Betraying Our Troops: The Destructive Results of Privatizing War

by Dina Rasor

In this shocking exposé, two government fraud experts reveal how private contractors have put the lives of countless American soldiers on the line while damaging our strategic interests and our image abroad. From the shameful war profiteering of companies like Halliburton/KBR to the sinister influence that corporate lobbyists have on American foreign policy, Dina Rasor and Robert H. Bauman paint a disturbing picture. Here they give the inside story on troops forced to subsist on little food and contaminated water, on officers afraid to lodge complaints because of Halliburton's political clout, on millions of dollars in contractors' bogus claims that are funded by American taxpayers. Drawing on exclusive sources within government and the military, the authors show how money and power have conspired to undermine our fighting forces and threaten the security of our country.

Genres: War, Politics, Nonfiction

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2007

Reviews

[Steven Peterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jonathan Alter begins this book in his foreword with a statement that summarizes the essence of the book's argument (Page xi): "The key to understanding the staggering level of incompetence [in America's managing the war in Iraq:] is the privatizing of the Iraq War. For the first time in American history, a huge chunk of the personnel involved in a war--nearly half by some accounts--are neither active duty nor reservists but contractors."

Dina Rasor and Robert Bauman use interviews with several actors in Iraq who observed the problems related to privatization plus some oversight hearings and government examinations of some of the firms with large contracts to provide services for the American occupation in Iraq. The interviews provide a face to the argument that privatization has been a major problem for the armed forces on the ground in Iraq.

Some of their points: contractors didn't provide food and good water to troops scattered throughout Iraq; contractors used broken down trucks and other equipment but charged the military as if these were brand new; charges for services never provided were billed to the government; etc.

The dependence on a limited number of interviews surely suggests that this is an issue that needs to be examined more closely. But I can't say that such a limited number of interviews provide compelling evidence for Alter's blunt thesis. That is close to "the fallacy of the dramatic illustration." We need deeper, more convincing data.

In a sense, this book has as its great virtue that it raises an issue that cries out for deeper evaluation, using more than interviews and secondary data. My sense is that the authors have identified an important issue; government watchdog organizations have, in fact, reported some excesses of contractors. But the case is not compelling in this volume.

So, this is a useful book for raising an important issue. It points to the need for a more sustained evidence based analysis. It is adequately written, but is rather devoid of a writing style that flows. Worth looking at. . . .

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 4 out of 5]

The authors make the case that privatization of the military and other government functions can and often does lead to abuse and corruption by the contractors and does not necessarily same tax payers money. Examples are provided in relation to the military. A good thoughtful read.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is a reminder that propaganda often passes for reportage.  If you are a partisan of the Democrats, this is the sort of book you will likely greater enjoy.  If you have a more positive view of privatized military forces [1], this book will come off as biased in the worst way.  The authors are part of a liberal PAC that appears to be closely tied to Rep. Waxman, whose praise they was fulsomely about here, and the book is a tiresome one that thankfully can be read rather speedily if you are so inclined.  Much of the book comes of as novelistic, if you like novels about the Iraq War and the struggles of logistics in its aftermath.  The authors, as might be predicted, take a very partisan view of what constitutes betraying our troops and the rhetoric through the book is highly overheated, like a car whose water pump isn't working very well.  One can tell that the authors are trying to curry favor with some elements of the armed forces but also that they have no clue what they are talking about in terms of the larger context of government corruption.

The book itself is divided into various parts and tends to skip from one time to another somewhat haphazardly.  In general, though, the book begins by looking at the context of logistics efforts in the Iraq War and its struggles.  Much of the book skips between libelous accounts of the people in charge of various private logistics firms and ordinary solders and military contractors who apparently talked with the authors, but the authors try to make it seem as if their biased reconstructions are true to life reportage.  The whole writing of the book has the feel of a Michael Moore mockumentary that strives to be seen as a historical document but is in reality more fictional in nature.  Towards the end of the book the authors report on congressional grandstanding with an obvious bias so bad it could have come straight out of the Washington Post or some other garbage rag.  The book is written with the laughable perspective that only Republicans are corrupt and that the Democrat majorities in 2006 would herald a new age of clean and fair government, which, of course, we did not see, but it is unlikely that the authors of this book wrote exposes on the corruption of the Obama area as well as the billions wasted on bailout packages and the like.

