Subscribe to ePluribus Media



ePluribus Media Store


Want Headlines via Email?
Enter your email address:


Help Save 1.800.SUICIDE


Making the War in Iraq Palatable at Home

by rcs1

(Promoted and originally posted at Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 06:30:22 AM EST -- 'nets) (I also took five mins and plotted your data --'nets)

Something everyone should keep an eye on if troop numbers start decreasing: the number of contractors in Iraq.

While it may look pretty to everyone at home to see troop numbers go down, if the number of contractors is simultaneously going up, it's a draw and nothing more than political maneuvering to make the war appear more palatable to the American public.

Let's look at some numbers.


commentary :: :: :: buzz-it!
For the purposes of this review, I am relying on data from the Brookings Institute, The Iraq Index (PDF), May 30, 2006.

page 20 - Troops US & Coalition
page 15 - Contractors

May 2003

150,000 US troops
23,000 coalition troops
173,000 troops
11,000 contractors
184,000 personnel
May 2004
138,000 US troops
24,000 coalition troops
162,000 troops
18,000 contractors
180,000 personnel
May 2005
138,000 US troops
23,000 coalition troops
161,000 troops
30,000 contractors as of Dec 2004
191,000 personnel
In June 2005, PBS estimated 110,000-140,000 contractors in Iraq with an additional 15,000 Iraqis under contract to guard the oil infrastructure. Of the contractors, 50,000 were employed by KBR who administers the LOGCAPIII contract for the US Army.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/faqs/

June 2006

132,000 US troops (down 6,000 since Jan)
20,000 coalition troops
152,000 troops
50,000 contractors (employed by KBR, see ref above)
202,000 personnel
Other than a brief reduction in May 2004, the numbers aren't going down, they're going up! And Iraq isn't paying the contractors, the US taxpayer is.

So if the White House starts talking about reductions in troop numbers, everyone needs to keep an eye on the number of contractors going into Iraq in their place.

The above should also make it very clear why the Iraq supplementals and the Defense Budget haven't seen any significant reduction in costs.

Note:
One thing I've noticed is the White House has stopped using troop deployment numbers in its Fact Sheets on Iraq. As always, more accurate data welcome!

Display:
Brookings' Peter Singer wrote what I'd consider the definitive legal analysis of the PMF's:  War, Profits, and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Spring 2004.

Start with the article on Mitch Daniels intent to "privatize", and read OMB Circular A-76 from whitehouse.gov.

The program is long, deep, and continuous.

by rba on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 09:41:24 AM EST

for a short synopsis (I know, I know...) but you are very careful with "spin" and I know you'd give it perfectly unbiased summary.

If you can that would be awesome for the rest of us "terminology and time" challenged.

by Cho on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 09:47:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

today, but I'll try to get something up by tomorrow morning.  Got many links, 'cause I've been trying to trace this one.  <n/t>

by rba on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but glad you been tracking this one!

by Cho on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:21:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was reading this thread thinking back to an article I had read a few months ago about the impact of contracting on promotions within the military - how so many chose to go private their was critical lack of individuals to promote.  

Well, when I was looking for that article, I came across this thesis from 2002. It includes a detailed discussion about the potential risks and impact of contractors with detail by contractor type...

by jeninRI on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 01:10:26 PM EST

That's a great find Jen. I'm about half way thru so far. (86 pps)

by susie dow on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 04:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Privatizing, outsourcing, whatever you want to call it has been on the increase for some time.  I remember when we first started turning over on base dining facilities to civilian outfits.

Some folks at the time worried that just what you've outlined would happen if we got into a long war overseas.  A lot of these outfits have to provide their own security, and I'm not sure at all how the civilian gun toters get regulated by the military chain of command.

I'm thinking we may hear something about that in the not too distant future.

Jeff

by Jeff Huber on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 09:22:39 AM EST

I know a handful of people that somehow finished up their time and then went back as contractors.

I wonder how many soldiers are we moving into private industry?

by intranets on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:06:06 AM EST

Thank you intranets.

I keep thinking of those bogus diet plans, "Eat all you want and still LOSE weight!!"

I think Americans have lost the ability to think clearly and rationally. Reverse mortgages. New car deals with cash back. Low interest credit cards with transfer deals.

If it looks too good to be true...guess what.

by susie dow on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's ok, Congress is protecting us with the Bankruptcy act they passed.  They know consumers are more important because they are the voters.  I mean Ford and Chevy are giving free gas until 2007.  Free Gas!  I'm gonna get me one of them F250s now.  My broker told me I could refinance my house and get free money to pay for my truck.  Free truck and free gas.

by intranets on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 09:28:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Follow susie's pbs link for more, but the private security forces (as opposed to logistics/support), draw heavily from Special Ops.  The most expensive to train, they simple go from one uniform to another, at a substantial increase in pay.

by rba on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:24:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Troop numbers in January 2006 were reported by the White House to be 138,000. The Brookings Institute used the number of 132,000.

