Blackwater apologist?

I don't usually do this, but to my post about Blackwater Doug posted this response. My remarks are in bold.

Doug said...

You might be interested in the industry perspective on the hearings:

"Best Supported, Best Supplied Military Operation in History" It doesn't say anything about how intelligently the support and supplies are being used, does it? Nor whether the soldiers on the ground are seeing any of this equipment. Or even whether the plan itself was feasible.

House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense

Key points from the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA)

10 May 2007

While IPOA appreciates the interest that Congress is showing on the issue of contractors providing services in Iraq, we regret that we were not offered the opportunity to testify today to provide balance and an industry perspective on these critical issues. There is much that can be improved in government contracting, and IPOA has been at the fore with ideas and suggestions to improve private sector support for international peace and stability operations. While corrections and improvements are important, we should not lose sight of the fact that the innovative and cost effective use of contractors has ensured that the U.S. military operation in Iraq is the best supported and supplied in military history. Cost effective? The huge drain on the US treasury is cost effective?

Contractors are not new actors in stability operations and areas of conflict. For example, the United States had 80,000 contractors in Vietnam at one point, and that is despite the fact that the Cold War era military did far more of its own logistics and support. Furthermore, because we are going to be working with contractors in the future as well, the question is not whether we should use contractors, but how we can use them better. Ok, how about being accountable? Where are the receipts? Where is the proof that what we paid for is what we are getting? Where are the sensible cost-cutting measures?

A few key points:

1. It is due to the private sector that our operations in Iraq are the best supported and supplied in history. Our military is better able to focus on their core missions and leave the ancillary tasks to professional contractors. Um, no. Contractors get killed in Fallujah where they weren't supposed to be, and the US Military is used for revenge and retaliation. The US Military hates the contractors or else signs up with them for the huge salary.

2. The reason we contract services to the private sector instead of utilizing the military is because it significantly reduces the burden and strain on our soldiers in the field. The private sector offers enormous surge capacity, a reservoir of professional capabilities, and huge cost savings. Like refusing the soldiers the best bullet-proof vests because they can only use the more inferior contractor's equipment? Like e-coli in their drinking water because the contractor isn't cleaning the water supply? Like driving empty trucks about because that covers what is on the contract not what is sensible? These points are what I remember right off the top of my head. The list of complaints is incredibly long.

3. Civilian contractors doing the military support, reconstruction, and security in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqis, the people who should be leading such efforts in Iraq. Americans make up only 17 % of Department of Defense contractors, something critics prefer to overlook. Really? Are these good Iraqis all packed into the Green Zone? Are they trustworthy? Who is vetting these people? Who speaks their language? How dangerous is it for Iraqis to be found out working for the US? How long do these Iraqis stay on contractual work? Is there sabotage? What kind of oversight is there? Why are Iraqis complaining about unemployment?

4. Good oversight and accountability are good for good companies. While oversight has improved since 2003, overwhelmed contract officers have had a detrimental effect on the private sector's ability to fulfill their contracts. In terms of accountability, companies can and are frequently held accountable through standard contractual methods. For individuals, there are a number of laws on the books, including the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which can be used to try contractors in Federal courts. As a trade association, we believe these laws could be more energetically enforced by the Department of Justice. Overwhelmed? Businesses who have signed on to do work for the Iraq war are folding up and quitting. They are walking away from the jobs we counted on them to do. Do they pay the US back? The contractors aren't forced to do the work, the soldiers are.Who then does the work for our military WHO CANNOT leave? Our soldiers are overwhelmed and they are dying.

5. The U.S. military is designed to be the most capable organization in the world, it is not designed or expected to be particularly cost effective. Outsourcing needs to the private sector brings huge economies of scale and efficiencies that save billions of dollars while reducing burdens and enhancing services to the soldiers in the field. I'm sorry, I don't think so. Pigs in a trough is the vision I have. Prove that contracting has been more efficient. What I've read, it is completely the opposite.

6. Critics of civilian contractors need to articulate alternatives. Not just for U.S. operations, but for UN and Africa Union peace operations, which rely on contractors for critical services as well. Articulate alternatives????? How about not going to war with Iraq in the goddammed first place? How about throwing all these contractors and military and money into Afghanistan and FIXING the joint in the FIRST place? And don't tell me we had to go to war with Iraq. It was going to happen the minute Bush was selected as president. I bet with my friends we'd be at war with Iraq within two years. It was obvious.

The way a good president would have dealt with 9/11 would have been to address the world, telling all that we would give every resource, every effort to finding Osama Bin Laden and every al-Qaeda cell on the planet. And then do that. The world community was with us.

A good president would have asked his country to sacrifice, to unite, to help in this effort; not to tell them to go shopping. A good president would have brought all sympathetic nations into the discussions, told his country exactly what must be done and why. A good president would probably not have even bombed Afghanistan, but if it seemed clear, he then would have followed through with his promises to the Afghanis. We would have stayed and made that country stable and possibly even democratic. We would have stayed and negated the economic need for growing poppies which sends the poison of heroin throughout the world. We would have proved ourselves trustworthy. Other nations would have noticed.

Articulate alternatives? Isn't that like saying: Forget how we got into this quagmire, tell us how to get out! Or worse yet: Quagmire? Great! We're going to make a shitload of money, baby!!

War for profit is dangerous. The best articulate alternative is to have no war. If a war is needed, justify it without lies. We would support without question such a war and welcome a draft if the cause was just, our lives were in peril, our country truly in danger. We cannot run a war as a business because where people are making money off of the most horrific of human endeavors, making money off of agony and death, we have lost our humanity.

We are better than this.