The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Intelligence

[SWJED]

1 July Washington Post - In Iraq, a Private Realm Of Intelligence-Gathering by Steve Fainaru and Alec Klein.

... The intelligence was compiled not by the U.S. military, as might be expected, but by a British security firm, Aegis Defence Services Ltd. The Reconstruction Operations Center is the hub of Aegis's sprawling presence in Iraq and the most visible example of how intelligence collection is now among the responsibilities handled by a network of private security companies that work in the shadows of the U.S. military.

Aegis won its three-year, $293 million U.S. Army contract in 2004. The company is led by Tim Spicer, a retired British lieutenant colonel who, before he founded Aegis, was hired in the 1990s to help put down a rebellion in Papua New Guinea and reinstall an elected government in Sierra Leone. Several British and American firms have bid on the contract's renewal, which is worth up to $475 million and would create a force of about 1,000 men to protect the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction projects. Protests have held up the award, which is expected soon...

[goesh]

Along the general vein of privatization, an article in the local newspaper reports there are now more private contractors in Iraq than US troops. The article reported there are 180K civilians working under US contracts. Peter Singer from the Brookings Institute said, "This is not the coalition of the willing. It is the coalition of the billing." Mercenary numbers were not in the tally, err, I mean private security contract personnel were not in the head count. Estimates vary on the number of 'guards' in country, from 6-30K. Gen. Nash (ret) claims the Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene." Who are the real camp followers here - the US military or private contractors?

[Abu Buckwheat]

Along the general vein of privatization, an article in the local newspaper reports there are now more private contractors in Iraq than US troops. The article reported there are 180K civilians working under US contracts. Peter Singer from the Brookings Institute said, "This is not the coalition of the willing. It is the coalition of the billing." Mercenary numbers were not in the tally, err, I mean private security contract personnel were not in the head count. Estimates vary on the number of 'guards' in country, from 6-30K. Gen. Nash (ret) claims the Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene." Who are the real camp followers here - the US military or private contractors?

In fact the article said there were only 21,000 Americans contractors in Iraq... not armd contractors but all total contractors... the rest of the numbers were TOTAL subcontractors for all work in Iraq reconstruction. 114,000 were Iraqis at work ... whcih is what we want right?

PSCs are approx 6,000 men made up of Americans, Brits, Colombians, Fijians, Nepalis and Ugandans... this is not an obscene figure.

[Steve Blair]

And this is yet another "blast from the past." The Pawnee Battalion was mentioned in another thread, and some folks in the historical community love to wax long about Crook's use of packers and Indian scouts. PMCs by any other name. Scouts and packers were both classed as quartermaster employees and paid more than regular troopers (in some cases they made more per month than a first sergeant). The more things change....

[goesh]

"Coalition of the billing" is the operative phrase regardless of nationality at the tax trough. The fact remains there are more scouts than Indian fighters in Iraq and tip of the pith helmet to Mr. Blair for setting the historical stage to draw such an Indian analogy.

[Mark Eichenlaub]

Are all these contractors Americans or Iraqis as well?

[Ken White]

cut the strength of the Army in half. They did that. I believe that's properly called "You get what you pay for." Or are willing to pay for...

War is an art, not a science but it does take 'X' people to do 'Y' job. If the Army cannot be expanded rapidly enough to provide those additional people in the required skills, substitutes must be found. It could not but we found some. It works.

Whether the Army should have been committed to do a job it was not able to do properly is another issue but that is a political question for other venues. For here, that issue is irrelevant. We're there.

Possibly the Army in the 1989-2001 period misspent money and effort. It did not properly structure and train for the jobs it was likely to have to do. Those are both political and military questions but other than as an indicator of failures on many levels as a cautionary factor -- and hopefully a significant lesson learned at the highest levels for the near future -- that's also sort of immaterial. We are where we are.

Congressional posturing on Iraq (both sides) is not about Iraq, it is not about the taxpayers, it is not about the Troops nor is it about Contractors -- it is about the 2008 elections.