3 ms·

Although this article highlights soldiers as building barriers, the majority of base construction on the modern battlefield is done by contractors. This articl

Although this article highlights soldiers as building barriers, the majority of base construction on the modern battlefield is done by contractors. This article from 2013 is, well, "interesting" to put it lightly: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/contractors-385-billion-military-bases/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/contractors-385... A company controlled by Dick Cheney made the most money in the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. It's probable that those wars would have been logistically impossible otherwise, considering how many contracts they held and how vital a role they played. Someone said that control of a superior supply chain wins wars [or at least, delays their resolution]. But private contractors, not the US Military, control the supply chain. They supply virtually every aspect of the temporary-cities that are U.S. wartime bases. Without them, we can't have these wars. And the people who run them work in the highest levels of government. It's less conspiracy theory than blatant war profiteering. I think this brings up two interesting points. (1) If you control the corporations that profit, and you influence the government's war policy as well as budget, you can create wars for profit. Would we even have these wars if contractors weren't involved? And (2), if the contracting companies "went away" tomorrow, would we still have the military might we imagine we have?

ArchTypical 8y ago
> They supply virtually every aspect of the temporary-cities that are U.S. wartime bases. Without them, we can't have these wars. I don't believe this at all. We don't need these 'green zones' to run a war, as the US has done many times before. We did need them to run a specific kind of war, which was a blitzkrieg occupation. Not saying it was a bad plan, it certainly achieved some measure of success, but pretending that it's the only way to engage in war is unwise.
manigandham 8y ago
If there are no private contractors then the US Military would just takeover those duties itself.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  I believe that was the OP's point. If these roles are filled by soldiers instead of contractors, the profit motive for war goes away. At the time, the VP's company was providing billions of dollars of support for the war in the Middle East. While he had divested himself while in VP, to think there was no influence would be naive.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    To rephrase: lack of private contractors would not affect military might. As far as profits, there will always be contractors and vendors to buy stuff from. The military is not going to be making everything from scratch.
    - peterwwillis 8y ago
      As of 2016, there were 3 contractors for every 1 military personnel in Afghanistan, which is a titanic inversion from a few decades ago. Removing contractors would limit the availability of our military to fight in other engagements. We also get less recruits these days, in poorer condition. The states where we normally recruit the most soldiers has also had the highest incidents of accidents incurred during basic training, due in part to steadily dropping physical fitness rates in trainees. We rely on contractors to buffer our ranks not just logistically but also politically. Due to a lack of reporting on contractors and their budgets, we don't know exactly how much we spend on our wars, nor how many people get killed (more contractors have died than U.S. personnel in past 2 wars). Our military may not be able to wage wars of tacit public approval without the use of contractors to hide the true cost. Of course we will always contract for things the military isn't specialized in, such as manufacturing. But this isn't about manufacturing, it's about a logistical supply chain and service industry, in addition to [what appears to be] an approaching mercenary army. Without these services, the military would probably take years to build up the same specialization, and would have to use less money than the contractors use, with more volunteers.
      - kakwa_ 8y ago
nostrademons 8y ago
Interesting article: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/ https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-in... Its basic thesis is that the modern nation-state is being hollowed out by a twin insurgency: criminals and terrorists from below, and plutocratic corporations from above. Neither of these actually seeks to destroy the state; rather, they act as parasites, using the vestigial remains of the state for their own purposes while fulfilling none of the duties that membership in a nation-state has historically entailed. The criminal insurgency uses the state for infrastructure, wealth, and a trusting population whose productivity it can siphon off. The plutocratic insurgency uses the state for its legal framework, populist legitimacy, and social services. Both populations seek to create zones of autonomy & comfort by taking advantage of the national population, who continues playing by the rules even though the former group ignores the rules and the latter stacks them in its favor. Seems somewhat apropos here, given that we were fighting the terrorist insurgency in Iraq and doing so to enrich the plutocratic insurgency, all at the expense of the taxpayer.
jonnybgood 8y ago
> the majority of base construction on the modern battlefield is done by contractors. Not initially in war zones or any hostile areas. Contractors come in later to provide base support services. It is military personnel who first establish the base. Navy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabee Air Force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Engineer_Deployable_Heavy_Operational_Repair_Squadron_Engineers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Engineer_Deployable_Heav...
Spooky23 8y ago
I’d argue that the company controls Dick Cheney. Brown and Root was the patron of LBJ in the 40s, and was a big part of his rise and the huge military buildout in Texas — uniquely profitable due to the unique ownership structure of vacant land in that state.
- VintageCool 8y ago
  Whoa! I did not realize that Halliburton was Brown and Root.
throwaway7312 8y ago
Major General Smedley Butler on war profiteers back in 1935: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