So the final number for June 2006 is 202,000 to 208,000 personnel in Iraq depending on which figure is the most accurate.

It still represents an overall increase.

by susie dow on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:31:25 AM EST

This situation is very scarey to me.

I am also concerned about the legal and moral checks on contractors' behavior.  I would also like to use a more accurate term than "contractor" since that is a watered down beyond belief descriptor.

This is Rumsfeld's notion of a private army -- pure and simple.

Any one able to provide us with some history of private armies -- from mercenaries, to hired guns, to the Hessians the British hired to fight the patriots in the American Revolutionary war ...

by Cho on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:37:01 AM EST

Kenneth Adelman and Paul Wolfowitz are quite closely associated with the Shakespeare Theater in Washington DC. Adelman has taught about Shakespeare and Elizabethan England in the Smithsonian Institution's Resident Associate program. That is just to say he is involved in this, not to attack the Smithsonian for his involvement. I think his wife, Janet Adelman was a keynote speaker at this year's Shakespeare Assocaition of America conference in a panel on Shakespeare and Elizabthan military policy. Kenneth is a close friend of V-P Cheney.
Elizabeth did not like spending money on military ventures. She preferred to have these things under-written by private investors, such as herself, who would lend money, to be repaid out of the proceeds. Drake's Golden Hinde circumnavigation is a good example.

The classic case is Irish policy, which alternated between offical military, manipulation of feuds among Gaelic clans, and private enterprise. The private enterprize efforts at "planting" settlements in Ulster in the 1570's may well be the fore-runner forthe policy later adopted in Virginia against the Indians, and was driven by this wierd Protestant destiny idea, this land is our land type thing, you all had better go somewhere else.

by Chris White on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 10:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for adding that information to the discussion.

And welcome!  Really enjoyed your commentary the other day.

by Cho on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 12:46:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for your welcome!

by Chris White on Sat Jun 24, 2006 at 08:58:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is the terminology used to describe the data from the Brookings Institute.
NUMBER OF US CONTRACTORS AND FEDERAL CIVILIANS IN THE US CENTRAL COMMAND AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY

Data from the Department of Defense as found in Logistics Support for Deployed Military Forces, The Congress of the United States, Congressional
Budget Office, October 2005, page 46.

Area of Responsibility (AOR) = The geographical area associated with a combatant command within which a combatant commander has authority to plan and conduct operations.

logistics

The science of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of forces. In its most comprehensive sense, those aspects of military operations which deal with: a. design and development, acquisition, storage, movement, distribution, maintenance, evacuation, and disposition of materiel; b. movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel; c. acquisition or construction, maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities; and d. acquisition or furnishing of services.

Halliburton's subsidiary KBR administers LOGCAP III for the US Army:

Some of the more critical functions include laundry and bath, facilities and billeting, clothing exchange and repair, waste and sanitation, food service, mortuary affairs, supply support, maintenance, transportation and distribution, and power generation and distribution to list but a few.
These are the types of contractors listed in the Brookings Institute Report.

by susie dow on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 08:58:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cho,

It might be easier to understand the different roles of the different kinds of contractors if you separate them in to three basic groups.

  1. Support (food, shelter, laundry, etc for US troops - Halliburton's KBR LOGCAP III contract)

  2. Reconstruction. (rebuilding infrastructure projects in Iraq - Bechtel, Fluor, etc)

  3. Defense Contractors (weapons - Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, etc)

While there is some overlap, (for instance, the wepaons manufacturers sometimes send specialists to maintain equipment in the field who accompany the troops) the Brookings Report is addressing the contractors in #1.

by susie dow on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 11:36:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in a small commentary.

by rba on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just for handy-dandy referencing:

Background/OMB

by kfred on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 12:20:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember the different roles they are taking on.  We're just deferring the risk at more dollars with less control.

Bad policy all the way around.

by kfred on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 09:00:47 AM EST

The US needs to have an honest discussion about privatization. Simply saving money is not always the best recourse for the nation.

My understanding is that A-76 Findings, once deciding something must be provided by the private sector, can not be reversed. Hopefully someone here has had experience with A-76 and can go into more detail.

by susie dow on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 09:19:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

IED attacks, Iraqi army/police casualties, civilian casualties, etc. If this is what progress looks like, I'd hate to see what setbacks looks like. What a great report, Susie. Not nearly enough attention given to what's going on with the contractors. Top notch work...and great graphic 'nets. Thank you...
On PTSD Combat | Email list | Book
by ilona on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 02:18:44 PM EST
Wanted to post this link in case anyone wanted to look through any of the data from older reports.

Iraq Index at Brookings Institution

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm

by susie dow on Fri Jun 23, 2006 at 03:55:26 PM EST

Support ePluribus Media -- Support Citizen Powered Journalism!

ePluribus Media

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

members


community front page

make a new account


Username:
Password:

create account | faq | search | community front page |