Author Topic: Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?  (Read 13802 times)

Fully Caffein8ed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« on: July 13, 2004, 06:43:41 AM »
I must admit that I was shocked to hear that the Philippines are withdrawing their 50 person humaniartian staff from Iraq to appease the terrorists. That flies in the face of all logical thought. I might expect a response like that from France, but not the Philippines. They, of all countries, should know better than to bow the knee to terrorist threats.

What are they thinking?
------------------------------------------------------
The way to a man's heart is through his sternum.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2004, 07:16:55 AM »
Woof Caffein8ted:  

I opened your post with the idea of moving it to the WW3 thread, but now that I see it is related to the Philippines, I will leave it as its own independent thread.

Perhaps the following sheds a little light?

Woof,
Crafty Dog
===================================


Geopolitical Diary: Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Appearing on Al Jazeera television late July 12, Philippine Deputy Foreign
Minister Rafael Seguis read a statement addressed to the so-called Islamic Army in Iraq, which is holding a Filipino truck driver hostage. In the statement -- a response to threats to behead Angelo de la Cruz if Manila does not withdraw troops from Iraq by July 20 -- Seguis said the Philippines "will withdraw its humanitarian forces [from Iraq] as soon as possible," adding that he hoped the statement would "touch the heart of this group" and noting that "Islam is the religion of peace and mercy."

Seguis' statement came as the deadline for de la Cruz's execution was
imminent, and in fact, Al Jazeera already had broadcast a tape from the
militants showing de la Cruz in orange clothes similar to those worn by
other beheading victims, with a statement from the group that he had been moved to the place of execution. Both Manila and the militants have been using Al Jazeera as the middleman in negotiations for de la Cruz's release.

This is not the first time a foreign national has been held hostage by
militants in Iraq and threatened with beheading if the host nation does not
withdraw troops from the country, but it does appear to be the first time
that such a staunch ally of the United States apparently has conceded to the militants' demands. For Washington, Manila's announcement has come as a surprise -- and could, from the U.S. point of view, set an undesirable precedent for other allies in Iraq. It also might embolden the many militant groups active in Iraq and elsewhere to step up their kidnapping campaigns.

The apparently last-minute decision to capitulate to the kidnappers' demands was both unusual and unexpected, particularly in its public nature. Quiet, behind-the-scenes negotiations do occur, and in this case an offer of money failed to secure the hostage's release. Manila faces several internal threats from Islamists and militants -- ranging from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front to the Abu Sayyaf to Jemaah Islamiyah -- and giving in to demands on one front sets a precedent the government has little intention of repeating on another. Furthermore, while there has been domestic pressure for Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to withdraw the country's 50-odd troops from Iraq earlier than scheduled, she has recently been confirmed as the victor in this year's presidential elections and has little reason, at least on the surface, to fear mass sentiment. Besides, opposition sentiment concerning a military commitment that should end in about six weeks is not all that "mass."

In April, when she was still facing a difficult election campaign, Arroyo
mooted the point of withdrawing early, but let it drop. With the election
already under her belt, the timing just does not seem right. Moreover,
Manila has been a staunch ally of Washington in the international war
against Islamist militants, with U.S. forces in the Philippines for various
exercises since 2002. The decision seems even more anomalous in light of the fact that other allies less directly connected to international Islamist
militancy -- such as South Korea and Japan -- have refused to leave Iraq,
despite having their own nationals taken hostage (and in the South Korean case, beheaded).

Several theories could explain this situation. First, Al Jazeera could have
mistranslated Seguis' statement, either unintentionally or with Manila's
knowledge. In this way, the Philippine government could have a chance to
delay or even avert the beheading, while maintaining the ability to deny
that it gave in to the militants. A second -- albeit similar -- idea is that
Manila will win the release with this statement, then keep its troops in
Iraq until (or nearly up to) the originally scheduled withdrawal date of
Aug. 20, saying that that was "as soon as possible."

Both of these ideas carry significant negatives, both for the Philippines
and for the United States. Either way, it would appear that Manila gave in
to the demands of the militants -- which for the militants would translate
to the appearance of a political victory that would set the tone for
additional kidnappings. This could even carry over into the Philippines,
where Manila is in the midst of a delicate redefinition of relations with
the MILF and enlisting the militant group in the fight against the Abu
Sayyaf and JI. Furthermore, if Manila wins de la Cruz's freedom and then
reneges on its promise concerning troops in Iraq, it is likely to become the target of more direct and immediate attacks against its citizens in Iraq and the region.

