Military-Industrial Conference

I received this delightful unsolicited e-mail inviting me to attend a conference dedicated to helping you help others help yourself to the hundreds of billions (and counting--the conference ad refers to $500 billion in "nonmilitary rebuilding costs") dedicated to rebuilding Iraq.

Through carefully crafted, world-class industry sessions created in partnership with the industry and presented by leading representatives of the highest level, New Fields Exhibitions will present a 2-day conference, a key for those planning to do business in Iraq.
ReBUILDING IRAQ presents an opportunity for all companies to share ideas and develop strategies to ensure share in this market. Participation will provide essential insight into opportunities, sub-contract opportunities, and team up scenarios.

You will hear speakers from the Harris Corp, the Army Corps of Engineers, Iraq's Ministry of of Public Works, the Export-Import Bank, and of course Halliburton KBR. No one who wants a chance for a little old-time war profiteering should miss it.

Comments

[Jean Bart]

France has already helped itself:

French Company Alcatel selected by Orascom Telecom to deliver a new GSM network in Iraq - http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/34968.html

[Kevin Carson]

As Dick Cheney said, "government never made anyone rich."

Trough's full, piggies! Come and get it!

[Jerry Hill]

Brian, I'm not sure I understand why you think this is such a bad thing. Are you saying that the US shouldn't be spending money to help rebuild Iraq? Or perhaps that that money shouldn't be given to private contractors? Or is there something specific about this conference that you think is bad?

[Gordon Shumway]

I prefer they skip this conference business, just give Halliburton a no bid on the whole shebang, and let me spend the conference money on Hennessey and Hookers in Vegas.

That's probably what Brian wants to, I think.

[Vic the Appraiser]

Brian -

I love ya, but that was an incredibly ignorant comment. Perhaps you missed "how capitalism works" on your new-employee orientation day.

I don't know what your position was on the war (I could guess), but that's a separate issue. The country must be rebuilt now. Who's going to do it, Brian? The Kiwanis Club? The Boy Scouts? Our Sisters of Perpetual Misery?

Wait, I have an idea...how about contractors? Yeah, that's just crazy enough to work! Of course, the LAST thing we'd want these greedy bastards to do is actually PLAN AHEAD by attending conferences! Conferences - just think of it! The nerve!

I suppose you hate companies that rebuild infrastructure after earthquakes and tornadoes, too, eh? I suppose that's "natural disaster profiteering"?

Reason joins the "profit is theft" brigades. Onward and upward, comrades.

[Steve in CO]

Vic,

I am not speaking for Brian, but I think he means that the whole thing sucks from a holistic point of view. A half-trillion dollars being spent by not those who earned it, but by those who have taken it from its rightful owners, and now being given to favored political contributors (companies and countries). It stinks in other words.

Steve

[Vic the Appraiser]

I'm tempted to just say, "Huh?"

Steve, are you saying that Iraq contributed money to George Bush's election fund? That's, you know, illegal, and back in '00 I don't think Saddam was in a Bush-donating frame of mind.

As far as referring to tax money as theft goes - if you're an anarchist, that's your right and that would be your position, I guess. But then your argument is with democracy as it is practiced in every democratic country on earth, not with a reconstruction convention.

Finally, the idea that only "favored" companies get contracts - you simply have no conception of how government contracts are bid on and won.

It just sounds like boilerplate anarchy, which I guess means I should have saved my breath...

[ted scott]

Brian, Good article. Why shouldn't I, holding a business license, be able to bid for jobs that call for the use/implementation of the product(s) that I manufacture?
The money would be nice and the International exposure would look great on a resume.
Also, because we use UPS for all of our deliveries, they would be yet another uniformed foreign force with their natty brown uniforms. Maybe they could accidently discover the main headquarters of the theoretical Al-Qaeda if an astute government official addressed a package to Bin Laden and it actually got delivered. Talk about Kafkaesque!!!
Ted Scott, From "Just another Teacher"

[The Lonewacko Blog]

It stinks in the same way that our system in general stinks. Sure, in a perfect world we could count on modern-day saints like Marla Ruzicka to rebuild the countries we invade, but, in this modern world corporations need to go in and invest money and rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed.

[Shari Peterson]

Iraqi's built Iraq the first time why the hell can't they rebuild it now? I'm sick and tired of US bullying for capitalism around the world.

Give the work and taxpayer dollars to the Iraqis and let them rebuild at their cost, not the inflated costs of the US (or any other country).

[Vic the Appraiser]

In fact, a number of Iraqi companies have bid on and won rebuilding contracts in Iraq. If you're suggesting that American companies be barred from bidding, all you're doing is reducing competition, which tends to increase costs, not lower them.

[Vic the Appraiser]

(Incidentally, this is why I think it was a dumb idea for the Bush administration to ban non-coalition countries from bidding as prime contractors.)

