WAR, who benefits?

[Tapio]

This thread is intended to focus on the question I originally posted here.

In short: I've been led to believe that a reason for going to war might be, that certain politically influential individuals benefit financially from it. Gumboot asked me to provide sources from which I've derived this belief.

Now, before you start plowing through the links, I'd like to emphasize a couple of things.

1. I'm not claiming my belief is a fact. It's a belief, grown throughout the last 8 years or so. However, as a skeptical person I'm inclined to question this belief in order to test it's evidence base. I've found the JREF forum to be an ideal place to perform this kind of (public) questioning.

2. I'm not an expert, so the stuff I link to is something that seems convincing to a layman like me. Because I realize the way things seem to be doesn't mean it's how things really are, is why I'm here on the forum. To learn more about how things really are. If the tools I use in order to discern the real world from the seemingly real need fixing, I'll be glad to know what/where and how this can be done.

3. I do not stand behind every single phrase of every single article I now link to. This thread is not about me, but a belief of mine (and thousands, maybe millions of others as well, not that the amount makes a difference to the reality base of the belief). I'd like to keep the discussion as much on topic (educating) as possible, and humbly hope your comments, arguments etc. keep on topic as well. I'm willing to change my belief, and it can be done, through evidence. So please, if you have a belief differing from mine, and evidence to support it, show me where in these articles is the flaw or bias, and present evidence of the contrary.

This is an extremely cut down list of links to articles, websites etc. I've gathered during the years, which I find to support the belief that certain individuals benefit financially from warfare, and that these individuals have notable political influence.

I've collected these in a sort of timeline.

The costs of war and some who benefit 2003

Which came first? 2004

My Congressman for money, not me 2004

Crude Designs 2005

Oil and elections 2005

Forgotten oil wars 2005

Where has all the money gone? 2005

Iraq financial scandal 2006

Sex and money 2006

The 25 most vicious Iraq war profiteers 2008

5 pentagon contractors 2008

Oil for war 2008

The Afghan scam 2009

Why sending more troops won't work 2009

WW4 Report

Halliburton Watch

Some of these links and tons of others, as well as extensive discussion of the topic here.

I'd actually love my belief to be crushed. Living in a world where greed for money/control of money decides the fate of thousands of people isn't so nice.

So, folks, batter up!

 

[theprestige]

So... You're not actually talking about war as a general case, nor about profit as a possible motive for war in general?

You're actually focusing on a specific conflict (the current "Iraq war"), and alleging that it was motivated by a desire for financial gain on the part of those that started it?

Do I understand this correctly?

 

[dudalb]

I'd actually love my belief to be crushed. Living in a world where greed for money/control of money decides the fate of thousands of people isn't so nice.

It has been that way since the first caveman clubbed his neighbor over the head to grab the other guy's share of Mammoth Meat.
Which is not to say I think Iraq was all done over money. I would say that a hopelessly misguided idealism was equally important.
And the thesis that it was done so contractors could make money is just plain wrong. I could buy the Oil War argument, but not the contractor theory.

 

[foxholeatheist]

Hell yeah certain people benefit. Actually the war has saved my family, both my father and myself who are both in Baghdad right now. I'm a soldier and he's a civilian contractor. Certain people will always benefit from everything. I don't believe that makes them evil.

A lot of the work done is contracted out. We have a fueler living in our bay because they've contracted fuelers and don't need him. And I don't even need to tell you that those who had a hand in the decision to go to war also had serious interests in giant firms that would handle a lot of it.

I don't know about the oil motive to be honest. I believe that none of the oil used in America comes from countries hostile to America... well... at least hostile enough to kill us. I could be wrong about it. The only oil facilities I have seen were in Kuwait but I haven't spent much time in the South of Iraq were most of the oil is located.

I honestly believe that Bush believed in what he was doing albeit I believe that he was told what he wanted to be told and turned a deaf ear to the rest. I don't think he was lying or misrepresenting the facts. To say "Country X has WMD's" is pointless and misleading. What's a WMD? Were they threats to Americans living in Cleveland or just in Cario? I couldn't tell you. So do we now go invade every country that threatens us and has a sizeable/capable military? I don't think that is the role of the US Military.

Dude, never was there anyone more of a layman than myself. I have had friends get hurt and killed in Iraq and, knock on wood, hasn't happened to me yet. I couldn't tell you why and I stay up at night with it on my mind sometimes. No one but myself was ever any less expert on the "Why?" questions. Even back home, the traffic helicopter sends chills up my spine but I can't tell you why.

 

[tomwaits]

Person A benefits from War.
Therefore, Person A caused the War.

Logic!

 

[dudalb]

Nothing new. In the 1930's there was an elaborate theory that Krupp and other weapons makers caused World War One to increase sales.
It has, of course, been totally discredited.

 

[theprestige]

Not to mention that, if I'm going to hire somebody to help me win a war, I'm going to make it worth their while. And I'm absolutely going to expect them to demand that I make it worth their while. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Even the most patriotic military contractor has to spend immense resources--not just money and materials, but time, effort, and even mental anguish--to perfect the weapons of war that I require. I should certainly hope that at the end of the day, he is well rewarded for his service, and for the skill and dedication he brings to his work.