The third scenario concerns internal more than external factors for Manila.
Though Arroyo's position appears solid, there is a possibility that former
President Joseph Estrada and failed presidential bidder Fernando Poe Jr. may have a stronger position than is readily apparent. An article in the Manila Times pointed to de la Cruz's love for Estrada and Poe movies when he was younger (both were action stars before entering politics). This may well have been a plant by the opposition to set up Arroyo for a fall. If she did not do anything to gain de la Cruz's freedom, her failure to act might be perceived as politically motivated -- simply because the hostage is a fan of her political rivals. A less petty argument is that de la Cruz would not have been in his current predicament if Estrada or Poe were in office because they would not have sent troops to Iraq. However, this argument is likely disingenuous, since either politician would have been equally keen to support U.S. President George W. Bush and gain the economic and military benefits of such a relationship.

In the conspiratorially minded Philippines, such a ploy to undermine Arroyo might well carry disproportional weight in public opinion and translate into real trouble for Arroyo, who initially came to power during a "people power" rising. By at least appearing to negotiate for de la Cruz's release, she might be trying to insulate herself against the potential for a people-power movement that seeks her ouster. The risk, of course, is that by changing her mind about troop withdrawal, she would appear indecisive -- and therefore less presidential. In the personal world of Philippine politics, decisions often are made on the basis of what is the least damaging rather than on what is best.

A fourth possibility is that Seguis' statement on Al Jazeera represented an
uncoordinated effort to effect the hostage's release by any means
possible -- even without Manila's direct permission. Philippine military
officials have denied receiving any orders for an early withdrawal from
Iraq, and an emergency meeting was called at the Foreign Affairs Ministry -- a potential sign of confusion.

Whatever the cause for the change in stance by Manila -- domestic insecurity or a ploy -- it is likely to trigger a tremor in relations with the United States, and might well spark an uptick in kidnappings in Iraq. And as Washington tries to finesse the Iraqi situation in the run-up to the U.S.
presidential election, the tiniest ripple from elsewhere in the world could
generate large waves within the U.S. political scene farther on.

......................................................................

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.stratfor.com

Fully Caffein8ed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Much Appreciated Guro Crafty
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2004, 08:00:58 AM »
I guess I can see where they are coming from, in theory...

It still looks like they are opening Pandora's box. I hope that Arroya is ready to release the hounds, with full vengeance... I have a feeling that we'll see a spike in abductions from MILF, Abu Sayef and the rest of those clowns, now that the gov't has shown its willingness to cater to their demands.

May God's mercy, grace and protection rest on the people of the Philippines.

- Fully Caffein8ed
------------------------------------------------------
The way to a man's heart is through his sternum.

quest

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2004, 09:02:36 AM »
the U.S. opened a PANDORA'S BOX when it decided to go into IRAQ, instead of focusing it's efforts in AFGHANISTAN.  now the troops are spread too thin, the inactive reserve are being called involuntarily into service, while the tour of duty of others are being extended indefinitely (i smell a draft coming, but that's just my opinion).

but, don't take my word for it... pick up Tom Clancy's new book about General Anthony Zinni (USMC, retired), titled "Battle Ready".  it'll give you a new perspective on the war in Iraq, and this current Administrations priorities.  hell you don't even need to watch FAHRENHEIT 9/11.

As for the Philippines... it's as simple as asking "What do we have to gain over there???", cheaper oil?  they have more pressing problems in their own country.  more than half of it's citizens don't believe in this "new war with TERROR"-- hell, they'd rather have the U.S. have a war with it's own Culture of Consumption.  

they've just had a very close election, only the politicians and businessmen in the Philippines, support America's invasion of Iraq.  basically, the same way the rest of the world feels.  so, if you think about it, Arroyo pulling her symbolic support out of Iraq (which she was to pull out next month anyways) is very LOGICAL.

Fully Caffein8ed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2004, 09:26:21 AM »
Michael? Is that you? You're a bit chubby for DBMA aren't you?

j/k... Diversity of opinion make the world go 'round. Points noted... Not necessarily agreed with, but noted.

