Comments on: The Wild Geese Fly Again?

The Wild Geese Fly Again?

Leege — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:05:45 -0800

Red, White and Blue Dogs of War Just found this story in The Nation about a decision by the Bush administration to hire Aegis Defense Services to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq. The trouble is, its boss, ex-British Lt. Col. Tim Spicer, who is responsible for actually starting a coup in Papua New Guinea in 1996, among other things. Perhaps Bush, the free market disciple, is beginning to think that he needs to hire some mercs to make up for all the reserve and Guard guys quitting. If the Army needs more help and advice, they could hire this or that homegrown "consulting firm."

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:56:24 -0800

Bush a free-market disciple? Please explain how no-bid defense contracts embody the spirit of the free market.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:00:07 -0800

Wait, Bush is a criminal who regularly employs other criminals employed by the Reagan and Bush senior administrations? Has the whole world gone topsy-turvy? Is crime formally going on William-Nilliam?

By: Steve_at_Linnwood

Steve_at_Linnwood — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:07:54 -0800

Funny, I was just reading this article in National Review that I was thinking about making a FPP out of....

By: Leege

Leege — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:37:36 -0800

Bush a free-market disciple? Please explain how no-bid defense contracts embody the spirit of the free market. A pseudo-free marketeer, then... or an oligarchic enthusiast? Then again, this is the same guy who doesn't worry about balancing the budget.

By: thedevildancedlightly

thedevildancedlightly — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:46:37 -0800

I don't want to defend no-bid contracts too far, but think about this --- if you were going to trust your life to somebody would you really want it to be the low bidder? There's a short list of defense-capable companies (Blackwater for security, a few for restructuring Iraq's economy, etc) that are capable of getting the job done and interested in doing so. Why waste taxpayer money with formal bidding and delay rebuilding if it's easier to just negotiate with the potential sellers directly? Think about it - if you want to buy a new couch do you have suppliers bid, or do you just go to a few stores and haggle? Of course, in other contracts where there is a competitive market and the product or service being purchased is standardized (eg, toilet seats), then going with a formal low-bidder model makes a hell of a lot more sense.

By: teece

teece — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:52:59 -0800

Why waste taxpayer money with formal bidding and delay rebuilding if it's easier to just negotiate with the potential sellers directly? Because corruption is inevitable, and we end up with what we have in Iraq: a company overcharging (to the tune of millions of dollars) for food they weren't even delivering, just to pick one example. The recipients have no incentive to provide good service, so they don't. The truth is, these no-bid contractors have the US Armed Forces by the short and curlies. The Armed forces can not operate without these contractors: repeat, military operation falls apart without a for-profit entity providing key logistics in a war zone. That's just brain-dead stupid. I don't want lowest bidder or no-bid. I want these services returned to the fucking place they belong: the US Armed Forces. The Army should have cooks, trucks drivers, engineers, etc. aplenty to conduct operations. Anything else is stupid beyond belief.

By: thedevildancedlightly

thedevildancedlightly — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:17:41 -0800

Teece - Good insight that bidding doesn't solve any of those problems. If we go strictly based on the lowest bid then there is no incentive to deliver any quality of service. If we pick based on a low bid "plus" some measure of past performance then the same situation arises (since the factors will have to be entirely subjective then they can be manipulated just as easily)

By: trondant

trondant — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:33:27 -0800

~~your life~~ the life of some fucking plebian he'll never ever meet and doesn't give a tin shit about. That man doesn't give a fuck who he gets killed.

By: magullo

magullo — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:35:38 -0800

Bush is a "as long as you can get away with it, it's ok" disciple.

By: buzzman

buzzman — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:35:50 -0800

Good call teece.

By: Infinite Jest

Infinite Jest — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:05:44 -0800

In a response last month, the Army admitted that its contracting officer was unaware of trouble spots in Spicer's past, but it refused to reconsider the contract. This is the most worrying thing, IMHO. I'd heard of this guy. You'd expect professional military people to have a better idea of who they were hiring. On the no-bid/lowest bid issue: why not put it out to tender, but not necessarily go with the lowest bidder? (That's govt practice over here, as far as I know).

