US Army ousts Halliburton

What is probably seen as a boon for US Army personnel and a bust for for Halliburton officials, the end result should fall in line with increased optimism on the part of the soldiers and a positive surge in their overall ability to perform a wide variety of tasks. The notorious company, who once had as a CEO a man with a recently purported 12% approval rating, the one and only US Vice-President Dick Cheney, was responsible for a multitude of service contracts, not limited to food and water, but also general construction and other logistical needs.



Apparently, a great deal of eyebrow-raising activites was produced by this contracting giant. Probably the most infamous observation was when, somehow, Halliburton was granted a multitude of no-bid and non-competitve contracts to provide services for the soldiers serving in Iraq, along with general construction, utilities, and infrastructure contracts. Another vile offensive came in the guise of inflated prices for services in goods, in which taxpayers' money was abused and misused. This is nothing new, sadly, as several other military contractors have done this in the past to promote money laundering. Finally, probably the least-known yet the most controversial issue behind this ogre, is how the company was very picky on how and what it would provide the very same military support it was contracted for, exorbitant prices nonwithstanding.

Therefore, the fact that the chain of command has finally taken it upon themselves to get rid of such a beast, is indeed a small step towards victory for civilians, enlistedmen, and nonenlistedmen alike. Whether or not the US Army will be able to reject and nullify ALL of Halliburton's contracts, as opposed to just turning the tables on KBR (a subsidiary) remains unclear, however. Still, this seems to be a step in the right direction, as even a small ripple such as this one can eventually form into a trend-changin wave which would spell trouble for Halliburton, but also relief for all those bending over backwards in Iraq.

Please visit the links I have submitted. The first one, arguably the most significant, is a first hand account from a US Serviceman who has had his share of trouble with the industry giant, amongst other operational blunders plaguing our men and women abroad. The second, is in regards to a whistleblower that led to an FBI investigation into Halliburton. The third, which could be considered 'from the horses mouth' itself, is a rather elusive, yet demonstrative, form of confirmation for the first link's story. Scroll down a bit to where it says " Charlie Company 3rd of the 172nd Mountain Infantry", or better yet, skip the majority of the op-ed text, and press control + f, and copy and paste the text I suggested earlier for a quick and easy review.

Related News Links:
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.foxnews.com


[edit on 23-7-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

During the big drawdown of forces after the Gulf War, I was not happy about where that was heading.

I saw it as being very counterproductive on many levels.

It invited outsourcing of military jobs on a vast scale, while eliminating a lot of personnel. Those people were released into the civilian world to mainly join the corporate ranks or the welfare rolls. It was bad business all around (for the military and for the taxpayer).

Contrary to conventional wisdom at the time and even now, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not negate the fact that the same threat still existed/s. On the contrary, the same threat still exists, and has been multiplied. Drawing down our forces was bad policy. They should have re-deployed.

Our troops in Western Europe should be pared down and re-deployed to bases along our desert southwest. Our troops in S. Korea should be de-activated and re-deployed as well.

It seems our government is not serious about the very real threats that exist. They are far more interested in their ideological agendas. It's criminal.

Halliburton should not be allowed anywhere near our military. They have not only acted irresponsibly financially, but their presence presents a security threat. It should not be allowed.

Unforunately, getting rid of Halliburton isn't going to solve anything really, Halliburton is merely a symptom of a much more serious condition commonly known as absolute corruption. The scary thing for me is that we as Americans all sit on our collective arses reading these headlines and yet we do nothing about it but discuss it. I mean the Pentagon LOST a TRILLION BUCKS last year, and we all said 'how terrible' and yet these people still have their jobs, and they are still writing checks. I have a thread on here somewhere about Hollinger INC, huge scandal and Richard Perle is still employed. Nothing ever changes except for names and dates. If it isn't Halliburton it will be some other company more than ready to fill their shoes.

My whole point was that the military should get back in the business of doing their own work. Screw this outsourcing. We don't need it! The Army, for example, can actually do a much better job of cooking and maintaining all related services much more efficiently and cheaply than any contractor can. And Army bases are far more secure without civilian and/or foreign laborers on the compounds. Let these contractors get out there and do some actual work in the real world for a change. The only way this will occur is when we, the electorate, pressure our congressional reps. into taking this issue seriously. Until then, its cotton candy for all of DoD's old buddies.

I find this discussion interesting for many reasons, the most important of which is that it touches on important right-wing/left wing issues.

In the UK, throughout the eighties, the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher harped constantly on the refrain that there was so much inefficiency in the public sector that the "discipliines of the market" should be brought to bear on it. She was backed in this by a plethora of foreign investors anxious to buy up the about-to-be-privatised public industries.

After twenty years it has been clear that these efficiencies have not materialised and that private corruption and greed is worse on the nation's infrastructure than the admittedly somewhat flabby (but nonetheless well-intentioned - I should know, I worked for one for a while) publicly owned monopolies. Water companies, for example, have consistently failed to meet their targets on replacing leaky pipes, leading to droughts and hugely increased water bills for poor service.

