Privatization: screwing power grids AND the troops!

[Vympel]

Poor supplies hurt soldiers
Penny-pinching and privatization make life tougher for troops
PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times

A few days ago I talked to a soldier just back from Iraq. He'd been in a relatively calm area; his main complaint was about food. Four months after the fall of Baghdad, his unit was still eating the dreaded MREs: meals ready to eat. When Italian troops moved into the area, their food was "way more realistic" -- and U.S. troops were soon trading whatever they could for some of that Italian food.

Other stories are far worse. Letters published in Stars and Stripes and e-mail published on the Web site of Col. David Hackworth (a decorated veteran and Pentagon critic) describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." A U.S. soldier died of heat stroke Saturday. Are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?

The U.S. military has always had superb logistics. What happened? The answer is a mix of penny-pinching and privatization -- which makes our soldiers' discomfort a symptom of something more general.

Hackworth blames "dilettantes in the Pentagon" who "thought they could run a war and an occupation on the cheap." But the cheapness isn't restricted to Iraq. In general, the "support our troops" crowd draws the line when that support might actually cost something.

The usually conservative Army Times has run blistering editorials on this subject. Its June 30 blast, titled "Nothing but Lip Service," begins: "In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap -- and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately." The article goes on to detail a series of promises broken and benefits cut.

Military corner-cutting is part of a broader picture of penny-wise-pound-foolish government. When it comes to tax cuts or subsidies to powerful interest groups, money is no object. But elsewhere, including homeland security, small-government ideology reigns. The Bush administration has been unwilling to spend enough on any aspect of homeland security. The decision to pull air marshals off some flights to save on hotel bills -- reversed when the public heard about it -- was simply a sound-bite-worthy example. (Air marshals have told MSNBC.com that a "witch hunt" is now under way at the Transportation Security Administration, and that those who reveal cost-cutting measures to the media are being threatened with the Patriot Act.)

There's also another element in the Iraq logistical mess: privatization. The U.S. military has shifted many tasks traditionally performed by soldiers into the hands of such private contractors as Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary. The Iraq war and its aftermath gave this privatized system its first major test in combat -- and the system failed.

According to the Newhouse News Service, "U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up." Not surprisingly, civilian contractors -- and their insurance companies -- get spooked by war zones. The Financial Times reports that the dismal performance of contractors in Iraq has raised strong concerns about what would happen in a war against a serious opponent, like North Korea.

Military privatization, like military penny-pinching, is part of a pattern. Both for ideological reasons and, one suspects, because of the patronage involved, the people now running the country seem determined to have public services provided by private corporations, no matter what the circumstances.

In Iraq, reports The Baltimore Sun, "the Bush administration continues to use American corporations to perform work that United Nations agencies and nonprofit aid groups can do more cheaply."

The logistical mess in Iraq isn't an isolated case of poor planning and mismanagement: It's telling us what's wrong with our current philosophy of government.

Four months of MREs? Hello? What's wrong with this picture? Heat stroke?

[Vympel]

Link to the Army Times article

[Stormbringer]

It doesn't suprise me. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the Bush Administration for all the time it spent harping on Iraq did pathetically little planning for the actual invasion. Some of the stories about supply shortages are exagerated but there are a lot of problems with the actual conduct of the war and even more with the rebuilding.

[Iceberg]

I feel sorry for the troops who are there - nerves are fraying, and noncombatants are getting shot, with the US losing a soldier a day after the fighting was supposedly over in early May, and that's got to weigh heavily on the souls of the soldiers who are stationed there. To top it off, they're getting the shaft from Mr. Bush's government, who can't even be bothered to feed them right.

[Newtonian Fury]

Here's Hackworth's website, for those interested.

[Alex Moon]

Here's a link to articles critical of Krugman's column, if anyone is interested.

linky

Robert Musil also takes Krugman to task, in a much more vicious way

[Rubberanvil]

It doesn't suprise me. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the Bush Administration for all the time it spent harping on Iraq did pathetically little planning for the actual invasion.

I doubt the Gore Administration would have been any better, if Gore was President.

[Axis Kast]

I’m not too pleased with the new tendency to “import” private labor myself. It first reared its ugly head in Afghanistan, where “private operators” joined the United States military for purposes of maintenance, technology management, and in some cases, outright combat (as a result of their being attached to a specific piece of equipment). Unfortunate, it’s a much less expensive – and thus far more meritorious – means by which to wage war. We’re having trouble keeping our ranks filled and our soldiers up-to-date. It’s a massive cost. Paying people already familiar with their jobs took a lot less time as we revved up to move in on the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. The same is true in Iraq. I can’t see any way out of it, though. As full of bile as they make my stomach, cost cuts seem to be necessary. From where else will the money come?

In regards to heat stroke, I’d say one death isn’t awful. We all knew it was going to happen. It’s more a problem with one particular unit’s commanders who didn’t look out for their own than anything else.

[Sea Skimmer]

I doubt the Gore Administration would have been any better, if Gore was President.

Actually you can be sure it would be worse, Gore showed no inclination to raise the defence budget and was actually talking about cuts at several points.

