The Bidding War
February 29, 2016 10:19 AM Subscribe
You can be concerned about both.
posted by srboisvert at 10:54 AM on February 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 10:54 AM on February 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, well, I'm a lot more concerned about climate change than Lockheed. And someone else is a lor more concerned about asteroid impacts. There's always a bigger problem; that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the smaller ones.
posted by Etrigan at 10:55 AM on February 29, 2016
posted by Etrigan at 10:55 AM on February 29, 2016
In United States of America v. Sum of $70,990,605, et al...
That's going to be some dry cross examination.
posted by PenDevil at 12:29 PM on February 29, 2016
That's going to be some dry cross examination.
posted by PenDevil at 12:29 PM on February 29, 2016
But was it profit or profiteering?
If a privately-owned business makes money off of war, it's profiteering. War isn't supposed to be profitable.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:46 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
If a privately-owned business makes money off of war, it's profiteering. War isn't supposed to be profitable.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:46 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
In United States of America v. Sum of $70,990,605, et al...
That's going to be some dry cross examination.
Well, at least they're cutting out the middleman.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:55 PM on February 29, 2016
That's going to be some dry cross examination.
Well, at least they're cutting out the middleman.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:55 PM on February 29, 2016
If a privately-owned business makes money off of war, it's profiteering. War isn't supposed to be profitable.
Any good or service provided to the government should be at cost? Employees should get a subsistence wage?
posted by Etrigan at 1:01 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Any good or service provided to the government should be at cost? Employees should get a subsistence wage?
posted by Etrigan at 1:01 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Any good or service provided to the government should be at cost? Employees should get a subsistence wage?
All military goods and services should be nationalized and under the direct control of the federal government. No more contracts or handouts to the ownership class. Employees get a living wage, calculated on the federal level based on cost of living and the prevailing private sector wage.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:15 PM on February 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
All military goods and services should be nationalized and under the direct control of the federal government. No more contracts or handouts to the ownership class. Employees get a living wage, calculated on the federal level based on cost of living and the prevailing private sector wage.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:15 PM on February 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
War isn't supposed to be profitable.
What? Hell, what's the point of war, then?
posted by el io at 1:40 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
What? Hell, what's the point of war, then?
posted by el io at 1:40 PM on February 29, 2016 [2 favorites]
Spent: $830,000,000,000
Paid to Hikmat: $70,990,605
Sum that was paid to Hikmat: .0086%
Sum that was not paid to Hikmat: 99.9914%
Lockheed stock price change: $32.85 (2001) – $215.79 (2016) > 556%
General Dynamic stock price change: $34.00 (2001) – $136.27 (2016) > 300%
Raytheon stock price change: $30.24 (2001) – $123.85 (2016) > 306%
Gold price: $262.85 (2001) – $1237.30 (2016) > 370%
American CPI: 177.1 (2001) – 237.1 (2016) > 33%
USD GDP: $10.62T (2001) – $16.77T (2016) > 58%
Average national wage index: $32,921.92 (2001) – $46,841.52 (2016) > 42%
S&P 500: 1,349 (2001) – 1,932.23 (2016) > 43%
So we're meant to care about the 0.0086% paid to Hikmat in a war zone, and not the other 99.9914% which was not paid to Hikmat, when defense stocks are up 300-500%, the currency may have been inflated by 350%, and yet there's a 15% gap between GDP growth, and wage and capital growth in the underlying economy.
Tell me again about Hikmat's 0.0086% fee and who in the Afghan theatre is the war profiteer?
posted by nickrussell at 1:46 PM on February 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
Paid to Hikmat: $70,990,605
Sum that was paid to Hikmat: .0086%
Sum that was not paid to Hikmat: 99.9914%
Lockheed stock price change: $32.85 (2001) – $215.79 (2016) > 556%
General Dynamic stock price change: $34.00 (2001) – $136.27 (2016) > 300%
Raytheon stock price change: $30.24 (2001) – $123.85 (2016) > 306%
Gold price: $262.85 (2001) – $1237.30 (2016) > 370%
American CPI: 177.1 (2001) – 237.1 (2016) > 33%
USD GDP: $10.62T (2001) – $16.77T (2016) > 58%
Average national wage index: $32,921.92 (2001) – $46,841.52 (2016) > 42%
S&P 500: 1,349 (2001) – 1,932.23 (2016) > 43%
So we're meant to care about the 0.0086% paid to Hikmat in a war zone, and not the other 99.9914% which was not paid to Hikmat, when defense stocks are up 300-500%, the currency may have been inflated by 350%, and yet there's a 15% gap between GDP growth, and wage and capital growth in the underlying economy.
Tell me again about Hikmat's 0.0086% fee and who in the Afghan theatre is the war profiteer?
posted by nickrussell at 1:46 PM on February 29, 2016 [8 favorites]
How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq, and watched it vanish
posted by benzenedream at 2:09 PM on February 29, 2016
posted by benzenedream at 2:09 PM on February 29, 2016
I'm not getting the complaints.
