in the ordnance core for a while during Viet Nam and made 90 bucks a mo. I wonder what those guys would have been paid to do my job then. When you're spending taxpayer money to your buddies, Haliburton etc, it is like the big Govmt. cheeze giveaway, right VI. Talk about government cheeze, hallileuya!

Dam med we could have crossed paths, I was in the army from 67 to 70 and I seem to remember $84 as take home for an E1 in 67, and it may have been after laundry. I was RA. you RA, US or {as if} NG? Pay was bumped 4 times in 69 and 70.
 
Dam med we could have crossed paths, I was in the army from 67 to 70 and I seem to remember $84 as take home for an E1 in 67, and it may have been after laundry. I was RA. you RA, US or {as if} NG? Pay was bumped 4 times in 69 and 70.
I was in a couple a years earlier and I believe an E-3 was 93 bucks a mo. been a while, but either 93 or 91. An E-1 was 78 bucks, an E-2 was 84, I think. I was RA. The draft was ever present, and I wanted to get it over with.
 
Yes, we need the Army Corp of Engineers on the job. After all ... they did a great job on the levees in Na-lins! :blsmoke:

Vi

Vi that is because The Government allowed the Army Corp of Engineers to hire private contractors the last time repairs to the levees were needed. But I'm guessing you don't pay attention to such things (as it doesn't suit your purpose).
 
Here's my take on privatizing construction on structures like the levees. If you have government inspectors that have to sign off on all aspects of the build with stiff penalties for signing a bogus report then I'd be for it. The Army engineers have no profit motive to cut corners and do substandard work like a private contractor would, and we know how much conscience they have (Haliburton etc.) Let the Army engineers build infrastructure that is important to safety and reliability.
 
Back
Top