By: biffa

biffa — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:06:09 -0800

That man doesn't give a fuck who he gets killed. I imagine he cares to the extent that mercenaries don't go on the score card of US soldiers killed.

By: sotonohito

sotonohito — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:56:45 -0800

I think a larger point is being missed here: We are the United States of America, we have our own fricking army, why in the hell are we hiring mercenaries? A mercenary firm that is paying its mercenaries $100,000 per year at that. The average GI gets paid less than $30,000 per year. For the price of one mercenary we can have three *real* soldiers. This meets all three of George Carlin's classes of idiocy: its stupid, its full of shit, and its fucking nuts. The United States of America should not be in the business of hiring mercenaries, quibbiling about the cost, or the way they were hired is completely secondary.

By: Chrischris

Chrischris — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:10:46 -0800

There's a short list of defense-capable companies (Blackwater for security, a few for restructuring Iraq's economy, etc) that are capable of getting the job done and interested in doing so. Why waste taxpayer money with formal bidding and delay rebuilding if it's easier to just negotiate with the potential sellers directly? Not to derail, but you are aware, thedevildancedlightly, that the CEO of Blackwater is Erik Prince, the brother-in-law of Rich Devos, Founder of Amway & one of the largest Republican donors in America, right? His sister, Betsy DeVos, was also chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party for several years... So, anyways, full-speed ahead with picking the most capable company for the job (ahem).

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:14:15 -0800

Bush's brain should know better than hire mercenaries. Machiavelli plainly states many times that a prince should not depend upon mercenary troops. I suppose the smell of corporate armies was just too strong to be resisted by corporate fascists. Conservatives my ass!

By: Leege

Leege — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:21:49 -0800

I think a larger point is being missed here: We are the United States of America, we have our own fricking army, why in the hell are we hiring mercenaries? That's exactly the point I was trying to make with this post, sotonohito. As well as the fact that the whole situation's nuts.

By: jefeweiss

jefeweiss — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:28:31 -0800

Iraq is already full of mercenaries. I have seen it speculated that they are there because they are not subject to the same rules of engagement as the US military is under. I would be willing to bet that if you go back into the history of any of these companies you would find unsavory practices, etc. The main problem with Lt Col Spicer is that people know about his past misdeeds.

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:06:01 -0800

According to the Washington Times, there were 20,000 "private security guards" (mercs) in Iraq in April of last year and that number was expected to rise to 30,000 in July and is almost certainly higher now. God, I wish I could've found a better source than the WT.

By: thedevildancedlightly

thedevildancedlightly — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:24:10 -0800

Chrischris - I wasn't particularly aware of that fact, but it doesn't suprise me at all. It's part of the giant revolving door of security firms. Every CEO is somehow connected to both parties -- it's a pre-req for the job. Is it a little sketchy? Sure. But it's part of the security landscape. Lockheed probably has connections that are just as interesting.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:51:26 -0800

Iraq is already full of mercenaries. Yeah, very true. And many are very unsavory characters from South Africa who have extensive backgrounds in "suppressing insurgency" by dark skinned persons.

By: bardic

bardic — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:30:44 -0800

The million dollar question remains: When does America wake the fuck up and realize that Iraq has been a lost war for over a year? I'm guessing that when we hit 5,000 American dead. But hopefully it will be sooner than that.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:40:29 -0800

Problem with mercenaries is you have to pay them a lot to fight and pay them more to stop fighting. And if hired by the US I would expect them to have the same rules of engagement as the US. Perhaps this is all a ploy to end up with enough regular troops to go find WMD, er I mean liberate, some other nations.. Syria, N Korea (of course it wouldn't BE N Korea because they actually DO have WMD) and we'd have an awful lot of dead soldiers (and possible W. Coast cities?) in that conflict.