In May 2005, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld presented his plan to re-align the United States military in order to change the military to handle �the new demands of war against extremists and other evolving 21st century challenges.�

Rumsfeld�s actions were intended to restructure the Pentagon to fight the War on Terror, which began with the atrocious attacks of September 11, 2001.

But the real war of which Rumsfeld spoke began not on September 11, but the day before. In a September 10, 2001 speech in front of Pentagon deputies, he declared war on the imminent threat posed not by terrorism, but by the Pentagon�s bureaucracy.

This statement highlights the trend that the Bush administration brought into the White House â�" privatize everything possible. The privatization of the War in Iraq has been the gem of the administrationâ��s plan.

Military privatization began during the Korean War, but got a huge boost during the 1990s, when congress decreased oversight over corporations. The Pentagon cut 38% of its contracting officials, according to a July 31, 2006 article in Business Week.

When President Bush entered office, he further increased dependence upon contractors, while continuing to cut government oversight. It also changed the rules to allow the Pentagon to award no-bid contracts. Because of this lack of oversight, many companies took advantage of the government�s funding by cutting corners, overcharging and taking kick-backs.

Last Thursday, Pentagon officials testified before the House Armed Services Committee that six billion dollars in contracts given out to companies to provide essential services â�" like food and water â�" to soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait were being inspected by criminal investigators; this amount was more than double what the Pentagon had previously disclosed to Congress. Another $88 billion in contracts were being reviewed by auditors. These included contracts for body armor and weapons for combat troops.

One unfortunate example of corporate shortcomings involved International American Products, the company hired to maintain and operate Walter Reed Army Hospital in 2006. IAP was previously given a contract to help provide ice to residents in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The company failed miserably in this pursuit; yet, it was given the contract for Walter Reed even while the Pentagon was investigating it for this debacle.

IAP further wasted taxpayer money and did an incredible disservice to injured soldiers at Walter Reed. It failed to improve the sometimes squalid conditions in which soldiers lived. Due to IAP�s administrative failures, many soldiers were ignored, forgotten, received sub-standard care or were forced to endure conditions hardly befitting their service to the nation.

Another company that has benefitted greatly from the governmentâ��s generosity is Blackwater USA â�" the most powerful and notorious of the companies who provide private security contractors to the US government. They are essentially mercenary armies.

Blackwater was founded in 1996 by Erik Prince. Prince comes from a wealthy, well-connected conservative family. His father, Edgar, co-founded the conservative Christian group the Family Research Council with Gary Bauer. His sister, Betsy DeVos, is the former chair of the Michigan Republican Party. Prince, a former Navy Seal, has interned under former President George H.W. Bush and for the Pat Buchanan�s presidential campaign. He also helped to bankroll George W. Bush�s campaign for the White House.

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, Blackwater has landed several lucrative contracts with the Pentagon and State Department to protect US diplomats and the American embassy in Baghdad.

But Blackwater is only one of these private security firms. Its personnel account for around 1,500 of the nearly 50,000 mercenaries fighting in Iraq. They make up nearly one-third of the 160,000 civilian contractors in the nation â�" a number equal to the American military presence.

These firms, like Blackwater and its main rivals DynCorp and Triple Canopy, provide a unique service to the Bush administration. They receive federal funding and carry out dangerous tasks, such as protecting US envoys in Baghdad�s �green zone.� And although an estimated 800 Blackwater personnel have died in Iraq, the Pentagon does not include these �civilian� deaths in casualty numbers. This allows the White House to try and downplay the cost of the war.
In exchange for this, Blackwater and other firms have been generously rewarded. Before turning over control of Iraq to the new government in June 2004, the White House wrote Order 17, which gives these organizations complete immunity from Iraqi law.

Blackwater has taken full advantage of this. According to an interview given by Iraqi Defense Minister Mohammed al Askari to McClatchy Newspapers last Wednesday, Blackwater guards have killed Iraqis on at least seven different occasions.

Two of these incidents took place in December. Askari accused Blackwater of being responsible for breaking former Electricity Minister Ahyam al Samarrai out of jail. al Samarrai had been accused of embezzling $2.5 billion set aside to rebuild Iraq�s electrical grid. On Christmas Eve, another Blackwater guard, who was intoxicated, killed a bodyguard for Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi.

The most recent incident involving Blackwater took place Sunday, September 16, when guards traveling in a convoy in Baghdad, pulled over in a traffic circle in the green zone and opened fire into a crowd of cars. Details of the incident are still under investigation; the Iraqi government has accused Blackwater of killing indiscriminately, while the firm claims it shot at insurgents in response to a car bar near the embassy.

Either way, the Iraqi government was infuriated by the killing of 11 citizens and revoked Blackwater's contract to work in Iraq. The US government, which is dependent upon the firm, has worked to get the ban removed.

Supporters of Blackwater, which includes nearly the entire Bush administration, claim that the outsourcing of military is beneficial to the United States, because it saves the government money that it would have to spend on training and equipping American soldiers.

However, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in a memorandum from February 7, questions this.

According to the memorandum, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction estimates that 12.5% of federal spending for Iraq�s reconstruction, or about $3.8 billion, has gone to these security firms.

The report also accuses Blackwater of overcharging the government. According to the report, Blackwater charged the government a per diem for each guard of between $815 and $1,075. But the company only paid these employees $500 per day. The yearly salary of these guards amounts to between $297,475 and $392,375; oh, and these costs don�t include the price to feed, house, equip or ensure these guards. That�s extra. These services would typically be performed by an Army Sergeant, who would make about $140-$190 per day, including food and housing. That amounts to between $51-69,000 per year. Thus, a Blackwater employee costs four to ten times as much as a comparable soldier.

Blackwater has also been accused of double billing the government by charging salaries for drivers and security specialists, who were in fact the same person.
I do not blame the Blackwater security personnel for making this amount of money. They are, by and large, former military personnel who took the job for the pay that they deserved while in the military and to serve their country in a different manner.

I blame the administration who supports these mercenary firms and the firms who take full advantage of every government grace, and then some. The same administration who pays these guards more than $33,000 per month also threatened to veto a bill from the House in May that would have increased the pay raise for soldiers from three percent to three-and-a-half percent.

I have a problem with trying to spread democracy though inherently undemocratic means. I have a problem with saying that you support the troops when your actions say just the opposite.