Now I see that people in the US are moving away from the idea that private companies are necessarily the answer...

My whole point was that the military should get back in the business of doing their own work. Screw this outsourcing. We don't need it! The Army, for example, can actually do a much better job of cooking and maintaining all related services much more efficiently and cheaply than any contractor can.

Now I actually agree with the above statement and I believe it's equally true for the provision of electricity and water, and the maintenance of rail networks, in the civilian infrastructure. But don't people realise that this is what is meant by socialism? Are some of the US members starting to lose their faith in capitalism as the absolute panacea?

For the record, I grew up in a mixed economy in which certain basic monopolies such as I have mentioned above were state-owned, and the market took care of the rest. I still think this is a good system but that it has been abandoned for reasons of sheer greed dressed up in a pompous right-wing ideology which has nothing to do with the way things actually work in real life but is designed to sound (to an uncritical ear) like a plausible way to organise one's society.

Originally posted by rich23
Now I see that people in the US are moving away from the idea that private companies are necessarily the answer...

Originally posted by EastCoastKidMy whole point was that the military should get back in the business of doing their own work. Screw this outsourcing. We don't need it! The Army, for example, can actually do a much better job of cooking and maintaining all related services much more efficiently and cheaply than any contractor can.

Originally posted by rich23Now I actually agree with the above statement and I believe it's equally true for the provision of electricity and water, and the maintenance of rail networks, in the civilian infrastructure. But don't people realise that this is what is meant by socialism? Are some of the US members starting to lose their faith in capitalism as the absolute panacea?

No. But I know what works in the military. The US military operates under a socialistic system. It has to in order to work properly. Those who serve simply embrace the system and work within it.

When I was in (late 80s-early90s) there were far more MOSs (jobs). Many have been eliminated in order to throw work towards Halliburton and those other civilian contractors. Its corrupt. And reckless.

EastCoast, it is good to see you again. You need to show up more around here. Your WATS-caliber posting is necessary for this board's survival.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
During the big drawdown of forces after the Gulf War, I was not happy about where that was heading.

I saw it as being very counterproductive on many levels.

It invited outsourcing of military jobs on a vast scale, while eliminating a lot of personnel. Those people were released into the civilian world to mainly join the corporate ranks or the welfare rolls. It was bad business all around (for the military and for the taxpayer).

While you certainly have a point, you have to recall that the U.S. economy was in shambles at the time. The Clinton administration saw an opportunity, and they took advantage of it. While the military did suffer qualitatively, something needed to be axed significantly.

Contrary to conventional wisdom at the time and even now, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not negate the fact that the same threat still existed/s. On the contrary, the same threat still exists, and has been multiplied. Drawing down our forces was bad policy. They should have re-deployed.

I disagree, drawing down was necessary. As the Soviet Union proved, maintaining a modern, high-tech military of such a huge size at an insanely high level of readiness for a long period of time is incredibly difficult. Had the U.S. done the same, we would have run into problems around now, especially considering the economy of the late 1980s.

Our troops in Western Europe should be pared down and re-deployed to bases along our desert southwest. Our troops in S. Korea should be de-activated and re-deployed as well.

I agree with only half of that. We should end forward-deploying of our forces. However, I think we need to bring them home to the U.S. Even if our current presence in Western Europe is a shadow of what it used to be, it is still and unnecessarily high amount and it has to be brought home and compacted to be lighter and faster. We also need to leave Korea. It is not 1985 anymore and South Korea can take on the North if necessary.

Halliburton should not be allowed anywhere near our military. They have not only acted irresponsibly financially, but their presence presents a security threat. It should not be allowed.

War Is Just a Racket.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
EastCoast, it is good to see you again. You need to show up more around here. Your WATS-caliber posting is necessary for this board's survival.

Hey, thx. It's good to see you, too, sweatmonicaIdo.

One thing I saw about the military, in its most gargantuan size, while I served, was how much of a job program it was. There was a multitude of people serving in all kinds of areas that were at least gainfully employed. If they were civilians, they'd be out of work, sitting on their blanks, drawing a wefare check. That military served an economic purpose. While serving the defense of our nation and its interests. There was nothing good about paying alot of uneducated people off (a relatively small sum) to get out (forever barred to re-enlist). It was better economic policy to keep them employed.

Just my two cents.

Oh yeah - it's also WAY better for the taxpayer to keep the private companies out of military business. The military can provide their own services at a much more proficient and cheap rate.

I find this as good news. The army can take of itself fine,and its about time they did so.This is coming from someone who is hoping to enlist next year. If the gods favor me,i shall be accepted into warrant officer training,and on to flight school.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
One thing I saw about the military, in its most gargantuan size, while I served, was how much of a job program it was. There was a multitude of people serving in all kinds of areas that were at least gainfully employed. If they were civilians, they'd be out of work, sitting on their blanks, drawing a wefare check. That military served an economic purpose. While serving the defense of our nation and its interests. There was nothing good about paying alot of uneducated people off (a relatively small sum) to get out (forever barred to re-enlist). It was better economic policy to keep them employed.