Lockheed-Martin makes a profit from my war? That's as it should be, I think.

 

[gumboot]

Tapio, I must admit I am disappointed. It was, specifically, my request that initiated this post, but I don't think you've really delivered. I'm not going to read through screes of opinion pieces - you need to actually present the evidence your self. I'm not excited, though.

I notice a number of the articles, for example, mention Halliburton and their subsidiary KBR. Looking at the numbers and stories of "no bid contracts" looks promising at first, but if you go deeper you'll be disappointed.

The reason KBR has amassed so much money in Iraq is because of a single US Army Corps of Engineers contract which they won via an open public bidding process, called LOGCAP - Logistics Civil Augmentation Program. The general thrust of this contract is that the Army has certain jobs it needs civilian contractors to do for it during operations - like wash their laundry, provide entertainment, build bases, whatever... Operations being what they are, it's totally impractical to have a public tender process for every single individual job. Nothing will ever get done.

Instead they have this one big contingency contract that stipulates that if the Army needs work done, the company holding the contract will do it. If the Army doesn't require anything done, the company holding the contract of course gets nothing. The individual jobs are not contracts; they're work orders within the contract, which is held for a set time. (I think they're up to LOGCAP IV).

Now here's the kicker. While the numbers might look impressive, LOGCAP work orders have a capped profit margin. It's restricted to between 1 and 4%, which means companies don't earn a lot of money off this contract. In fact the average profit margin for KBR work orders under LOGCAP III in Iraq was 1.4%. The reason Halliburton profits skyrocketed in the years after 2003 is because they were starting the reap the benefits of massive oil infrastructure investment in the UAE. It just coincided with the Iraq War, and so was suspicious to the ignorant and convenient to those wanting to push anti-War propaganda.

Still think it's about the money?

Ironically, while everyone was falsely slamming the Bush admin for giving Halliburton no bid contracts, no one batted an eyelid during the Balkans Wars when KBR did not hold the LOGCAP contract, but actually were given no-bid contracts anyway by the Clinton Administration to do work that should have been done under LOGCAP.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It has been that way since the first caveman clubbed his neighbor over the head to grab the other guy's share of Mammoth Meat female cave person with the nice rack.

There, fixed it for ya!

 

[Travis]

There's also the fact that sometimes in combat you find out you need something and just don't have time to go through the process of getting bids and whatnot. For example the development of the super-penetrator smart bomb, the GBU-28, during the Gulf War. The military only realized after the bombs started falling on Iraq that they needed it and so Texas Instruments embarked on a crash program to create one based on nothing but a handshake deal and a promise that if they could get something to work the Air Force would buy them. So they ended knocking out a new type of bomb in just twelve weeks that is still a part of the US arsenal to this day.

Did Texas Instruments benefit? Yep, eventually. Is that so terrible? I don't think so. There was a need and they filled it.

 

[Tapio]

So... You're not actually talking about war as a general case, nor about profit as a possible motive for war in general?

You're actually focusing on a specific conflict (the current "Iraq war"), and alleging that it was motivated by a desire for financial gain on the part of those that started it?

Do I understand this correctly?

The reason why I'm focusing on the Iraq war is because it (as well as the Afghan conflict) was the subject of the original thread. I believe the profit-motive can be applied to other wars as well, but not "in general". Each war is it's own case. I don't believe financial gain for some individuals was the only motive for invading Iraq.

Mind you, I'm not alleging anything. I'm discussing my belief, which is based on something I've heard, seen and read (and which I'm definitely not claiming to necessarily be compatible with reality). It might be my poor understanding of the intricacies in the English language, but I think there is a difference. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

[Tapio]

And the thesis that it was done so contractors could make money is just plain wrong. I could buy the Oil War argument, but not the contractor theory.

Okay, could you explain why, and possibly provide the evidence that convinced you? Thanks.

 

[Tapio]

Dude, never was there anyone more of a layman than myself. I have had friends get hurt and killed in Iraq and, knock on wood, hasn't happened to me yet. I couldn't tell you why and I stay up at night with it on my mind sometimes. No one but myself was ever any less expert on the "Why?" questions. Even back home, the traffic helicopter sends chills up my spine but I can't tell you why.

I really respect your insight as a witness. Hope you don't have to share the fate of some your friends.

 

[Tapio]

Person A benefits from War.
Therefore, Person A caused the War.

Logic!

Yours maybe? Definitely not mine.

 

[Tapio]

Nothing new. In the 1930's there was an elaborate theory that Krupp and other weapons makers caused World War One to increase sales.
It has, of course, been totally discredited.

Is this the case with what I believe in as well? Because if it is, I for sure don't want to spend a second longer in believing nonsense. So please, provide evidence contrary to my belief, thank you.

 

[Tapio]

Tapio, I must admit I am disappointed. It was, specifically, my request that initiated this post, but I don't think you've really delivered. I'm not going to read through screes of opinion pieces - you need to actually present the evidence your self. I'm not excited, though.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but this is what you actually wrote:

The best way to proceed is for you to explain why it is that it seems to you like the wars are about cash, and then we can see if that argument actually stacks up, and if you're missing anything.