- Fully Caffein8ed
------------------------------------------------------
The way to a man's heart is through his sternum.

crimresearch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2004, 03:14:49 PM »
"Michael? Is that you?"

ROTFLMAO!!



Seriously, the comments about giving in to the demands of kidnappers are universal, and transcend partisan agit-prop...the concern should be over the lives of individuals held hostage now and in the future, not about scoring points in a debate over politics.

And I agree with those who suggest that giving into the demands of kidnappers, no matter what their ideology or rationale, is not always such a good idea.
"Take away paradox from the thinker, and you have a professor"

Soren Kierkegaard

marc

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2004, 05:47:26 PM »
Quote from: quest


As for the Philippines... it's as simple as asking "What do we have to gain over there???", cheaper oil?  they have more pressing problems in their own country.  more than half of it's citizens don't believe in this "new war with TERROR"-- hell, they'd rather have the U.S. have a war with it's own Culture of Consumption.  

they've just had a very close election, only the politicians and businessmen in the Philippines, support America's invasion of Iraq.  basically, the same way the rest of the world feels.  so, if you think about it, Arroyo pulling her symbolic support out of Iraq (which she was to pull out next month anyways) is very LOGICAL.


I am Filipino and many of my friends and family still in the Philippines do feel the same way.  They now feel this war was more for profit than about terrorists.

And by the way, kidnap for ransom is an everyday affair in the Philippines, I think we're a little bit more experienced with the whole politics of all this.

President Gloria M. Arroyo is doing this to prove to her people that she is for her people first, and not America's interest.  With this hostage situation she gets to do the right thing (for her people) and save a life.  It's really that simple.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2004, 09:42:39 AM »
No disrespect, but paying off the terrorists in the Philippines hasn't exactly shown to be an effective operation. All the wealthy folks in the Philippines have done is ensure that those ass-monkeys have all the money they need to buy weapons, ammunition, and supplies (much of which from the military itself, it seems).

Appeasment never works...

By the way, it case you missed the news, the Iraqi's control their oil, not the US. Just thought I'd pass that along. I don't pretend to agree with every decision our goverment makes... However, if America really just wanted oil, the government would tell the liberals to go hump a tree, and they'd tap that big 'ole oil reserve in Alaska. If they really wanted the oil in the Middle East, they'd walk in a take it. Who's gonna stop them, France? Jeez, let the "oil issue" go folks.

quest

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2004, 11:14:18 AM »
Quote
If they really wanted the oil in the Middle East, they'd walk in and take it.


hahahahaha... that's exactly what they did in Iraq!!!  can you say HALLIBURTON?

Fully Caffein8ed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2004, 11:56:55 AM »
Quest, your obvious penchant for pop-culture, conspiracy-theory, Michael Moore-ish, dribble barely warrants comment. Consider researching ACTUAL current events, rather than puppeting what you see on MTV and read in the New York Times...
------------------------------------------------------
The way to a man's heart is through his sternum.

quest

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2004, 02:27:33 PM »
ok ok... let me make it simple for you then.  Halliburton and it's sudsidiaries are paying their workers in Iraq about 5,000 to 9,000 US dollars a month (you can verify this on BBC, ABC, CNN, etc.).  Our average US soldier gets paid 1,000 to 3,000 a month.

why is this?  (really simple question, that requires a really simple answer.)

someone's profiting from this WAR and it certainly isn't you or me.  so, who is puppeting whose propaganda?

bart

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
    • http://www.capitaldocepares.com
The Pullout
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2004, 05:37:37 PM »
Hey There,

The Filipino situation with the terrorist kidnappings in Iraq is a bit more complicated than it may look on the surface. The war is very unpopular in the Philippines not because some lefties here in the States think that it's a war for profit. The major concerns are the safety of Filipino workers overseas, the domestic stability of the Philippines, and the overall unpopularity of the Iraq War in the minds of the Filipino populace.

There is an extremely large number of Filipino citizens that are employed in Islamic countries in the middle east. Not just thousands but hundreds of thousands. They contribute a great deal to the Philippine economy and they are a very valuable part of society. The kidnapping of a Filipino worker in Iraq is not the same as a kidnapping of an American worker. The Filipinos need to have somewhat friendly relationships with these countries and those people so as to guarantee the safety of those workers in those countries not to mention the battles with the MILF, aka Al Quaida, at home.

