One of science fiction's favorite dark futures

May 6, 2002 10:13 AM

One of science fiction's favorite dark futures is pretty well along now. Until he quit to be Vice President in 2000, Dick Cheney ran a company called Halliburton. A Halliburton subsidiary, Kellog Brown and Root, is a private corporation that performs missions for the US military. Their employess are out there, performing missions in places like the Balkans, wearing US Army uniforms and carrying US Army issued guns.
posted by badstone (28 comments total)

Did I miss something, or are all the 'missions' support and logistics? Looks like in most cases these are construction, supply and service jobs that happen in the context of bases.

Is this political gravy? Sounds like it. But, I wasn't really able to find anything that indicates these guys are either carrying US guns or wearing uniforms -- nor are they engaging in combat, which is what you seem to be implying. Did I miss it?

The real question here seems to be -- is Cheney using his political influence to sway contracts towards his old company? Is this OK, or part of the game? Perhaps there's another question about whether or not civilians should be doing the work?

Looks to me like this has been going on long before Cheney became VP, but then again, he's been part of the machine for a long time before then.
posted by daver at 10:29 AM on May 6, 2002

The company that handles the medicar stuff for Public Aid in Illinois is a subsidiary of a company that does the same type of covert stuff. It's a little creepy knowing that going to the doc is probably funding some covert ops somewhere in the world.
posted by @homer at 10:35 AM on May 6, 2002

speaking of machines, i am reminded of nitzer ebb.
posted by moz at 10:39 AM on May 6, 2002

If I sign up for this sort of duty, do I have to do KP? I found that when I was in the army I did not take a liking to that sort of thing and told the Lt. in charge that I thought that was why the military hired women to serve.
posted by Postroad at 10:45 AM on May 6, 2002

there are many nice sites about corp. security.
is there some question in the wording of this post I miss. dark fiction? since and hell, before 9.11, the protecting of high tech installations is apparrent, even overt, for a reason. Since 9.11 i can imigine the heighten tighten. The weapons are standard. Me I'd take the Mp-5. the "uniform" would not contain US. Army or any other branch for that matter, Insignia/Regaila aka Markings. you know they probably have stingers....whhow.. ray guns and the worlds most re-dicle=less bomb: The Chicklet. and ya, desailenation plants and all that...stuff that we and you create. making the fucking world fucking safe.
(Denis Leary tone)

thats me
"mr. wanna- fucking make everything fucking safe"

Cheneys been a player in Energy Inc. for decades...sooo whats unprecidented here to warrant 'dark future.'

'rut ro'
posted by clavdivs at 11:17 AM on May 6, 2002

The Dark Future bit is the replacement of government with private corporations. Operation of the military is one of the key jobs of the government. That operation has now been infiltrated on every level by private entities. The people that make foreign policy, that make strategic decisions re: the military industrial complex, and now even people in the field making tactical decisions are all the same people that stand to make a profit from it. It's a notion that's been a mainstay of cyberpunk for some time.

Yes - it's the same stuff that people have been protesting for years, but now it truly is at every level of the military. So, the point is not that it's unprecedented, but rather that it's very precedented and this KBR thing is a pretty signifigant milestone.
posted by badstone at 11:34 AM on May 6, 2002

Cheneys been a player in Energy Inc. for decades...sooo whats unprecidented here to warrant 'dark future.'

~laugh~

Too true. The future is now.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:35 AM on May 6, 2002

But, I wasn't really able to find anything that indicates these guys are either carrying US guns or wearing uniforms -- nor are they engaging in combat, which is what you seem to be implying. Did I miss it?

Doh! I ended up linking a different version of this story than I originally read. This version of the same article mentions the uniforms and guns. Unfortunately, I can't dig up the paper he references, so believe what you will. As far as engaging in combat - it's just a matter of time until one of these bases is raided and one of those private employees starts firing back to defend him/herself.
posted by badstone at 11:39 AM on May 6, 2002

I think he's doing a good, or at least decent job. At least a B+
posted by ParisParamus at 11:43 AM on May 6, 2002

Here's that paper...
posted by badstone at 11:46 AM on May 6, 2002

really badstone
do you have a question from your assumptions?
the paradigmn is flawed from its inception
with-in the argument
ex.
That operation has now been infiltrated
follow. it negates it-self
from the 'fact' that 'they-it' already exist
presuppostion?