ArchTypical 8y ago

> They supply virtually every aspect of the temporary-cities that are U.S. wartime bases. Without them, we can't have these wars. I don't believe this at all. We don't need these 'green zones' to run a war, as the US has done many times before. We did need them to run a specific kind of war, which was a blitzkrieg occupation. Not saying it was a bad plan, it certainly achieved some measure of success, but pretending that it's the only way to engage in war is unwise.

manigandham 8y ago

If there are no private contractors then the US Military would just takeover those duties itself.

alistairSH 8y ago
I believe that was the OP's point. If these roles are filled by soldiers instead of contractors, the profit motive for war goes away. At the time, the VP's company was providing billions of dollars of support for the war in the Middle East. While he had divested himself while in VP, to think there was no influence would be naive.
- manigandham 8y ago
  To rephrase: lack of private contractors would not affect military might. As far as profits, there will always be contractors and vendors to buy stuff from. The military is not going to be making everything from scratch.
  - peterwwillis 8y ago
    As of 2016, there were 3 contractors for every 1 military personnel in Afghanistan, which is a titanic inversion from a few decades ago. Removing contractors would limit the availability of our military to fight in other engagements. We also get less recruits these days, in poorer condition. The states where we normally recruit the most soldiers has also had the highest incidents of accidents incurred during basic training, due in part to steadily dropping physical fitness rates in trainees. We rely on contractors to buffer our ranks not just logistically but also politically. Due to a lack of reporting on contractors and their budgets, we don't know exactly how much we spend on our wars, nor how many people get killed (more contractors have died than U.S. personnel in past 2 wars). Our military may not be able to wage wars of tacit public approval without the use of contractors to hide the true cost. Of course we will always contract for things the military isn't specialized in, such as manufacturing. But this isn't about manufacturing, it's about a logistical supply chain and service industry, in addition to [what appears to be] an approaching mercenary army. Without these services, the military would probably take years to build up the same specialization, and would have to use less money than the contractors use, with more volunteers.
    - kakwa_ 8y ago

nostrademons 8y ago

Interesting article: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-insurgency/ https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/06/15/the-twin-in... Its basic thesis is that the modern nation-state is being hollowed out by a twin insurgency: criminals and terrorists from below, and plutocratic corporations from above. Neither of these actually seeks to destroy the state; rather, they act as parasites, using the vestigial remains of the state for their own purposes while fulfilling none of the duties that membership in a nation-state has historically entailed. The criminal insurgency uses the state for infrastructure, wealth, and a trusting population whose productivity it can siphon off. The plutocratic insurgency uses the state for its legal framework, populist legitimacy, and social services. Both populations seek to create zones of autonomy & comfort by taking advantage of the national population, who continues playing by the rules even though the former group ignores the rules and the latter stacks them in its favor. Seems somewhat apropos here, given that we were fighting the terrorist insurgency in Iraq and doing so to enrich the plutocratic insurgency, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

jonnybgood 8y ago

> the majority of base construction on the modern battlefield is done by contractors. Not initially in war zones or any hostile areas. Contractors come in later to provide base support services. It is military personnel who first establish the base. Navy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabee Air Force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Engineer_Deployable_Heavy_Operational_Repair_Squadron_Engineers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Engineer_Deployable_Heav...

Spooky23 8y ago

I’d argue that the company controls Dick Cheney. Brown and Root was the patron of LBJ in the 40s, and was a big part of his rise and the huge military buildout in Texas — uniquely profitable due to the unique ownership structure of vacant land in that state.

VintageCool 8y ago
Whoa! I did not realize that Halliburton was Brown and Root.

throwaway7312 8y ago

Major General Smedley Butler on war profiteers back in 1935: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html