If the bush administration wasn't so against civil service employee's, they could of done the same job and wouldn't of been so much hassle of control and saved millions in spending. Contract labor sure isn't the way to keep control of spending and control of workers that are not rightly under their control.
Contracting is an expensive and wasteful way to perform services in a combat zone.
The lack of accountability on contractors has a long history in Iraq since Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) failed to convene a single oversight hearing when he chaired the Senate committee when his party held the Senate majority. [pre-2007]
Maybe "military-industrial complex" should be renamed "military-corporate-industrial complex".... notice 2/3rds of that term is NOT "military." Hmmmm... following the "corporate" aspect... "outsourcing" our national defense? I wonder if that's been tried before? Oh! That's right. They were called "Hessians." Oooops... wrong side. That was the "other side" wasn't it?
It brings up some rather challenging questions as to the necessity of contractors in a theater of war. As "predicted" in the piece, the spark may very well be the cause of something more mundane vs. a high profile gunfight. I'm curious as to how much oversight non-combat related contractors really need? And as far as the combat related, can anybody give me info on the U.S. military's traditional role when it comes to personal security? I know we have Marine Security Forces for guarding the President and Embassies, but I don't know if it extends to State Dept officials and foreign dignitaries. Do you guys think bodyguard details are roles we should expand in the U.S. armed forces?
The problem is 'armed security contractors' in the numbers that have been permitted in Iraq. On this issue alone, another UN vote on Iraq would fail.
This first UN vote on Iraq would probably have failed too, had it been known the extent to which America would expose Iraq to the ministrations of the 'hired gun'.
