Krugman: "What's truly shocking in Iraq..."

[nostamj]

<snip>

Conservatives make a fetish out of privatization of government functions; after the 2002 elections, George Bush announced plans to privatize up to 850,000 federal jobs. At home, wary of a public backlash, he has moved slowly on that goal. But in Iraq, where there is little public or Congressional oversight, the administration has privatized everything in sight.

For example, the Pentagon has a well-established procurement office for gasoline. In Iraq, however, that job was subcontracted to Halliburton. The U.S. government has many experts in economic development and reform. But in Iraq, economic planning has been subcontracted — after a highly questionable bidding procedure — to BearingPoint, a consulting firm with close ties to Jeb Bush.

What's truly shocking in Iraq, however, is the privatization of purely military functions.

For more than a decade, many noncritical jobs formerly done by soldiers have been handed to private contractors. When four Blackwater employees were killed and mutilated in Falluja, however, marking the start of a wider insurgency, it became clear that in Iraq the U.S. has extended privatization to core military functions. It's one thing to have civilians drive trucks and serve food; it's quite different to employ them as personal bodyguards to U.S. officials, as guards for U.S. government installations and — the latest revelation — as interrogators in Iraqi prisons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/opinion/04KRUG.html

[nostamj]

1. truly shocking! Krugman falls off in 13.75 seconds! n/t

[Q]

2. Privatization is the only way the ruling class can control wages...

... and 'right to work' status. It's a way to get rid of the bothersome unions who demand such silly things as accountability, workplace safety and a living wage.

- The RWingers have wanted this for literally decades: privatize everything and gain full control over the workforce.

- But history and experience shows us what happens when you privatize government functions and leave them to corporations. It's the People who always suffer as profits rise for the few.

[central scrutinizer]

15. one more reason

when government services are privatized, you immediately create a workforce with a vested interest in who gets elected. You can imagine workers being hit with constant propaganda - if * loses, you will all lose your jobs. This kind of corruption, commonly called the spoils system, is the whole reason for the civil service - create a professional, nonpartisan workforce.

[King Coal]

3. Goddam when will it stop!

Bearingpoint has close ties to Jeb?

[nostamj]

10. if we do it right...

next January

[AZCat]

4. I've been wondering something about military function privatization...

Isn't this a threat to our national security? If certain necessary functions are being provided to our military by companies like Halliburton, what would happen if they discontinued their services? Does the military have a backup plan?

Since several of these companies have 'off-shore' accounting, are we able to apply any pressure to prevent them from say, accepting a bribe (and we know Halliburton isn't above that) and stopping or slowing their services?

In other words, isn't privatisation of certain functions dangerous?

[King Coal]

5. Mercenaries are whores

They work for money.

[AZCat]

6. Exactly!

So who is going to stop one of these companies from accepting a bribe from someone else re. "Last Man Standing" (Yojimbo for the Kurosawa fans)?

[JHB]

9. Privatization sets our military back 370 years.

Way back in the 1630's lots of military functions were "privatized".

For instance, the teamsters who drove the ox-driven carts that hauled around an army's field artillery were civilian contractors.

One fine day, the king of Sweden, Gustavus II Adolphus, noticed that that arrangement just might make the teamsters inclined to flee for their lives just when they were needed most, so he de-privatized the teamsters and had teamster-trained soldiers moving the artillery.

Thus started the trend to integrate all functions an army depended on under its own command: all so that it could do its main job to the best of its ability.

But, now we're in the Age of Reaganomics/Dubyanomics, which state that if the private sector can make a profit at something, the Gummint shouldn't do it at cost, and if something doesn't make a profit, the Gummint shouldn't be doing that either. Any function that can be farmed out as pork will be, military included.

So remember, folks, "privatization" of tour military is just happy-face spin for disintigrating our military.

[AZCat]

11. Thanks!

Great anecdote about the Swedish army, by the way! :)

[JHB]

12. Actually the Romans had done it earlier...

...but their system kinda broke down ;)

Also, it's not certain if GA was REALLY the first to integrate his forces, but he generally gets the credit because he was the first to use it effectively in a big way. (in other words, like any other history anecdote, the reality was more complicated)

[AZCat]

13. Why don't we hear any of this in the public dialogue on privatization?

It seems (from your posts) that there is historical evidence that should be examined in this debate, but your posts are the first I have ever heard of this. Am I just uninformed, or has the debate over privatization been 'dumbed-down' to eliminate any complications with reality?