Just my two cents.

But how different is that from today's incarnation of the military, a civilian-military hybrid where corporations have as much responsibility as the military itself.

Like I side, War Is Just a Racket. Its like business on steroids.

Originally posted by spanishcaravan
I find this as good news. The army can take of itself fine,and its about time they did so.This is coming from someone who is hoping to enlist next year. If the gods favor me,i shall be accepted into warrant officer training,and on to flight school.

And you will be blessed, my brotha.

I was in Army Aviation (Ft. Campbell, KY)

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo


But how different is that from today's incarnation of the military, a civilian-military hybrid where corporations have as much responsibility as the military itself.

Like I side, War Is Just a Racket. Its like business on steroids.

We've seen in Iraq that the contractors are a disaster. They've overcharged like fiends and are absolutely inefficient; not to mention an obvious security risk. Back in my day, the Army did those jobs themselves. It saved the taxpaper a lot of money.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
We've seen in Iraq that the contractors are a disaster. They've overcharged like fiends and are absolutely inefficient; not to mention an obvious security risk. Back in my day, the Army did those jobs themselves. It saved the taxpaper a lot of money.

True. The military is no longer self-sufficient. Even the Navy carries along tons of civilians to do things normally the crew should be trained to do. But thanks to a long tradition of undertraining, they can't and require civilians to do it for them.

We're gonna see things like mercenaries become front-line forces in the future.

Or does the problem still remain deep within the mountains of Pentagon bureaucracy? Halliburton was becoming sort of public a joke; but it's not funny if your an Iraqi whose countries infrastructure was destroyed through U.S bombing, and still hasn’t been even 20% rebuilt (in part) because of the Pentagon’s spending incompetence.

But where does this incompetence come from?
Does it come from little old Halliburton which only took the money that was laid out on the table?
Or does it come from the people who issue the contracts? These people are an even greater problem to America than insurgents killing Iraqis. After all judging from the military Iraqis aren’t worth counting. And according to the rules of human reproduction will be replaced some day when the occupation is gone (and the next leader installed).
But unlike human life; millions of bucks (once wasted) can never be replaced.

This is the sad story of the problems facing the Pentagon today (which I believe is still developing new ways to float on paper).
They’ll be some lawyers somewhere who will get to choose the next best bets on the stock exchange; it’s these people who deserve their heads through the noose; till then it’s just a name change (not a regime one).

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
We've seen in Iraq that the contractors are a disaster. They've overcharged like fiends and are absolutely inefficient; not to mention an obvious security risk. Back in my day, the Army did those jobs themselves. It saved the taxpaper a lot of money.

The only to stop wastage in government spending.
:drum roll : Reduce spending and in this case let the US military do its job and chuck away the corprate hand outs.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

No. But I know what works in the military. The US military operates under a socialistic system. It has to in order to work properly. Those who serve simply embrace the system and work within it.

When I was in (late 80s-early90s) there were far more MOSs (jobs). Many have been eliminated in order to throw work towards Halliburton and those other civilian contractors. Its corrupt. And reckless.

Interesting. Are there any other sectors in public life that you think this works for, or is the military the only one? If so, why?

Like East Coast Kid, I was in the army during the 90's. I was in from 92-96, during the massive post cold war downsizing. What a mess that was. I know what hes talking about.

I remember when I first arrived at Bitburg Air Force Base in 93, all the doctors and service staff at the Air Force hospital were military. When Bitburg was closed down and we relocated to Hanau, only 1/3 of the doctors were military. The rest were civilians. Plus, the administrative branches formerly staffed by 71L (administrative specialists MOS) were more and more becoming civilians. Alot of our support services were being contracted out, including building, engineering, and repair work. Alot of MOS's were getting phased out.

And I can only say from experience that it was doing us no good to have more military jobs contracted out. The quality of work was lower, and civilians were quite removed from day to day realities of military living. Things generally didn't get done, or they were done to a standard that would have gotten a soldier in alot of trouble from his superiors if he had done the job like that.

Haliburton is the biggest, slimiest parasite attatched to the DOD, and I hope this is the start of a revolt against not only substandard contractors, but against contracting out jobs that the soldiers should be doing anyway!

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo


We're gonna see things like mercenaries become front-line forces in the future.

This is also not good for the morale of the soldiers and Marines who work side-by-side with the contractors. They see their civilian counterparts making mad money and not being held to the same standards - while they make meager pay and bear a much heavier burdon.

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

No. But I know what works in the military. The US military operates under a socialistic system. It has to in order to work properly. Those who serve simply embrace the system and work within it.

When I was in (late 80s-early90s) there were far more MOSs (jobs). Many have been eliminated in order to throw work towards Halliburton and those other civilian contractors. Its corrupt. And reckless.

Interesting. Are there any other sectors in public life that you think this works for, or is the military the only one? If so, why?

The public sector is an entirely different beast.

The military is a government entity. Completely different than our civilian world.