Also GMA has a serious problem at home with the recent election. The election was seriously contested and she needs to keep her country stable. Any sign of weakness or any chance to make GMA look bad will not be passed up by the opposition. If there is political unrest in the Philippines right now it could undo a large amount of the work that she has done to attract investors and protect the future of the Philippine economy. Political unrest could also turn violent and in the interest of domestic tranquility she has chosen to appease the fears of the general population. It makes sense for her to do that.

Also it's easy for us to say that it's bad for the Filipinos to pull out the troops. But the fact is that when we chose to go alone, we chose to BE alone unless we keep others interested or paid. This is our war and a "Coalition of the Willing" means that the US has to keep up good relationships and incentives in order to keep that "Willing" part moving especially in an unpopular war. That means keeping promises. Bush promised greater access to the US for Filipino tourists coming to visit family or conduct business. Yet Filipinos are denied more entry visas to the United States today than before the war. Bush promised greater financial cooperation and business development between the US and the Philippines. Yet there was a large amount of work that had to be done by Filipinos in the United States to keep the Philippines open as an investment place for CalPers and there was no help given by the US Government. There are a lot of spots where promised aid did not come through and there is A LOT of resentment about it in the Philippines. The people know this and so the war is unpopular there as one would expect when promises are broken and bills go unpaid.  The result now is that it may cause greater harm to the Philippines to NOT withdraw the troops than to keep them there in Iraq.  

The Philippines is a democracy and as a result, if the people don't want the troops there, then GMA needs to listen and it appears that she did.


Bart Hubbard
Capital Doce Pares
Be Cool

------------------
Capital Doce Pares
www.capitaldocepares.com

Anonymous

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2004, 06:36:50 PM »
Woof Bart:

I think you make an excellent point about the role of Filipino labor in Arab countries and its potential for unhappy consequences-- I had not thought of that point.

Anyway folks FWIW, here's today's Stratfor on this issue.

Philippines: A Confusing Troop Withdrawal Decision
July 14, 2004
Summary


The Philippine government's decision to withdraw its military personnel is surprising behavior by a stalwart U.S. ally.


Analysis


Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Delia Albert said July 14 her government started withdrawing its humanitarian contingent from Iraq to help win the release of Filipino truck driver Angelo de la Cruz from militants in the country. Manila said its Foreign Affairs Ministry and Ministry of National Defense were jointly overseeing the withdrawal and claimed eight of the contingent's 51 members already left Iraq.


Armed Forces of the Philippines spokesman Lt. Col. Daniel Lucero and Philippine National Police spokesman Chief Superintendent Joel Goltiao said they have not received orders from the government to pull out the soldiers and police. The contradiction between the Philippine government and its security forces further confounds the situation following the government's unexpected decision to accommodate militant demands.


Manila -- facing a number of militant Islamist threats of its own -- is usually a stalwart supporter of the United States' war against militant groups. Moreover, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's victory in the recent election gives her substantial political freedom of action at home. These factors, in addition to the decision by many governments never to comply with kidnappers' demands, make Manila's decision extremely unexpected.


The United States, not surprisingly, is diplomatically venting its anger with Manila. The U.S. Embassy in the Philippines in a July 14 statement said it was "disappointed" with the Philippine government's decision to withdraw its military personnel from Iraq in exchange for de la Cruz's release. U.S. Ambassador Richard Boucher said Albert's announcement raises "some questions" and that the embassy was "awaiting clarification on exactly what that announcement might mean in terms of Philippine withdrawal."


There likely will be repercussions to bilateral relations. The Bush administration is apt to punish the Philippines, and a number of U.S. economic and military assistance programs to the country could be in jeopardy.


Fears of a downturn in U.S. relations could explain the apparent communication breakdown between Manila and the military. Philippine security forces enjoy material and financial assistance from the United States and could resist Arroyo's decision to withdraw its personnel from Iraq.


Disagreement between the president and the military is a serious matter. In July 2003, Arroyo was challenged by a military rebellion after a number of young officers seized control of a commercial complex in downtown Manila.


Arroyo could be more concerned with public opinion than with differences with the United States and the country's military. According to a poll cited by ABS-CBN News, 5 percent of 300 respondents wanted the government to adhere to its commitment to the United States, and 50 percent said Arroyo's administration must save de la Cruz's life "despite the costs."


Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and their representatives at home are some of the most vocal supporters of Manila's efforts to secure de la Cruz's release. The group's voice carries some weight within the Philippines political establishment. Remittances from OFWs reached an all-time high of $7.6 billion in 2003 -- accounting for nearly 10 percent of the country's gross domestic product.


Arroyo's recent election victory should be enough to insulate her from domestic political pressure. Public opposition in the Philippines is no more severe than that in South Korea and Japan, which faced similar hostage crises in Iraq.


Arroyo's decision to give in to the militants' demands remains perplexing -- all the more so because groups such as the Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines are notorious for kidnappings and even occasional beheadings of foreign hostages. Stratfor suspects there is more to Manila's choice than meets the eye, and that more details will emerge within weeks, if not days.

Copyrights 2004 - Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.
====

BTW folks, if you want to debate the US action in Iraq, that's fine-- but please do so on the WW3 thread.  This one is for matters concerning the Philippines recent decision to withdraw-- TIA

Woof,
Crafty Dog

PS Bart-- I hope to write up a report on our DB Gathering next week.  It may address some of the issues you raised in your ED post about a month ago :twisted:

crimresearch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2004, 06:51:21 AM »
Both Bart and Marc make good points, and at the end of the day, it is President Arroyo's job to make a very tough decision that will resonate inside her country long after it is forgotten in the US.
Paul
"Take away paradox from the thinker, and you have a professor"

Soren Kierkegaard

Fully Caffein8ed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2004, 07:18:31 AM »
All good commentary, really. You guys have made some good points worth considering. It'd be nice if everything in life could be simple black and white, but that just ain't the case.

And, Quest, I meant no disresect in my jab yesterday. Just wanted to see your response. Thanks for being a good sport...

- Fully Caffein8ed
------------------------------------------------------
The way to a man's heart is through his sternum.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2004, 08:05:19 AM »
This today from www.stratfor.com

Its about both the decision of Arroyo and WW3, but I post it here:
----------------------------------------------------------

Geopolitical Diary: Thursday, July 15, 2004

The Philippine government has announced that it will withdraw its troops
from Iraq -- a response to Iraqi guerrillas' demands in exchange for the
life of a Filipino truck driver who is being held hostage. Even though this
has no material effect on the war, the withdrawal obviously is a blow to the United States. It is the first time an ally has shifted its Iraq policy --
however slightly -- in response to demands by guerrillas holding hostages. The United States sees it as a capitulation, and it is. It is mitigated by the fact that the Filipinos are moving up their already scheduled departure by only a month, but that is, in the end, nothing more than that. Manila's decision hurts the United States badly by revealing a weakness in the American alliance system.

This needs to be considered in the context of the approaching end of al
Qaeda's self-declared moratorium on operations in Europe. After the Madrid bombing in March, al Qaeda announced a three-month moratorium on attacks against Europeans that would be made permanent if European countries withdrew their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. That hasn't happened, and the "truce" ends July 15. The Dutch have already publicly declared an alert against al Qaeda attacks, and the rest of Europe is tense as well.

The attacks against American targets have not taken place in the context of any platform for negotiation; al Qaeda has simply attacked. In the current phase, al Qaeda and its jihadist allies in Iraq have adopted a new
technique: trying to use threats to split the American alliance. They had
excellent results in Spain in the wake of the Madrid bombing. They have now had a smaller but not insignificant success with the Philippines. Their
strategy is not working spectacularly well, but it is working. That would
lead us to conclude that al Qaeda will continue to use leverage against U.S. allies in an effort to isolate -- or at least complicate -- American
diplomacy.

In order for this strategy to work, al Qaeda must show that it is serious.
In Iraq, it was the beheadings of hostages from countries that wouldn't
shift their position -- like Bulgaria -- that helped to drive the
Philippines' decision. We would guess that Manila's move will make it
easier, psychologically, for other countries to capitulate when their
nationals are at risk. The pressure to save the hostages, measured against the value of their forces in Iraq to themselves or even the Americans, will make it easier to give in, once a precedent has been set.