At the end of the Klinton budgets the US military was massively under funded for even such basic necessities as rifle ammo. Under the Bush administration there have been tens of billions in increases in the basic budget, not founding additional money appropriated for Iraq or Afghanistan. Klinton paid for his wars mostly but cutting money out of the existing defence budget. Even with all the increases if the Administration had its way the budget would be 10-20 billion higher. Democrats in the Senate blocked that however.

[MKSheppard]

Hackworth is just as bloated and full of shit as that Anti-Stryker guy

[Sea Skimmer]

I’m not too pleased with the new tendency to “import” private labor myself. It first reared its ugly head in Afghanistan, where “private operators” joined the United States military for purposes of maintenance, technology management, and in some cases, outright combat (as a result of their being attached to a specific piece of equipment).

That's hardly the first example; in fact the US military has been making extensive use of civilian contractors for maintenance of equipment and systems in the field since before first gulf war. It's worked just fine. The US Military Sealift Command has been using civilian contractors to crew and maintain most of its ships, many of which are leased, for more then two decades. Indeed most of the ships when mobilized have been ready well in advance of their requirements.

[NapoleonGH]

Yes seaskimmer the most well funded military in the world is underfunded...yea we've heard that message from you before, but you forget this WOULDNT have happened under a Gore administration becuase a Gore administration would never have gone to war in iraq for absolutely no reason other than wanting another country to blow up for shits and giggles.

More and more Democratic Candidate Dean's comments in a newsweek article seem more and more true "George Bush doesnt give a damn about the american people" Including our military as well as our civilians. He cares about halliburton's and other major buisness' stock's going up. Figures.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes seaskimmer the most well funded military in the world is underfunded...yea we've heard that message from you before, but you forget this WOULDNT have happened under a Gore administration becuase a Gore administration would never have gone to war in iraq for absolutely no reason other than wanting another country to blow up for shits and giggles.

Listen fucking moron, your clearly too stupid to understand the difference between normal operating funds appropriated in the yearly defence budget and the additional funds appropriated for contingences such as Afghanistan and Iraq so I suggest you shut up.

[NapoleonGH]

umm no clearly i do know the difference and the insults are unnecessary you facist fuck who is too stupid to realize the cold war is over, and who's position is so clearly and utterly indefencible that rather than provide an actual argument decides instead just to insult people left and right because hey, thats what facist fucks like you do. Seriously man, no need to be a son of a mother fucking ass licking bitch, argue the points, a litlte fun ribbing no one will object to, but when your post is just plain insults that clearly show that you dont even understand what someone else is saying in their post, just dont bother...............Dick.

The US military in its NORMAL OPPERATING budget is given a shitload of money more than is needed to defend the entirety of North america, let alone the 50 states. It is larger than is needed, it wastes money like peter griffen, and could do the same job if it's size and costs were cut by 50% so long as we didnt engage in POINTLESS wars that we cant even afford anyway (perhaps a reason to cut defence spending is becuase the US government DOESNT even have any money? it is borrowing like crazy, already 25% of the income per year goes to paying off the interest on the loans we already have, and the republican solution is to cut revenue and increase spending meaning we will have to pay even more interest over the years making the governmetn even more broke)

[Joe]

Yes seaskimmer the most well funded military in the world is underfunded...yea we've heard that message from you before, but you forget this WOULDNT have happened under a Gore administration becuase a Gore administration would never have gone to war in iraq for absolutely no reason other than wanting another country to blow up for shits and gigg

I wouldn't be so sure, chief. There would be a lot of pressure for Gore to go to war (if not in Iraq, then somewhere else) in order not to appear soft on national defense.

[Sea Skimmer]

umm no clearly i do know the difference and the insults are unnecessary you facist fuck who is too stupid to realize the cold war is over, and who's position is so clearly and utterly indefencible that rather than provide an actual argument decides instead just to insult people left and right because hey, thats what facist fucks like you do.

No actually we use math rather then idiocy like you. The US cold war budget was well above 400 billion dollars in the 1980's and there where times when it was over 15% of the nations GDP, currently its less then 4%.

The US military in its NORMAL OPPERATING budget is given a shitload of money more than is needed to defend the entirety of North america, let alone the 50 states.

You stupidity shows through once again as the US military is charged with protecting not just the continental United States but American interests overseas.

[StimNeuro]

The US military in its NORMAL OPPERATING budget is given a shitload of money more than is needed to defend the entirety of North america, let alone the 50 states. It is larger than is needed, it wastes money like peter griffen, and could do the same job if it's size and costs were cut by 50% so long as we didnt engage in POINTLESS wars that we cant even afford anyway (perhaps a reason to cut defence spending is becuase the US government DOESNT even have any money? it is borrowing like crazy, already 25% of the income per year goes to paying off the interest on the loans we already have, and the republican solution is to cut revenue and increase spending meaning we will have to pay even more interest over the years making the governmetn even more broke)

Isn't the United States military supposed to be able to engage in 2 major wars, as well as stamp out several brush conflicts? If we're not able to that, then I'd say the military is underfunded....