There are a few aspects that make this book pretty worthless for anyone who is not a DNC operative.  For one, the authors view private military contracting itself as a great evil, rather than viewing corrupt business practices are evil.  If we could trust the public sector, a great deal of privatization would not be as urgent or important a matter.  Likewise, the authors view failures in logistics as signs of betrayal rather than a sign of the difficulties of doing logistics well, something that the United States has frequently struggled with--see WWI, for example.  In addition, the authors view corruption as a partisan matter rather than a problem that both of the parties in the United States struggle with at present in different ways.  Indeed, rather than arguing in favor of supporting Democratic rule, the matters discussed in this book are evidence of why Americans ought to support a small government that dwells at peace with other nations in the world, so that the financial and political power of the federal government does not reach the extent that it becomes a lure to anyone looking to benefit themselves or their cronies at taxpayer expense.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

If this book does not "set your blood to boiling" regarding outsourcing of our military ventures, nothing will. The troops really have been betrayed. Some things should never be "run for profit." Corporations should have been put out of existence and corporate managers should have been sent to prison. I don't support capital punishment, but.... The authors, in their last paragraph say it best:

"If the war service industry is here to stay, how will we feed the contractor beast after Iraq and Afghanistan, in the absence of any hot war or occupation? Will the industry and those who benefit from it try to influence our politics and foreign policy, perhaps pushing the country into some new war or occupation to keep the money flowing? How can costs be controlled or oversight provided to make sure contractors fulfill their commitments? This question will remain especially pressing so long as the Pentagon is unable to raise oversight staffing levels to met the demands of LOGCAP and contracts for operations in Iraq. How should the Pentagon deal with the possibility of contractors suddenly deciding to quit the battlefield and leaving our troops in the lurch? Making contractors subject to the UCMJ most likely will not override a contractor employee's constitutional rights to quit their job or fail to perform contractually. These and other questions need to be answered so that the disheartening and disastrous stories you have read in this book are not repeated. Our troops were betrayed by the policy of privatization in Iraq. They deserve better from their government."

[Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well written book exposing the fallacious argument that outsourcing will save money. In the case of the Iraq War started by Bush 43 and initially run by Donald Rumsfeld it enriched the coffers of Halliburton's subsidiary KBR among other bandits. (Remember Chaney was head of Halliburton before becoming VP, also note that the contract for Halliburton to 'provide support' for the troops was sole-source. The book has made me angry, wanting to see people punished at the highest levels. After recently reading Veterans Under Siege I am doubly incensed. KBR did not supply the goods to the service personnel in the field, only at some of the major bases. The fraudulent charges and lack of contract performance likely caused death, injury and illnesses among the American service personnel they were supposed to be working for. There actions and inaction exposed service personnel to toxins and biological contaminants unnecessarily and some of the effects, like those of agent orange did not show up until years have passed. An expense that the veterans will have to pay until they can convince the VA of the service connection, if they survive that long. And then it is an expense to the taxpayer, not the company that caused it.
Perhaps most egregious was the threat of not doing any work if the Army did not pay KBR for undocumented expenses.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rasor and Bauman quickly reel off many reasons not to privatize combat, though most boil down to the profit motive: if you are paid on a percentage basis, you start doing stupid and immoral things with men and materiel so that you get paid more. They share good stories, but their writing is not only breezy but at times grammatically sub-par, and they have an annoying habit of awkwardly importing their interviewees' personal slang into the main prose passages that stitch the narrative together.

I'm glad to see that this issue is getting some attention - the US military reliance on contractors is genuinely worrisome in many ways - but it's not a great book. It's worth skimming the library copy, but not buying. Read Fiasco or Blackwater instead.

[David Poortinga · Rating 1 out of 5]

The authors might have something important to say, but it is lost in this poorly researched and written book. There seems to be no effort on the part of the authors to confirm the anecdotal evidence given by their interviewees. First-person anecdotes, mainly by disgruntled former contractors or military personnel, are not sufficient to understand if there are systemic problems with contracting in warzones and what might be done about those problems. The book would be much more valuable if the authors provided extensive context and rigorous argumentation, rather than simply presenting a collection of interviews interspersed with slanted commentary. The wretched grammar, spelling, and syntax do not help matters.

[Holly]

There are amazing and disheartening first-hand accounts and information that NEED TO BE READ because of their CONTENT, in spite of the run-on sentences, inane sentence fragments, and occasionally laughable punctuation.

Not as well-written or researched as Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine or even Blackwater, by Jeremy Scahill, but still worth reading.

Okay, I'll just come out with it: DID ANYONE EVEN PROOFREAD THIS BOOK for punctuation and readability prior to publication?! (I sure hope the fact-checking was better than the editing.....)

[Jim Noyes · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good read, a bit dry, but shockingly sad. Just another example of how horribly screwed up people will act and try to cover themselves under the blanket of patriotism. This will make you mad, but it's necessary to understand