Posted by D. Cupples | Washington Post readers who haven't feverishly follwed the budding Blackwater scandals may get a fuzzy picture from an article titled State Department Struggles to Oversee Private Army. My first issue is with the title, which implies that the State Department is struggling through no fault of its own -- as though God arbitrarily decided to inflict strife.
Recent evidence suggests that the State Department (SD) didn't really start trying to oversee contractors in Iraq until the public learned of abuses. Among other things, the evidence suggests that: 1) SD's inspector general blocked investigations into contractor waste/fraud, 2) higher-ups threatened SD staff who planned to cooperate with congressional probes into SD's contractor dealings, and 3) SD questionably handled a drunk Blackwater employee's shooting of the Iraqi vice president's guard on Christmas Eve 2006.
The evidence isn't conclusive, but it doesn't suggest that the State Department dilegently tried to monitor contractors from the outset.
The other issue with WaPo's article is that it fails to question Blackwater CEO Erik Prince's implied argument that we taxpayers are getting a good deal from Blackwater....
WaPo reported:
"Blackwater charges State $1,221.62 a day for a 'protective security specialist,' according to a 2005 invoice released by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
"But that is an all-inclusive cost, Blackwater head [Erik] Prince argued during a recent interview on the 'Charlie Rose' show. 'They get paid well, but they get paid only for every day they are at work in a hot zone. They pay significant taxes right off the top of that, state and federal. They have to cover their own insurance, their own housing allowance -- all those benefits that a soldier gets wrapped in.'
That may be true, but Prince (or WaPo) left out a crucial detail: we taxpayers are already paying for Blackwater guard's salaries, equipment, gear, insurance (etc) -- PLUS we're paying for Blackwater's profits.
At a congressional hearing on October 2, Prince estimated that his company made a 10% profit on its government contracts, and Blackwater has received about $1 billion in contracts. (See hearing video) In other words, tax dollars have funded about $100 million in Blackwater profits -- on top of paying for salaries, equipment, gear, insurance (etc).
Thus, the State Department could save $100 million (over a certain period) by cutting out the middleman called Blackwater, directly hiring its own security staff, and providing equipment, gear, insurance (etc).
Given that our national debt is more than $9 trillion, every $100 million counts.
WaPo article found on Memeorandum.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* Blackwater Took Iraqi Airplanes, CEO Misled Congress?
* Probe re: Embassy in Iraq & State Department Officials
* Blackwater Hearing: Poor Media Coverage
* State Dept.'s Odd & Untimely Reactions to Blackwater Scandals
* State Dept. Staff Threatened for Cooperating with Congress re: Blackwater
* Inspector General Blocked Investigations re: Waste and Fraud?
Comments