Iraq for Sale
January 28, 2007
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…
Entry Filed under: World Issues. .
6 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
knsheppard | January 28, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Consider the portion of the budget spent on the military in the US compared with other countries. Or, to put it in another perspective, that several European countries require everyone of the legal age to serve in the military. There’s a politico-cultural aspect – as no one needs reminding. Did you hear the part in the State of the Union address where Bush stated that more contracting will go on to militia’s? That, I think, is serious cause for alarm. Do we know how these groups are being policed and held accountable?
2.
Ken H | January 31, 2007 at 5:24 am
Hi Candace,
I haven’t seen the documentary you mentioned, but one thing I didn’t get in your post – most of the contractors are contract militia? Is that why they said that the military can do most of the jobs the contracters were doing?
Haliburton is an oil company, they are contracting militia through them? I thought they had a bunch of oil guys over there ‘reconstructing’.
I have several suspicions if the above is correct:
- the military is stretched too thin in iraq, and they don’t want to send over more soldiers because it is unpopular
- the contractors who want to do rebuilding cannot, because it is too unsafe, so they have to contract militias to allow them to get any work done at all
Iraq is such a bad situation. I don’t know how they are going to get out of there without causing total chaos.
I like the Candy picture at the top of your blog.
3.
knsheppard | February 2, 2007 at 2:20 am
Ken, I think you’re confusing my comments with Candace’s post and the content of the documentary. The documentary talks about Haliburton and the mass privatization of the Iraqi state. I was asserting the existence and increased presence of militia – something Bush alluded to in his State of the Union address. I don’t think Haliburton is involved with militia contracting at all. And yes, it’s going to be, and is, a total mess.
4.
csirjoo | February 2, 2007 at 2:35 am
Ken – I was about to write what Kenny wrote, but he beat me to it. Haliburton is one of the companies that the government had contracted to work in Iraq, as you know. The documentary discussed how the workers did not know all of the details of their missions (in some cases, the death of employees resulted), and contrasted the lives of the workers (lavish accommodations, excellent food) with the living conditions of the military officers (potentially contaminated food and water, etc.).
As for contracting out militas, I think that’s a horrible idea. Where is the accountability in that? Is that even “allowed,” in terms of international standards and protocol?
5.
Ken H | February 7, 2007 at 5:21 am
I think you guys misunderstood my question. Probably my fault, given the time of day i posted it.
you said:
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.
what i didn’t understand was why is it that the movie claimed that the contractor jobs could have been given to army soldiers. what kind of jobs were they?
6.
csirjoo | February 8, 2007 at 2:18 am
Ah – sorry I suppose I didn’t make that entirely clear. In terms of the Haliburton contracting, the documentary was describing how the company did not seem pay a great deal of attention to its employees (a few employees died after being sent on a knowingly dangerous route).
The jobs that could have been given to the soldiers were those of interrogative nature. There were military interrogators as well as “plain clothes” interrogators who were contract workers. As I mentioned, some of these contract workers were involved in the Abu Grahib incidents, and escaped punishment. Now, perhaps there weren’t enough military personnel to take the interrogation positions, but I’m not entirely sure that contracting out interrogators who don’t follow the same code of ethics as military personnel was the best idea.
There were a few other instances where the soldiers would train the contracted workers to do their job, and the soldiers would be left without work (radio personnel, if I remember correctly).
I hope that makes more sense.