If al Qaeda is watching Iraq -- and you can be absolutely certain they
are -- they are applying this logic on the geopolitical level. With their
success in Spain before them and the end of the moratorium in sight, they
are obviously going to be thinking about other operations that might serve
to pry other countries out of their alliance with the United States in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Creating a sense of isolation from its allies for the
United States is an obvious and rational strategic goal.

It follows from this that al Qaeda should be preparing to stage some sharp attacks in Europe, followed by another offer of a cease-fire in return for the withdrawal of forces. Carried out in countries where support for the war is minimal and need for American support limited, the strategy might yield some harvest.

The problem we are having should be getting obvious. There are so many
places where it makes sense for al Qaeda to attack that we might as well say that al Qaeda could attack anywhere for an enormous range of reasons. In fact, we will say that. There is a great case for attacking the United States, Europe, Asia, Australia and so on. In fact, the better approach is to find a place where al Qaeda and its allies wouldn't want to attack. There are precious few.

As we go through the summer, with nerves taut and security services
everywhere on alert to the point of exhaustion, it strikes us -- and this is
just a thought, not an analysis -- that attacks are almost superfluous. Al
Qaeda has everyone running around in circles while barely lifting a finger.
Obviously, they must hit somewhere at some point, in order to maintain the pressure, but there are days when you wonder whether inaction doesn't rattle everyone almost as much as action.

......................................................................

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

quest

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2004, 09:35:22 PM »
Quote
And, Quest, I meant no disresect in my jab yesterday. Just wanted to see your response. Thanks for being a good sport...


no prob... makes things fun.  but, i still did want someone to answer my question.

Quote
Halliburton and it's sudsidiaries are paying their workers in Iraq about 5,000 to 9,000 US dollars a month (you can verify this on BBC, ABC, CNN, etc.). Our average US soldier gets paid 1,000 to 3,000 a month.

why is this?

Anonymous

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2004, 06:33:02 AM »
Well, as a business man, I can take a stab...

The military probably has their set salaries, whether home or abroad. That's the nature of working in the public sector.

The private sector can pretty much pay as they damn well please, for good or for ill.

I'll pose this question: If you were not a military man, how much would they have to pay YOU to work in Iraq, without a gun?

I'm not saying it's right, it's just how it is... Why is it that cops get paid beans to put their ass on the line (many times in war-like areas) every day? We rarely pay them the respect they deserve, much less the salary. But, we pay millions of dollars to guys who can barely tie their own shoes, but can drop a ball in a hoop. It's just the world we live in...

- Fully Caffein8ed

quote

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2004, 08:05:42 AM »
Quote
Well, as a business man, I can take a stab...

The military probably has their set salaries, whether home or abroad. That's the nature of working in the public sector.

The private sector can pretty much pay as they damn well please, for good or for ill.

-- Fully Caffein8ed


well, that would've been a great simple answer, if Halliburton and its subsidiaries were true private sector corporations like Pepsi, Sony, Ford, and the like, then that would've been a perfect answer.

but, defense contractors (Halliburton being the biggest and badest) get their funding from the Dept. of Defense, so essentially WE the tax payers are paying (over paying) these Halliburton contractors close to 10,000 dollars a month, while we pay our soldiers crumbs for protecting Halliburton employees.  does that make sense?

Anonymous

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2004, 10:46:33 AM »
"Funding" may not be the most appropriate term. It is a contract. They are a corporation. They bid on the contract and they won the contract.

Non-profits get "funding". These guys are getting paid for their services. My company does work at the state and federal level. We are a private company though, governed only within the scope of the projects we won and contracts we signed. Same with Halliburton...

Now, you can argue whether or not they were the most qualified or whether their bid was too high, but that's not the issue at hand.

quote

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #20 on: July 17, 2004, 09:38:12 PM »
Special Report: Halliburton And Defense Contracting, Part 1/3
by Robin Burk

Many questions have been raised about Halliburton's massive contract for services in Iraq. Is it a prime example of cronyism, or even corruption? How could we tell? The Defense Contract Audit agency recently reported that it has found no errors in bills submitted by Halliburton so far. Does that mean all is well? At a time when US taxpayers have been asked to dedicate $87 billion to efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, questions like these have a high profile. And yet, for most people the U.S. defense contracting process is a mystery.

