War Profiteers
The Bush administration is about to ask for more money for the war in Iraq. Reports say it will be a request for $100-128 billion.
Including money already budgeted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that will bring the total for 2007 to around $200 billion.
The total for 2006 was $120 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office.
“Although the Democrats are very uncomfortable with the way the Iraq policy is being executed, they are at pains not to appear that they are shortchanging troops in the field,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area think tank.
“This is their opportunity to show that they, too, are pro-defense,” Thompson said.
Translation: It doesn’t matter who’s in charge of congress; they’re going to funnel money to the same black-hole Pentagon that lost and still hasn’t accounted for $9 billion in 2004.
|
The missing $9 billion was uncovered by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), and what was its reward for embarrassing the Bush administration?
It’s scheduled to be closed on October 1st, 2007 under the terms of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. |
The Military Commissions Act of 2006—you know, the same act that killed the writ of habeus corpus, which means the government can now lock you up without telling anybody why they’re locking you up because it “can’t comment on items of national security.”
But back to the money…remember, we shouldn’t worry about it because, as then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in 2003:
“There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
|
How was Wolfowitz rewarded for this incredibly wrong insight? He became President of the World Bank.
And, besides the missing money that gets pocketed by the good folks arranging endless wars and police actions, where does the “accounted for” money go? Check out the Company Profiles on the left sidebar at this site: warprofiteers.com. |
|
Just for kicks, let’s look at the first company on the list: smart bomb and F-15 maker Boeing. CEO Jim McNerney receives an annual salary of $1.75 million and a bonus of as much as $4.03 million a year.
Ok, what about the second company on the list: F-16 and Javelin missile manufacturer Lockheed Martin. CEO Robert J. Stevens gets 4.8 million dollars this year, plus stock options.
Nice work if you can get it.
Read More: Iraq, war, profiteers, Bush, Wolfowitz, SIGIR, World Bank
Related Articles
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:01 am
You make many good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.
If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armements”
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com
The Pentagon is a giant,incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.
How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the Sec. Def. to be - Mr. Gates- understand such complexity, particulary if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?
Answer- he can’t. Therefor he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.
From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.
This situation is unfortunate but it is ablsolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.
This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen unitil it hits a brick wall at high speed.
We will then have to run a Volkswagon instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Ken: First, thank you so much for your service to the USA. I really can’t imagine the sacrifices you and others in the service have made for the good of not only this nation, but for people worldwide. Believe me, you ARE very much appreciated, and at the same time, I realize most of us non-veterans are way too apathetic in letting our gratitude be known.
Second, thanks for your insightful comments. They’ve added a few more brilliant brush strokes to the picture I’m getting of the huge intricate web of mixed motivations on so many different levels that drive the war machine.
I do believe you are right…the web and interests are so entangled, that it will have to hit a brick wall before it comes apart. Of course, nobody wants that either, and nobody’s looking forward to it, and yet it seems the longer we go without crashing, the harder the crash is going to be when we finally hit the wall. Hopefully things will work out for the best of everyone in a pleasant as yet unforeseen way…this country’s history is filled with such instances, so that’s what I hope for.
The article you mentioned above was a captivating read, and I’d encourage others to check it out, too. Here’s the link:
Odyssey of Armaments
P.S. Hope you can come back and comment often. Elaboration, constructive criticism, corrections, opinions…it’s all welcome here!
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:51 pm
good information Joe. Yes, Pentagon needs more money, and Dems will have to approve it otherwise they will look bad. But what about the growing national deficit….
Everyone enjoys tax cuts and all, but when it comes to spending the administration can not cut back. So, US keeps getting deeper in the hole, and raising the taxes maybe the only alternative for the good of the future.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
The Dem’s have already introduced a bill to keep the SIGR office open. I was so pissed when I read how the Repubes had put a rider on a bill to close his office. It was an important funding bill, so of course it passed.
This administration is cutting back, welfare(AFDC) is a favorite target as is the student loan program.
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:34 pm
TheDevil: I don’t know enough about the economy to understand the national debt, but I’m guessing it’s like the credit card companies who want to loan you more money than you can repay….and isn’t it the Federal Reserve (which is a private group of banks, not the government…) who’s loaning the US most of the money to finance its huge debt? I would think the interest we’re paying on the debt is making the Fed, whoever they are, rich. But I’m just guessing here…I really don’t know much about how all that works, except that SOMEBODY is getting rich :-) or it would get fixed and paid off.
Dusty: Glad to hear that the oversight office is going to stay open (I’m assuming the Dem’s can at least get that passed, right?) As for Welfare and student loans, sounds like only the rich will be getting an education and there won’t be much of a safety net before long…
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Attention Comrades,
Please visit http://ministryoflove.wordpress.com to learn more about our creative protest of the Military Commissions Act. We are sending a copy of 1984 to every Congressperson who voted for it.
Regards,
O’Brien
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Wow…I thought we had spent more money that that.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:55 pm
That was just for 2 years…2006 and projected 2007. Add in 2003-2005 and the monetary cost of the war is in the neighborhood of 4 billion dollars.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:11 am
It is sad that there is always someone out there that takes advantage and profits from whether it be war, Katrina, tsunami or any other thing. I believe US still has the big leverage in the global economy because it has the biggest economy in the world, and it still controls the direction. Despite what you see on TV… US still is the big daddy when you talk about money, and still will be for a while unless the spending keeps skyrocketing. And the spenders keep piling the debt… and filling their own damn pockets.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Government Computer News (GCN) recently carried a story on the difficulties experienced in the latest form of contracting being attempted by the federal government.
“Performance-Based Contracting” was made part of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) recently in an attempt to pre-establish at contract award those discrete performance outcomes that determine if and when a contractor will be paid.
Interestingly enough, the article splits the blame for the difficulties right down the middle, stating the government typically has problems defining what it wants as an end product or outcome and looks to contractors to define it for them. More than willing to do so, the contactors detail specific end products or outcomes, set schedule milestones and submit competitive proposals.
The winner is selected based on what the government thinks it needs at the time to fullfill its requirement and a contract is negotiated. Once underway, the government decides it wants something else (usually a management by government committee problem combined with the contractor wanting to grow his product or service and offering lots of options).
The resulting change of scope invalidates the original price and schedule, so a whole new round of proposals and negotiations must occur with the contract winner while the losers sit home and watch something totally different evolve than that for which they competed. The clock keeps ticking and the winner keeps getting his montlhy bill paid based on incurred cost or progress payments.
The link to the GCN ariticle is below and is yet another indication of how government keeps getting bigger by incompetancy:
http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/42691-1.html
For your holiday enjoyment, latch onto the 1980’s HBO Movie, “The Pentagon Wars”, a humorous but remarkably true story of the design and development of one of the costliest weapons systems ever to grace the Pentagon Budget, the “Bradley Fighting Vehicle”. The movie starred Kelsey Grammer as the Pentagon General who led the government establishment sponsoring the vehicle program. The profusion of design and performance specification changes and other difficulties which plagued the program for years was hilariously but accurately portrayed in the film. It was nominated for an Emmy.
Further details on the procurement process in the Defense Industrial Complex see the posting entitled, “Odyssey of Armaments” at:
http://www.rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com