We should be on the small time profiteers and the large ones. We can and should be trying to retrieve every dollar stolen from us and making sure as many people as possible go to jail, or at least have such a miserable time that the next time someone thinks of doing this they shudder and decide to make an honest buck for a change.
So little has been done on this front that we should applaud any effort, no matter how small.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:08 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
We should be on the small time profiteers and the large ones. We can and should be trying to retrieve every dollar stolen from us and making sure as many people as possible go to jail, or at least have such a miserable time that the next time someone thinks of doing this they shudder and decide to make an honest buck for a change.
So little has been done on this front that we should applaud any effort, no matter how small.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:08 PM on February 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
Tell me again about Hikmat's 0.0086% fee and who in the Afghan theatre is the war profiteer?
I missed the part of the article where it says there was only one war profiteer in Afghanistan. Was it on another page?
posted by Etrigan at 5:01 PM on February 29, 2016
I missed the part of the article where it says there was only one war profiteer in Afghanistan. Was it on another page?
posted by Etrigan at 5:01 PM on February 29, 2016
Yeah, it's interesting that the corruption is so extreme that it's tempting to pshaw away $80MM.
Thanks for the article. Aikins is an interesting guy. His episode of the Longform Podcast was fascinating.
posted by sockpup at 5:24 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks for the article. Aikins is an interesting guy. His episode of the Longform Podcast was fascinating.
posted by sockpup at 5:24 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
People have been making profits off war for thousands of years. From Lockheed to the Rothschilds to Caesar and before. This is nothing new.
posted by LoveHam at 5:45 PM on February 29, 2016
posted by LoveHam at 5:45 PM on February 29, 2016
There was a young Afghan guy on our FOB who ran EVERYTHING. DVDs, souvenirs, vehicle contracts, you name it. Actually, he didn't run everything, but between him and another guy, it was all covered. Laundry, cooking, cleaning, sewage trucks, general contracting.
His English was great, unlike the other, older guy, and he was an affable businessman who knew how to read and get along with Americans. He told me one time he had to send a relative to India to get medical treatment, cancer, I think. His plans featured India, as he could see things unravelling.
We had to take a counterinsurgency course over there, before the actual deployment. I ran into one of the cadre in the chow hall, talking about how rule of law had to come first, before anything else. But they already know rule of law, I said: contract law. They understand that quite well.
So this guy, who was probably employing half the province in one way or another, had to be neck deep in all kinds of corruption. There's no way he wasn't. There's no way he wasn't paying some kind of kickbacks to the Taliban. Yet, for us, it was a net positive, right? I mean, those people we were paying weren't attacking us, right? They had an incentive.
I'd much rather pay a hundred guys like him, who were a visible demonstration of what it meant to be on our side, than some faceless contractor like Fluor Daniel. Now, if you were to say that the flood of western money caused an enormous amount of corruption, well, sure. Still, I'll take that over religious fanaticism.
posted by atchafalaya at 7:05 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
His English was great, unlike the other, older guy, and he was an affable businessman who knew how to read and get along with Americans. He told me one time he had to send a relative to India to get medical treatment, cancer, I think. His plans featured India, as he could see things unravelling.
We had to take a counterinsurgency course over there, before the actual deployment. I ran into one of the cadre in the chow hall, talking about how rule of law had to come first, before anything else. But they already know rule of law, I said: contract law. They understand that quite well.
So this guy, who was probably employing half the province in one way or another, had to be neck deep in all kinds of corruption. There's no way he wasn't. There's no way he wasn't paying some kind of kickbacks to the Taliban. Yet, for us, it was a net positive, right? I mean, those people we were paying weren't attacking us, right? They had an incentive.
I'd much rather pay a hundred guys like him, who were a visible demonstration of what it meant to be on our side, than some faceless contractor like Fluor Daniel. Now, if you were to say that the flood of western money caused an enormous amount of corruption, well, sure. Still, I'll take that over religious fanaticism.
posted by atchafalaya at 7:05 PM on February 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
Alfred W. McCoy at LobeLog: "Washington's Twenty-First Century Opium Wars."
Archive link.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:42 PM on February 29, 2016
Archive link.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:42 PM on February 29, 2016
Interesting article, thanks for posting. I spent most of 2014 in Afghanistan, it is by far the strangest place I have ever been. It's hard to really describe, but suffice to say I don't even see how it would be possible to avoid corruption there. Obviously, from my perspective as a soldier, we should not be making up missions in order to send kickback money home in VCR's. But is the subject of this story a "bad guy" because he probably paid off some Taliban to not blow up his trucks? The notion of "bad guys" in Afghanistan is hard to really understand anyway. It's a third world country with a completely dysfunctional government that has been in near-constant war for 40 years. I just hope I was a part of a net good, and I certainly sympathize with many of the people there, but I really can't say for sure one way or the other.