The purpose of this special report is to give our readers a brief guided tour of the complex but important world of defense contracting. We'll look at the players and the process, the types of contracts that can be awarded, how the finances work and finally, what this all might mean for companies like Halliburton and Bechtel - and for you and me.

There is a veritable jungle of regulations, rules and practices in the government contracting world. Acquisition specialists who work for the federal government undergo extensive training and must traverse that jungle on foot each day. Companies wanting to do business with DOD or other federal agencies must also make their way through the undergrowth. Our tour will be easier - we'll be flying over this terrain, sometimes climbing high to see the lay of the land, sometimes coming in close to look at some particularly important details on the ground.

Ready? Okay, let's go. Please ensure your seat belts are buckled and your tray tables are in their upright and locked positions, and give your attention to the flight attendant at the front of the cabin as the pilot prepares the plane for takeoff!

Introduction

Welcome aboard. We will be making this journey in three stages.

In a few minutes we will be climbing up to get a high-altitude look at the people involved in defense contracting, the regulations that govern it and the process that is followed when the federal government buys things or services. Your tour guide will point out the main sights and and the key people involved in defense contracting. Then we'll land, refuel and answer any questions you might have.

During stage 2 of our trip we'll drop down to a lower altitude so that you can have a chance to see the various kinds of contracts that can be awarded to companies. It looks as if we'll be having fine weather with good visibility, so you all will be able to get a good glimpse at how prices and profits are decided in defense contracts - and by whom. After that it will be time for another refueling break.

On the final leg of our tour, we'll be over Halliburton country. If we're lucky, we'll get a glimpse of that fabled Iraq contract you all have heard about. Sometimes we can see Bechtels and even local subcontractors on that part of the trip, so keep your cameras out and your eyes peeled!

Your tour guide has traveled in Defense Contractstan in several roles, mostly as a Bidder / Winner (and occasionally, a non-winner) of contracts but also on several occasions as part of the support team for the Government Side. One caution - the local rules in Contractstan change from time to time. But the main roads and the terrain are pretty well-defined. Relax and enjoy the trip!

FAR Out

It all starts with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and their offspring, the Defense FAR Supplements. The FAR/DFARS are the federal law that governs Department of Defense contracting. They spell out the process which Defense agencies must use to solicit bids, award contracts and manage the execution of those contracts by awardees.

Also crucial to contracting is the defense budget passed by Congress. This starts with creation of the Presidential budget. Each executive branch agency submits detailed requests to the Presidential budget, and these in turn will be modified in dialogue with White House officials until the budget is finalized and sent as a request to the House of Representatives. Congress will then debate the requested budget and pass the spending authorizations which may, or may not, match the President's requests. Once passed, the defense spending authorization bill allows DOD to expend funds for various line items in the authorization. This means, for instance, that DOD cannot move money intended for troop salaries to pay for a weapons program, unless Congress explicitly approves.

The Acquisition Process

DOD and other federal agencies buy many things and hire companies to perform many services. Some of these, such as toilet paper, pens, and janitorial service, are purchased using a straightforward process. Office space might be rented and items such as toilet paper are purchased through the General Services Administration through a bidding process. The specifications of the required items are stated and generally the contract is awarded on the basis of price, although other considerations such as a willingness to warehouse the items might be important as well.

A much more complicated process is necessary for professional services, the development of technologies and weapons systems and similar high-end efforts. These are items and services for which there is no "off the shelf" product or solution to hand. In these cases, the agency begins by developing an acquisition package. The acquisition package, which may grow to be hundreds or even thousands of pages long, documents the government's requirements for a new product or service. An analysis will usually be made of existing solutions and why they do not meet the current need. Detailed specifications will be drawn up, especially for technology solutions such as software programs, new weapons systems, etc. Cost analysts will attempt to estimate the price which the government will probably need to pay to acquire this system or service.

One important part of the acquisition package is a list of the criteria (and their relative importance) which will be used to evaluate proposals and select the company who will win the contract to do this work. For instance, in the early stages of a new technology, technical creativity may be a top priority. In the development of a fighter aircraft that is to go into production for active deployment, other factors such as cost, ease of manufacturing and ease of maintenance and the management team's experience in building similar aircraft will be weighted more highly.

