From The New York Times, 8/12/03:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/opinion/12KRUG.html?ex=1061667087&ei=
1&en=931aa1a27b2a10a2

Thanks for the M.R.E.'s

By PAUL KRUGMAN

A few days ago I talked to a soldier just back from Iraq.

He'd been in a relatively calm area; his main complaint was about
food.

Four months after the fall of Baghdad, his unit was still eating the
dreaded M.R.E.'s: meals ready to eat.

When Italian troops moved into the area, their food was "way more
realistic" -- and American troops were soon trading whatever they
could for some of that Italian food.

Other stories are far worse.

Letters published in Stars and Stripes and e-mail published on the Web
site of Col. David Hackworth (a decorated veteran and Pentagon critic)
describe shortages of water.

One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two
1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were
leading to "heat casualties."

An American soldier died of heat stroke on Saturday; are poor supply
and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering
such a high rate of noncombat deaths?

The U.S. military has always had superb logistics.

What happened?

The answer is a mix of penny-pinching and privatization -- which makes
our soldiers' discomfort a symptom of something more general.

Colonel Hackworth blames "dilettantes in the Pentagon" who "thought
they could run a war and an occupation on the cheap."

But the cheapness isn't restricted to Iraq.

In general, the "support our troops" crowd draws the line when that
support might actually cost something.

The usually conservative Army Times has run blistering editorials on
this subject.

Its June 30 blast, titled "Nothing but Lip Service," begins:

"In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled
Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on
the military. But talk is cheap -- and getting cheaper by the day,
judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting
lately."

The article goes on to detail a series of promises broken and benefits
cut.

Military corner-cutting is part of a broader picture of
penny-wise-pound-foolish government.

When it comes to tax cuts or subsidies to powerful interest groups,
money is no object.

But elsewhere, including homeland security, small-government ideology
reigns.

The Bush administration has been unwilling to spend enough on any
aspect of homeland security, whether it's providing firefighters and
police officers with radios or protecting the nation's ports.

The decision to pull air marshals off some flights to save on hotel
bills -- reversed when the public heard about it -- was simply a
sound-bite-worthy example.

(Air marshals have told MSNBC.com that a "witch hunt" is now under way
at the Transportation Security Administration, and that those who
reveal cost-cutting measures to the media are being threatened with
the Patriot Act.)

There's also another element in the Iraq logistical snafu:
privatization.

The U.S. military has shifted many tasks traditionally performed by
soldiers into the hands of such private contractors as Kellogg Brown &
Root, the Halliburton subsidiary.

The Iraq war and its aftermath gave this privatized system its first
major test in combat -- and the system failed.

According to the Newhouse News Service, "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."

Not surprisingly, civilian contractors -- and their insurance
companies -- get spooked by war zones.

The Financial Times reports that the dismal performance of contractors
in Iraq has raised strong concerns about what would happen in a war
against a serious opponent, like North Korea.

Military privatization, like military penny-pinching, is part of a
pattern.

Both for ideological reasons and, one suspects, because of the
patronage involved, the people now running the country seem determined
to have public services provided by private corporations, no matter
what the circumstances.

For example, you may recall that in the weeks after 9/11 the Bush
administration and its Congressional allies fought tooth and nail to
leave airport screening in the hands of private security companies,
giving in only in the face of overwhelming public pressure.

In Iraq, reports The Baltimore Sun, "the Bush administration continues
to use American corporations to perform work that United Nations
agencies and nonprofit aid groups can do more cheaply."

In short, the logistical mess in Iraq isn't an isolated case of poor
planning and mismanagement: it's telling us what's wrong with our
current philosophy of government.

______________________________________________________

Halliburton gets more support from Bush than our troops. Ain't that
the shits?

Harry

Harry