War Profiteering in the modern age
I found this book on the shelf in the office of the Australian Greens when I was doing some volunteer work for them some time ago and they were nice enough to let me borrow it. At that time I was pretty much reading any book criticising the Bush administration and their adventure in Iraq. I also remember reading a really good book about the history of Zionism, and while I would love to write about it I, for the life of me, cannot remember the book's name. I think I might do a Google search to see if anything pops up.
Anyway, as is not surprising for a book on the shelf at one of the Greens' offices, it is about war profiteering, and in particular the alleged war profiteering that occurred in Iraq. War, in an of itself, is a very expensive and very risky enterprise, but success can bring huge rewards. Modern warfare can be even more lucrative, even if the country that goes to war ends up losing the war, and one of the reasons I say this is because in the end it does not matter whether the countries at war win or lose, the companies that produce the weapons always end up making their money. In fact I have read a book about how some companies (BAE) will actually arm both sides in a conflict and walk away with huge profits. There are also allegations to that extent during World War II, and one of the main reasons was because the United States, up until 1941 that is, was neutral, however when they entered the war, the Trading with the Enemy Act was invoked. However companies were still able to get around that, usually through third parties. Theoretically, a company that makes planes for the United States Airforce could not sell planes to Germany during the war, but what they could do would be to sell planes to a neutral country (such as Spain) who could then on sell these planes to Germany (though since Germany had its own weapons manufacturers, they really did not need to buy planes from America).
However, as I mentioned above, this book deals predominantly with the Iraq War. There are a few things that were of interest in this book, one of them is the idea of what they call 'the Revolving Door'. This is when members of the corporate elite, people like CEOs and other executives, go from their corporate posts into government posts, and then back into corporate posts. Theoretically there is nothing really wrong with this namely because the captains of industry tend to have the skills and the experience to be able to run a country. Namely, if one can run a multi-billion dollar enterprise (and some of the companies have bigger turn overs than a lot of countries) then one is probably in the best position to run a government department, or even a country. However, the concern is that with their corporate ties they are able to manipulate government decisions that benefit themselves and their companies.
For instance, Richard Cheney and his Wife were both shareholders and executive directors of Halliburton, an oil infrastructure company, and even while in government, they still held shares in the company and as such directed a lot of contracts towards Halliburton so as to increase the company's share price, and in turn their private wealth. This is corruption pure and simple. A similar thing occurred here in South Australia. One of our former premiers held shares in Motorola, and while premier was directing contracts towards Motorola. When this was uncovered he lost his position, and come the next election, his party went on to lose.
There have also been other allegations directed at Halliburton, such as overcharging and performing substandard work. One particular incident involved laundering the uniforms of the American Military. The company charged huge prices and the uniforms pretty much came back in the same state. Further, when soldiers decided to do their own laundry they were disciplined and told that they must send their uniforms to the proper laundries. Then there are the allegations that if the trucks that were leased to the army broke down, or even suffered a scratch or a flat tyre, then the entire truck would be scrapped. Some suggest that this is normal policy, and personally I can't say otherwise.
It seems that the US is moving more and more towards using private companies to provide services to the military such as food facilities, and once again there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. If the purpose of the army is to wage war, then to remove all aspects of the army that are not needed and can be performed better by companies that specialise in such services frees up resources. This has been the case for a while, particularly with things such as tanks, planes, and trucks. These days the military does not build its own hardware, but rather makes orders to the various companies to produce them. Granted, there was a time when the government would build all of the army's hardware, but with advances in technology this simply is no longer feasible. However, in Australia, that still does happen, with the government establishing corporations, such as the Australian Submarine Corporation, to build hardware.
The other thing that happened with the invasion is that a hostile government was removed and a friendly government established, which means that the country is now opened up to trade. Not only that but there is also the need for rebuilding, and surprise, surprise, American companies are offered the rebuilding contracts, among other things. Obviously with oil being Iraq's main export, there was a lot of work that Halliburton could perform, and guess who got the contract. However I guess that war and plunder are different these days than previously. For instance, when Iraq was invaded, the central bank wasn't plundered and the gold in its vaults wasn't taken back to the United States. However, while the army wasn't doing the plundering, the population certainly was, and while there were short term benefits, the eventual cost still hasn't been fully counted or considered.