[JHB]

17. It's been dumbed down

See what I said earlier about Reaganomics/Dubyanomics. Would you think they'd ever admit to a situation where a "market solution" wasn't the answer to all ills? (and if you don't buy that, here, have some pork).

[Sparkly]

7. It means less accountability for the government

(as well as more money from taxpayers).

[bigtree]

8. Businessmen are not in short supply in Iraq

The installed Iraqi Council, headed by the White House minion Chalabi, is as foreign to Iraq as anyone (Chalabi fled in 1958). The smartest move by the Authority so far may be its decision to withhold the bulk of the billions in frozen regime money from their control. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0315/fahim.php

The Council has announced that they will "liberalize" all of the contracts for 100% participation by all outside groups; except for the oil contracts. The oil will be a U.S. concern.

"We have helped to establish an independent Iraqi central bank. Working with the Iraqi Governing Council, we are establishing a new system that allows foreign investors to confidently invest capital in Iraq's future," President Bush bragged recently. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=October&x=20031011121533attocnich0.7477075&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html

Under an edict issued by the Iraqi/U.S. council, foreign banks are to be given immediate access, to establish themselves or buy into Iraq ventures. Under the new bank rules, six foreign banks will be allowed "fast-track" entry into the country and will be permitted full ownership of the local banks within five years.

Other moves by the Council have been the creation of a supposedly "independent" central bank; and a trade bank propped up by a gang of 13 foreign banks, and a $500 million credit from America's Export-Import Bank; more U.S. taxpayer dollars subsidizing foreign bankers. http://www.aicc.us/Vantage%20View.htm

In an economy which has never allowed outside ownership on this scale, the Iraqi citizens will almost certainly lose hold of their country and their resources, no matter how you view the U.S. advantage there.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WVA.) balked at approving funds requested by the White House for an Iraqi enterprise zone. "Iraq has an established, educated business class," he said. He added, "Businessmen are not in short supply in Iraq."

In a weekly radio address, President Bush said that Iraq is a ". . . place where markets are bustling, shelves are full, oil is flowing and satellite dishes are sprouting up."

"Since the liberation of that country, thousands of new businesses have been launched," Bush said. (replace the ravaged ones)
It is impossible to imagine that the president would expect or tolerate any foreign business interest succeeding ahead of the U.S. corporations which they have so aggressively promoted to secure the ownership of the majority of Iraq's wealth.

Before the war, Stephen Hadley spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in February 2003 about the Future of Iraq project. "If war comes," Hadley said, "it will be a war of liberation, not occupation. The United States needs the support of Iraq's people and it will work to win that support." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030212-15.html

"A critical part of the Iraq reconstruction effort will be ensuring that Iraq's oil sector is protected from acts of sabotage by Saddam Hussein's regime," Hadley continued, "and that its proceeds are applied for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

"Iraq's oil and other natural resources belong to all the Iraqi people, and the United States will respect this fact," Hadley
said.

However, White House Executive Order, 13303, is a bald contradiction of that assertion by this administration that the Iraqi people are to benefit from our seizure of their resources.

Executive Order, 13303 decrees that 'any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void', with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein." (The Development Fund, derived from actual and expected Iraqi oil and gas sales, apparently will be used to leverage U.S. government-backed loans, credit, and direct financing for U.S. corporate reconstruction operations in Iraq.) http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/2003.html

In other words, all of the oil, resources and industry are the property of the U.S.; to trade, sell, and disperse at its discretion. The only ones who will benefit from the robbery of the Iraqi oil are the companies that we will allow to exploit it. The oil mongers will incestuously share the stolen profits at the expense of American lives. No Iraqi should expect to wrest control over their own wells from the U.S. or its allies. It's likely that the only contact Iraqis will have with their own oil will be at the foreign-owned gas stations.


These are excerpts from my book, Power of Mischief-Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price

[SharonAnn]

14. I think the whole purpose was to reward cronies with Iraq's

infrastructure and assets.

You know, privatize the water system so that they can have Enron style water pricing in Iraq. Things like that.

[SpiralHawk]

16. As a famous Republican once said...

"...beware the Military-Industrial complex"

- Ike's farewell speech, before handing over the Presidency to JFK.

Ike could never have imagined the BushCo-CIA-SkullandBones-House of Saud-Halliburton-Carlyle-DominionCult complex and their vast web of lies.

And most Republicans today cannot admit the truth -- that this is the beast that they have aided and abetted to take control of the US of A.