[JimInNoVA]

I think what they're suggesting is that Iraq has oil, oil can be sold for money, money can then be exchanged for goods and services ie rebuilding. Why should American tax dollars be spent at all? Who they go to (Halluburton, btw, has won several "open bids" that they wern't even a part of) is of far less concern.

[Stephen Fetchet]

Bzzzzzzt.

You lose, Vic, you?re off the island. You fail the Big ?L? Libertarian Purity Test.

Don?t you know, peace loving, massively profitable and generally highly stoned and groovy anarcho-capitalism will spontaneously form itself worldwide, if only government would just get the hell out of the way.

Don't worry - the free market and self interest will remedy all ills.

Oh yeah, and one other thing: anybody who charges money for music is a thief. Free Napster!

This message brought to you by the Julian Sanchez* for President PAC.

*Formerly the spontaneously erected leader, Libertarians for Dean?, currently the Maximum Leader, Libertarians for Kerry?.

[joe]

"Don?t you know, peace loving, massively profitable and generally highly stoned and groovy anarcho-capitalism will spontaneously form itself worldwide, if only government would just get the hell out of the way."

Hey, now, that's sounds all right...When you really think about it...

I feel like Opus undercover at the Bagwhan's compound. Happy love peas.

[Andrew]

This reminds me of a story Henry Hazlitt told about India. There was a famine in a province, and a comittee brought the British govenor a list of sky-rocketing prices for grain and other fodd-stuffs.

The governor paid for some fairly inexpensive advertisements in papers throughout India, simply reproducing the price list.

Within two weeks the province was flooded with food-- still expensive, but much less so. Actual starvation diappeared.

[Stephen Fetchet]

There you go Andrew, my point exactly.

Had the governor simply stayed out of the way, the market would have taken care of the shortage.

Lots of Indians would have died, and there would have been no more shortage. Presto.

Hey wait a minute, you're not making the case for Chicago School-style light government intervention to prevent market inefficiencies, are you? Because that's my normal argument, and I won't stand for it...

[80sfan]

Doherty, you're an ignoramus

[matt]

No matter how the contracts are handed out, it seems to me the companies are still war profiteers. Without the war, they would have nothing to rebuild and no contracts to win. So, they are profiting from the war, however you look at it. Of course, one can interpret it as good or bad (depending on other available options), but it doesn't change the fact our government's war and occupation enabled this in the first place.

[Dick]

The intent -- ham-handed perhaps, but indisputably noble -- is to be as open as possible in soliciting contactors for the work within Iraq. Don't know where the $500B number came from; that's absurd. Right now we're at $18.6B and counting, admittedly, but we won't get within hundreds of billions of $500B.
Iraqi oil revenue is being used solely to finance ongoing operations of its government (we're using American money to rebuild schools and the like), and there is one functioning today. It assumes total sovereignty on July 1, but has some sovereignty right now.
What would you have them/us do, solicit and award contracts in private? Instead, why not openly state what you need, and ask who wants to provide it? The accent is on being open and transparent. Everything out in the open, no favoritism except toward the lowest price competitor.
What's wrong with that?

[Jean Bert]

Andrew,

If it were only really true; British governors were quite willing to let people to starve to death in India (especially in the 19th century), so as to "fix the market." Never mind that they had destroyed the normal means of food transport and had disrupted the original markets, without replacing them with something that would meet the needs of consumers. But then again, to the average Briton at the time these were "wogs" and not fully human.

[Vic the Appraiser]

Dick -

To answer your question, there is nothing wrong with that. Thanks for your post.

Whenever I read a hit piece that strikes me as highly partisan or ideological, I ask myself: Would the author have curbed his criticism if his target had done the opposite of whatever he's been criticized for?

In this case, Brian caustically attackes reconstruction contractors as "war profiteers." So I have to wonder...Say the US had said to the Iraqis, "Even though we rebuilt Europe after WW2, we're not giving you a penny for reconstruction. The Islamists can take over now for all we care. Fuck off if you don't like it. Cheers, America." Would Brian have approved this?

Instead of having contractors compete for reconstruction work, suppose the Bush administration just handed contracts at random. Or with no understandable methodology at all. Would Brian have approved?

Suppose American companies were barred because we didn't want them to suffer the ignomy of being "war profiteers." So there were fewer companies bidding, resulting in higher costs to US taxpayers - would Brian have approved of this?

Suppose instead of strategizing on the best ways of winning bids, reconstruction contractors sat on their fat asses and smoked fatties until their eyes turned green, and then totally zoned out and forgot to bid, forfeiting the work to Saudis.

What do you say, Brian?

Something tells me Brian would have objected no matter what the government or contractors did. But that's no reason to stop slandering contractors as "war profiteers", is it?

[Steve in CO]

Thank you Matt for putting it much more clearly than I.

🙂

And Vic, splffft! (rasberry).

I admit my emotions get the better of me about the Iraq war, and I were that bias on my sleeve. I was just trying to say, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, we wouldn't be spending billions of our tax dollars fixing what we broke.