[Hamel]

Isn't the United States military supposed to be able to engage in 2 major wars, as well as stamp out several brush conflicts? If we're not able to that, then I'd say the military is underfunded....

Not underfunded, overstretched. Well, I guess you could say it's underfunded for the powergrabs we're persuing right now.

[NapoleonGH]

Yes seaskimmer the most well funded military in the world is underfunded...yea we've heard that message from you before, but you forget this WOULDNT have happened under a Gore administration becuase a Gore administration would never have gone to war in iraq for absolutely no reason other than wanting another country to blow up for shits and gigg

I wouldn't be so sure, chief. There would be a lot of pressure for Gore to go to war (if not in Iraq, then somewhere else) in order not to appear soft on national defense.

Hmm good point, but I still dont get why engaging in offencive military action against non-threats equates with being hard on defence, isnt that more being pro-offence, as opposed to being good with defence.


SeaSkimmer: Im sorry i dont see the point of your "use math" part. Nor where what % of the GDP it is matters, what matters is what is the amount of money necessary to defend the 50 states and US territories, not whether or not we are spending less than before. We still maintain alot of military equipment that is really unnecessary in a non-coldwar environment. So please actually make a point that is relevant to the debate.

Yes american interests overseas...first off no that isnt my "stupidtiy" more my DISAGREEING with you, as the american interests overseas ends up making us an OFFENCIVE military body than a defencive one. More importantly, once against you cannot make an actual point rather you just insult me and present strawmen of my knowledge. Not a good way to do anything other than look like a warmongering nazi. Fact is that even protecting our interests overseas doest require the size of the forces we need, nor does it require us to engage in offencive opperations against nations that committ no worse crimes than our allies.


Hamel you hit it on the dot, it isnt underfunded, we just want it to be doing something that is pointless. StimNeuro, please can you give me 2 real nations we could be at war with in a major war that would remain a conventional one rather than be settled with nukes in the end?

[MKSheppard]

StimNeuro, please can you give me 2 real nations we could be at war with in a major war that would remain a conventional one rather than be settled with nukes in the end?

China and North Korea are the most likely suspects, as is Iran.

The entire point of having a large conventional military is so that you can
decisively defeat the other guy without being forced to use special weapons,
which will in turn escalate to a full blown nuclear war

[Rubberanvil]

Isn't the United States military supposed to be able to engage in 2 major wars, as well as stamp out several brush conflicts? If we're not able to that, then I'd say the military is underfunded....

That plan went right down the shitter right after the Soviet Union collapse. Hence the beginning of military downsizing during Bush Sr's Admin.

[Rubberanvil]

Unfortunate, it’s a much less expensive – and thus far more meritorious – means by which to wage war. We’re having trouble keeping our ranks filled and our soldiers up-to-date. It’s a massive cost.

Actually contractors per person are more expensive than soldiers doing the same job. Simply because contractors are payed the same rate a person in the private sector would get and by the hour with overtime and etc and etc. Where as grunts would be payed much less for the job. The pay difference becomes huge in the IT and other high tech positions between the two. Hence why the military can't keep most of it's recruits after it trained them because they will leave and go to where the money is.

[phongn]

StimNeuro, please can you give me 2 real nations we could be at war with in a major war that would remain a conventional one rather than be settled with nukes in the end?

China and North Korea are the most likely suspects, as is Iran.

A war with the PRC or the DPRK is almost guarunteed to go nuclear in some way or another. (Whether DPRK or PRC nukes actually hit CONUS is an entirely different matter).

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

StimNeuro, please can you give me 2 real nations we could be at war with in a major war that would remain a conventional one rather than be settled with nukes in the end?

China and North Korea are the most likely suspects, as is Iran.

A war with the PRC or the DPRK is almost guarunteed to go nuclear in some way or another. (Whether DPRK or PRC nukes actually hit CONUS is an entirely different matter).

Could the US take out China's ICBMs?

[phongn]

umm no clearly i do know the difference and the insults are unnecessary you facist fuck who is too stupid to realize the cold war is over, and who's position is so clearly and utterly indefencible that rather than provide an actual argument decides instead just to insult people left and right because hey, thats what facist fucks like you do.

Oddly enough, Napoleon, we have not seen you make any real counter-arguements other than a want to return to isolationism - something many here strongly disagree with whether on the left or right.
Furthermore, Sea Skimmer has shown no interest towards fascism and painting him as such for his pro-military stance is itself nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

Finally, yes, the Cold War is over. GHWB's bold 'New World Order' is reality and now instead of preparing for war with the Warsaw Pact, we must prepare for war against numerous other enemies. This requires large resources in itself.

The US military in its NORMAL OPPERATING budget is given a shitload of money more than is needed to defend the entirety of North america, let alone the 50 states.

US comittments are far greater than that of the rest of the world. The US defense budget is not merely defined by the amount it would take to defend Fortress America but of our needs around the world.

It is larger than is needed, it wastes money like peter griffen, and could do the same job if it's size and costs were cut by 50% so long as we didnt engage in POINTLESS wars that we cant even afford anyway (perhaps a reason to cut defence spending is becuase the US government DOESNT even have any money?

I was not aware that the US government was bankrupt. This is clearly news to me.