U.S. troops left in lurch left adrift by civilians

Aug. 6, 2003, 11:27PM

U.S. troops left in lurch left adrift by civilians
Some contractors no-shows in Iraq
By DAVID WOOD
Copyright 2003 Newhouse News Service.

WASHINGTON -- U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up, Army officers said.

Months after the troops settled into occupation duty, they were camped out in primitive, dust-blown shelters without windows or air conditioning. The Army has invested heavily in modular barracks, showers, bathroom facilities and field kitchens, but troops in Iraq were using ramshackle plywood latrines and living without fresh food or regular access to showers and telephones.

Even mail delivery, which is also managed by civilian contractors, fell weeks behind.

Though conditions have improved, the problems raise new concerns about the Pentagon's growing reliance on defense contractors for everything from laundry service to combat training and aircraft maintenance. (snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2034902

Another reason I am glad that I got out when I did!

It's just amazing that we can let this happen to our troops. I would feel even worse if this happened to them doing a mission I (or they)actually believed in...

of supporting our troops.

Irregardless of being for or against this war.....
Rumsfeld is the lousiest leader and manager of this war!!!!

This has got to be pathetic!!!

He is just tooo old and out of touch with reality and life!!!
I would love to take a poll in the military to see what this
chump's popularity is......certainly way below Bush's and Clinton's.

It's time for him to retire!!!

I just do not understand what's going on here. Don't they have the power to do exactly that under a state of war? Or is it just they don't want to?

And if they can't order them into a war zone, how the bleeping hell did this whole privatization thing start years ago?...... didn't anyone notice what this would do if contractors said no?

But if the civilians don't show up, all they can do is sue them for breach of contract. If KBR had hired me with a promise that I wouldn't get shot at or blown up, I would be willing to forfeit my pay in return for not being dead...

...if GIs were doing these tasks, they'd have been done, and the troops would be sleeping indoors, and have food and water?

Rumsfeld promises even MORE privatization, BTW.

If you really hink they'd all be living in hardwalls with a/c you're living in a dream world.

If the logistics were still in the hands of military supply units and not civilian contractors, the troops would be getting what they need.

They don't need a/c and they don't need hardwall buildings, but what they do need, things like food and water, mail, repair parts for maintenance, and fuel for vehicles, they would be getting if the military was in charge of re-supply.

And why is that, because soldiers in supply units are soldiers too, and I was in a supply unit during Desert Storm, and we made damn sure
that the units we supported got what they needed.

And Rumsfeld's comment about 380,000 military personnel that the DoD
can put on the lines is crap. These are people who have spent most if
not all of their time in the military at desks. And they come from all
of the services, not just the US Army.

Of course what can you expect from some clown who spent most of his time in the military, boxing. To many shots to the head I think.

The article doesn't say troops aren't getting their I. III, and V.

It complains that they don't have creature comforts like a/c and hardwalls. Who in the hell expects to go off to war and have modular barracks with a/c and hot showers inside of a couple of months? That's like a bad joke. My suspicion is that the author doesn't have a clue.

All I can say is that during my deployment Brown & Root gave us better facilities than any of us had ever seen before. Whether the cost was in line is a different issue but the service was excellent.

I’m not even sure if they exist anymore. When I was living on Guam & Siapan as a little squirt (`50’s), they had a hand in virtually anything that got built on the islands….my dad had nothing but praise for those critters. There’s a lot to be said about having the job done in-house vs. contracting.

Went to google to look them up, and you can see at a glance there would be NO COMPARISON! (They even had their own song you can hear at the link. (Can you imagine hearing the Brown and Root song? I can't.))

(snip) Seabees — their simple motto tells the story: "We build, we fight". From the island hopping of World War II and the cold of Korea, to the jungles of Vietnam, to the mountains of Bosnia, and to the deserts of Afghanistan and Kuwait, the Seabees have built entire bases, bulldozed and paved thousands of miles of roadway and airstrips, and accomplished a myriad of construction projects.

In December 1941, with an eye on the developing storm clouds across both oceans, Rear Admiral Ben Moreell, Chief of the Navy's Bureau of Yards and Docks, recommended establishing Naval Construction Battalions. With the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entrance into the war, he was given the go-ahead.


The earliest Seabees were recruited from the civilian construction trades and were placed under the leadership of the Navy's Civil Engineer Corps. Because of the emphasis on experience and skill rather than on physical standards, the average age of Seabees during the early days of the war was 37.


More than 325,00 men served with the Seabees in World War II, fighting and building on six continents and more than 300 islands. In the Pacific, where most of the construction work was needed, the Seabees landed soon after the Marines and built major airstrips, bridges, roads, warehouses, hospitals, gasoline storage tanks and housing. (snip/...)

(snip) During the Gulf War, more than 5,000 Seabees (4,000 active and 1,000 reservists) served in the Middlle East. In Saudi Arabia, Seabees built 10 camps for more than 42,000 personnel; 14 galleys capable of feeding 75,000 people; and 6 million square feet of aircraft parking apron. (snip)



http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/personnel/seabees/seabee1.html

I’m glad see they’re still around…but, with regard to Iraq…it’s Bushco first, soldiers second.

I wonder if anyone in the administration will think to stop payment on the contracts to these companies for failure to perform? Or, do the checks just keep going out automatically so they can be returned in the form of campaign contributions to this corrupt bunch of thieves?

As Lil George is always reminding us, it's our money. Do we have the right to find out if it's being spent wisely?

I sure as hell did.

The US media will not tell them anything.

It's up to us.

KBR/Haliburton is profiting at the expense of our troops in the field.

Absolute outrage...

Since EVERYTHING needs to be market driven that is what you get.

about privitization being allegedly such an "efficient" use of taxpayer money. The economy is gained only through the failure of the service to be delivered, which here has resulted in soldiers being needlessy forced to live under these conditions.
The heads of these corporations who have these nifty "cost plus contracts" reap the benefits since they are guaranteed a profit no matter how shitty they perform.

The article shows the predictably repungant end result of this crony corporate featherbedding:

"Because of overlapping contracts and multiple contracting
offices, nobody in the Pentagon seems to know precisely how
many contractors are responsible for which jobs -- or how much
it all costs. That's one reason the White House can only estimate
that it is spending about $4 billion a month on troops in Iraq."


Can only estimate???? Charming. Fantasy Island accounting.
Money disappears into corporate black holes and we the get stuck with the bill.

this one?

and to our vets. They will be outraged. In a theater of war it's the military who should run the support units with troops not depend on civilians.

... but labor cannot. Funny how that works. :puke:


On edit: Lest anyone argue this isn't a 'strike' ... ho else do you describe a refusal to show up for a job due to 'unacceptable' (not profitable enough?) conditions? Isn't it interesting that the Transportation Security Agency employees aren't given the same choices?

Look! A birdie!