Once the acquisition package has been completed, and assuming that the agency's line item budget appears to be adequate for the estimated cost, a Request for Proposals will be drawn up and advertised in the Commerce Business Daily. In addition, a Source Selection Authority and a Contracting Officer are named. (More on these below)

The RFP states the detailed specifications for the product or service required, along with the information that bidders must provide in order to be considered for a potential contract. Generally, proposals have three main sections: the technical proposal (what the bidder proposes to do), the management proposal (how the bidder will organize and staff the management team that will run the contract if they win it, and why their previous experience makes it credible to think they can do this work successfully) and the cost proposal. We'll look at cost issues in Part 2 of this series.

For now, we only need to note that companies or teams of companies spend a great deal of time and money responding to major RFPs, so most will only submit proposals when they think they are competitive. And, of course, the government agency has also spent a good deal of time and energy developing the acquisition package and drafting the RFP. Prior to the release of the RFP, and at every stage thereafter, government lawyers review the process to ensure that the RFP and the agency's actions conform to the DFARS and are being fairly executed. These lawyers report through a different chain of command than the program office that issues the RFP - both in theory and in practice they are independent of the Source Selection Authority and the Contracting Officer involved in this procurement.

The Key Players on the Government Side

The Source Selection Authority is a senior government executive or military officer who will make the final selection of the winner from among those who submitted proposals. The Contracting Officer is a career civilian who will actually execute the contract between the government and the winning company and will administer the contract while it is in effect.

Each of these people are supported by a team of other government officials and often by a Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance contractor as well. For medium and large contracts, the SSA must convene an advisory Source Selection Board whose recommendation the SSA nearly always takes. This board may call on a SETA contractor to provide specialized technical or cost analysis during their deliberations, but the SETA has no decision role and also may not bid on this or similar contracts themselves. High profile companies that play a SETA role include the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) such as MITRE, Rand and Aerospace Corp. Written records are kept of the SSB's meetings and a written justification is filed by the SSA to support the choice of the company to receive the contract award.

The Contracting Officer usually does not have direct technical expertise needed to evaluate the technical performance of a contractor him or herself. A Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (usually a military officer) is named to provide this expertise and to advise the CO as to the adequacy of the contractor's efforts once the contract has been awarded. The COTR is one member of the government's Program Office, the team that drew up the acquisition package and which will oversee the contract's execution.

The Key Players on the Contractor Side

The winning bidder will designate a senior executive as the Program Manager for the contract. The PM has both budget and technical authority over the activities that the company undertakes in performing on the contract. A program management office will be formed to track costs and schedules and submit required reports and invoices to the government. The FAR/DFARS are very detailed and specific regarding how this information must be determined and reported, so great care must be given to this activity.

If a team of companies submitted the proposal jointly, one of them will be the prime contractor and will receive the contract from the government. The others will be subcontractors and contract with the prime to do specified portions of the work. The prime's Program Manager is then responsible for the performance of the entire team. For many defense contracts, prime contractors are required to subcontract a given percentage of the work to minority- or woman-owned small businesses.

Pit Stop

As this brief overview suggests, defense contracting is a complex process. Over the last 10-15 years, DOD has proposed and Congress has approved several mechanisms which allow the government to reduce the overhead of procuring high-end products and services while still ensuring that contracts are awarded fairly and executed properly.

We'll take a look at some of these in the second part of this 3 part series. After we refuel and stretch our legs, we'll resume our tour with a more detailed look at the types of contracts that can be awarded. We'll also see just how - and by whom - pricing and profits are established in Defense Contractstan.

quest

  • Guest
Pulling Out of Iraq... WTF?
« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2004, 09:52:11 PM »
to tie this up to the thread at hand, defense contracting, whether you say, "funding" or "get their money" from u.s. taxpayers, is BIG BUSINESS.  

our venture to Iraq is Big Business driven, i'm sure there's some adventurism involved, and maybe catching the bad guys like al Qaeda, and some smaller groups (but, catching bad guys isn't nearly as profitable).

rewind two years ago, when the majority of the globe supported the US's hunt for terrorists, including president Arroyo... then fast-forward to today, when the Big Business side of the WAR finally creeps it's ugly little head.  people become disenchanted, governments realize all profit is flowing only to one side.  

so, they decide to cash in, and get out of Dodge.  "see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya...", and Big Business and their politicians say, "hey, you're making the world less safe for everyone, if you leave us".  the IRONY.