Iraq for Sale

Last week, I watched George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address. As he was talking about the situation in Iraq, I was reminded of a documentary that I saw at Ecclesiax (Ecclesiax is a church that enjoy, and occaisionally attend). The documentary was called Iraq for Sale, and was made by the same individuals who made the “anti-Wal Mart” documentary, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices. Iraq for Sale is an excellent film, and I highly recommend it.

As with most current events, I was trying to keep up with the entire situation in Iraq. But (and I blame school), I wasn’t able to follow it as closely as I would have liked. I found the documentary incredibly interesting because it portrayed a side of the American government handling of the war that I had never thought existed. Mind you, as I mentioned before, I could have also been unaware because of my pseudo-following abilities. Anyway, the documentary examined a couple of the companies that the American government had contracted to work in Iraq. Haliburton was one of the companies, and I can’t remember the names of the others. Essentially, the government was spending an extraordinary amount of unnecessary money on contracts with these companies. Why unnecessary? Because a good portion (from what was shown in the film) of the jobs that were being contracted for could have been given to members of the US Army. Interviews were done with current and former employees from these companies, and most of these people recognized that their job could have been done by a member of the Army. None of the employees were aware of the complete details of their missions, and genuinely wanted to help their country.

I won’t write out everything that was said/shown in the documentary; I’ll leave it up to you to go see it. However, I will mention what enraged me the most in the film. Most people know what occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison/detainee center in Baghdad. The documentary revealed that not only were military personnel involved with the torture and humiliation of the detainees, but contracted employees were as well. (I had no idea this was the case…) This staff acted as interrogators, and according to former prisoners, played as large of a role in the scandal as the military personnel. In the end, who was punished? The military officers alone. The contracted employees managed to avoid any sort of convictions or penalties. I find this absurd. Why should the Army have received all of the bad press, and the well paid contractors suffer none of the blame? The film portrayed the contractors as not having a chain of command, in essence, their superiors turning a blind eye to the situation. What kind of weak justice is demonstrated when half of the criminals are ignored and not investigated? I can’t remember if the film delved into the details of why the contracted employees escaped punishment, but it would be interesting to find out.

I really wonder how these sort of events occur in the first place. I also can’t wrap my mind around the amount of money squandered on these contractors. The money could be spent in such better ways. Alas, such are the ways of certain (dare I say most?) governments…