Note - my views are entirely my own and not intended to represent those of the U.S. government or military
posted by Man Bites Dog at 8:33 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Note - my views are entirely my own and not intended to represent those of the U.S. government or military
posted by Man Bites Dog at 8:33 PM on February 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's no way he wasn't paying some kind of kickbacks to the Taliban. Yet, for us, it was a net positive, right? I mean, those people we were paying weren't attacking us, right?
What are his incentives here? His first incentive was to keep you guys happy, sure, but his second incentive was to keep you there. I mean, once you guys left his entire operation fell apart and he was probably marked for death. So he probably wasn't paying people to keep you safe, because if you guys got too safe the operation would be wound down. If he was smart his payments would have kept the region at a constant slow boil: dangerous enough to justify your presence, not dangerous enough to pose a serious risk to him or to have the base closed to civilian contractors. I mean, it would have made sense for him to finance attacks on you himself if the place got too quiet.
Scale this up and you have the reason the USA was in Afghanistan and Iraq for so long.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:53 PM on February 29, 2016
What are his incentives here? His first incentive was to keep you guys happy, sure, but his second incentive was to keep you there. I mean, once you guys left his entire operation fell apart and he was probably marked for death. So he probably wasn't paying people to keep you safe, because if you guys got too safe the operation would be wound down. If he was smart his payments would have kept the region at a constant slow boil: dangerous enough to justify your presence, not dangerous enough to pose a serious risk to him or to have the base closed to civilian contractors. I mean, it would have made sense for him to finance attacks on you himself if the place got too quiet.
Scale this up and you have the reason the USA was in Afghanistan and Iraq for so long.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:53 PM on February 29, 2016
Joe in Australia, defense contractors have exactly the same set of incentives.
The difference is that Hikmatullah was born into a state of desperate poverty and warfare; but he was smart and hardworking enough to pull himself out of it. The connections to the Taliban seem somewhat spurious, because there is a tertiary degree of separation aforementioned that is endemic in a society which sheds an extremist government. When you consider the movie Charlie Wilson's War and the influence had by George Bush I and the Reagan administration on the development of islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan; then it becomes difficult to believe that no American subcontractor had a similar association during the last Republican presidency of George Bush II. That is a double standard which hinders our nation's ability to find new allies or leave a secure government in our wake.
I do not believe that a cooperative civilian contractor should be treated 'like a toilet' as a punishment for knowing someone who knows someone who happens to be a terrorist.
I am moved by the fact that the defendant was a part of the special forces family who saved the life of an American serviceman.
posted by MisplaceDisgrace at 1:19 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
The difference is that Hikmatullah was born into a state of desperate poverty and warfare; but he was smart and hardworking enough to pull himself out of it. The connections to the Taliban seem somewhat spurious, because there is a tertiary degree of separation aforementioned that is endemic in a society which sheds an extremist government. When you consider the movie Charlie Wilson's War and the influence had by George Bush I and the Reagan administration on the development of islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan; then it becomes difficult to believe that no American subcontractor had a similar association during the last Republican presidency of George Bush II. That is a double standard which hinders our nation's ability to find new allies or leave a secure government in our wake.
I do not believe that a cooperative civilian contractor should be treated 'like a toilet' as a punishment for knowing someone who knows someone who happens to be a terrorist.
I am moved by the fact that the defendant was a part of the special forces family who saved the life of an American serviceman.
posted by MisplaceDisgrace at 1:19 AM on March 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
In United States of America v. Sum of $70,990,605, et al...
That's going to be some dry cross examination.
posted by PenDevil at 3:29 PM on February 29 [+] [!]
That's the classic format of civil asset forfeiture lawsuits (previously, also from the New Yorker). The charges are filed not against a person, but a piece of property, and the owner then has to go to court in the property's defense.
I was baffled, though, to see that they were using it against a non-US person with non-US assets. Made more sense when I got to the part about the DOJ first strong-arming the Afghan deputy attorney general into freezing funds in an Afghan bank while his boss was away, and then when that didn't work, pressuring his Dubai bank to freeze the funds by seizing equivalent funds from their US branch.
posted by McCoy Pauley at 5:10 AM on March 1, 2016
That's going to be some dry cross examination.
posted by PenDevil at 3:29 PM on February 29 [+] [!]
That's the classic format of civil asset forfeiture lawsuits (previously, also from the New Yorker). The charges are filed not against a person, but a piece of property, and the owner then has to go to court in the property's defense.
I was baffled, though, to see that they were using it against a non-US person with non-US assets. Made more sense when I got to the part about the DOJ first strong-arming the Afghan deputy attorney general into freezing funds in an Afghan bank while his boss was away, and then when that didn't work, pressuring his Dubai bank to freeze the funds by seizing equivalent funds from their US branch.
posted by McCoy Pauley at 5:10 AM on March 1, 2016
« Older Play dead or be dead | Taking shy bladder syndrome to the next level Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by H. Roark at 10:47 AM on February 29, 2016 [7 favorites]