Underlining mine.

Now, I think I've completely "delivered". These are excerpts that have been crucial in the forming of my belief. I never claimed to be able to provide you with evidence for why wars are about cash, but simply evidence for why it seems to me to be the case in some aspects regarding some wars. See the difference? Also, I specifically asked for assistance if my "tools of discernment" aren't sharp enough.

If you're not even going to read through what I've linked to in order to find out the evidence base of my belief (be it false or not), I don't see how you can possibly help in breaking it down. I don't expect you to, of course not. It would be a lot to ask from anyone. Just don't pretend the stuff ain't there, and expect me to just take your word for it. As a fellow skeptic I'm sure you can respect my not budging just because you say something.

I notice a number of the articles, for example, mention Halliburton and their subsidiary KBR. Looking at the numbers and stories of "no bid contracts" looks promising at first, but if you go deeper you'll be disappointed.

The reason KBR has amassed so much money in Iraq is because of a single US Army Corps of Engineers contract which they won via an open public bidding process, called LOGCAP - Logistics Civil Augmentation Program. The general thrust of this contract is that the Army has certain jobs it needs civilian contractors to do for it during operations - like wash their laundry, provide entertainment, build bases, whatever... Operations being what they are, it's totally impractical to have a public tender process for every single individual job. Nothing will ever get done.

Instead they have this one big contingency contract that stipulates that if the Army needs work done, the company holding the contract will do it. If the Army doesn't require anything done, the company holding the contract of course gets nothing. The individual jobs are not contracts; they're work orders within the contract, which is held for a set time. (I think they're up to LOGCAP IV).

Thank you for this. It seems obvious that things are done like this, and I don't think there's any reason this kind of practice should be altered. I do think that the people ordering the job should be ever so vigilant to notice if, at some point, they could use local companies and manpower to do some jobs. The contracts should, in my opinion, be made so this would be possible. But this only explains a tiny fraction of the vast amount of different parts of the arguments in the articles I linked to.

What I'd hope for is that you, or anyone else interested, could take one article at a time, tear it into pieces and show evidence why what's written there doesn't stand as true.

Now here's the kicker. While the numbers might look impressive, LOGCAP work orders have a capped profit margin. It's restricted to between 1 and 4%, which means companies don't earn a lot of money off this contract. In fact the average profit margin for KBR work orders under LOGCAP III in Iraq was 1.4%. The reason Halliburton profits skyrocketed in the years after 2003 is because they were starting the reap the benefits of massive oil infrastructure investment in the UAE. It just coincided with the Iraq War, and so was suspicious to the ignorant and convenient to those wanting to push anti-War propaganda.

Ironically, while everyone was falsely slamming the Bush admin for giving Halliburton no bid contracts, no one batted an eyelid during the Balkans Wars when KBR did not hold the LOGCAP contract, but actually were given no-bid contracts anyway by the Clinton Administration to do work that should have been done under LOGCAP.

Still think it's about the money?

Though what you've written certainly explains some aspects and figures regarding some cotractors, I fail to see how this could demolish all that's said in the articles I linked to. If this failure to see it is due to some crucial element missing from my "toolbox", could you point out what it could be?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Human existance benefits from war.
9-11-2001 has shown that, like many species, the herd needs to be thinned from time to time.

 

[Tapio]

There's also the fact that sometimes in combat you find out you need something and just don't have time to go through the process of getting bids and whatnot. For example the development of the super-penetrator smart bomb, the GBU-28, during the Gulf War. The military only realized after the bombs started falling on Iraq that they needed it and so Texas Instruments embarked on a crash program to create one based on nothing but a handshake deal and a promise that if they could get something to work the Air Force would buy them. So they ended knocking out a new type of bomb in just twelve weeks that is still a part of the US arsenal to this day.

Did Texas Instruments benefit? Yep, eventually. Is that so terrible? I don't think so. There was a need and they filled it.

I don't think it's terrible either (except to the ones who got the bomb dropped on them). I'm not condemning getting profit from war, only trying to figure out whether this profit is a motive for some influential people to tip the scales in favor of war, or at least to not make an active stand against going to war (at a point where war isn't yet inevitable).

By the way, how can you be sure events, regarding the bomb you wrote about, actually happened in the way and order you describe them to have happened? Not saying they didn't. Just curious about your "tools of discernment".

 

[boooeee]

WAR, who benefits?

Also, what is it good for?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Also, what is it good for?

"Time Life Songs From the Love Generation"?

Kirt Vonnegut said in SlaughterHouse 5 that an ant-war book is like an anti-glacer book. Someone also said that war is hell but someone else said that war is the mother of us all.

Are all wars bad? Let me put it another way, are all wars worse than the alternative in every case? Would Naziism and Japanese Militarism have gone quietly into the night without war?

We can turn to Ghandi as an example of peaceful resistance. But he had numbers on his side. We do not have such a luxury.