American companies make jobs and that thing we call money
two things not one.
america builds (with the help of her allies)
the best weapons, digs the best hole
anywhere over anyone. any piece of defence..material per say is regulated by the government. this is a standard operation. what is sinister about oversight and military standards and specifications being adhered too?
posted by clavdivs at 11:50 AM on May 6, 2002

well - i really meant to talk about this as a science fiction thing here, but yeah, i do find fighting wars on a for-profit basis to be, well, bad. do you really want the Defense Department to be run like an HMO?

what is sinister about oversight and military standards and specifications being adhered too?
It's sinister when those standards are established by the same people who will profit from them, like, say the Commander in Chief. Look, see, I'm also someone who finds the whole Enron situation a little fishy, but if you think that's all hunky dory, then enjoy your own personal science fiction universe.

American companies make jobs and that thing we call money
Well, actually only one private company issues our money, the Federal Reserve. And gee, there's nothing fishy about them, is there? Who voted that policy in again?
posted by badstone at 12:04 PM on May 6, 2002

Good. I now know where I can buy some mercenaries when I need them.

uh oh, I think I've said too much already...
posted by andrewraff at 1:06 PM on May 6, 2002

Brown & Root employees will not be acting as solidiers, but providing support. There is nothing either new or controversial about that.

In any event, there is nothing futuristic about private, or for-profit, combatants in wartime. The United States government, as specified for in Section 8 of the Constitution, allows for the issuing of Letters of Marque or Reprisal. A letter of marque allows a private citizen to arm himself, or arm his ship, to act as a combatant (or "privateer") in wartime provided certain conditions are met (usually the issuing of a bond.) Issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Europe go back to the first origins of seafaring traders.

Most of the European powers agreed to end the practice in 1856. The U.S. renounced the practice at the beginning of the 20th century, although there have been recent efforts in Congress to reeastablish the practice as an anti-terrorism tool.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:19 PM on May 6, 2002

clavdivs:
really badstone
do you have a question from your assumptions?
the paradigmn is flawed from its inception
with-in the argument
ex.
That operation has now been infiltrated
follow. it negates it-self
from the 'fact' that 'they-it' already exist
presuppostion?

clavdivs, no offense, but a question: I'm under the impression that you're pretty smart. I don't know why, really, but you seem to know what you're talking about, in your own inimitable way. So the question - are you aware of the fact that your style renders whatever you're saying damn near incomprehensible? I don't for a second think you're unintelligent, but you have to admit that your writing is ... nontraditional. In your best impression of a "normal" diction, would you mind explaining why? I've wondered for quite a long time now.
posted by Sinner at 2:34 PM on May 6, 2002

Okay, i was in Kosovo a year ago. I saw the brown and root guys. They aren't in uniform, they don't carry guns, they drive buses. That's not all they do, but it isn't all super hard core soldier crap.
posted by Apoch at 2:44 PM on May 6, 2002

Apoch - Don't distract us with the facts.
posted by NortonDC at 3:09 PM on May 6, 2002

i do find fighting wars on a for-profit basis to be, well, bad. do you really want the Defense Department to be run like an HMO?

I don't think that's what the article's saying. Defense contractors make money for commercial purposes. It's a reality, and we arguably wouldn't have the technological innovation we do if they were non-profits. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's some massive potential for moral hazard if a member of the administration has formerly been involved with the company. It's not uncommon for washingtonians with government defense-related jobs to be defense industry vets.

LOGCAP isn't a new program, and it's not the sinister operation the article above tries to portray. Re: Brown & Root - from the article: "The LOGCAP contract was established in 1992 under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At that time the Army contracted Brown and Root to provide services such as sanitation, billeting, refuse collection, meals, showers, laundry, transportation, construction, maintenance and utilities. "
posted by lizs at 4:17 PM on May 6, 2002

lizs: It's considered an objectionable conflict of interest, at least in Britain, when ministers take up lucrative positions on the boards of companies whose interests cover their former portfolios: most notable, in recent months, is the case of Lord Wakeham, who went from supervising the privatisation of power supply under Thatcher to a board position with... you guessed it, Enron. I don't know whether the rules are now in effect - it kinda blipped off the radar a couple of years ago - but it was floated early after Labour came in that ministers ought to be subject to the same tight restrictions as high-ranking civil servants when they move from government to the private sector. While I can understand that it's hard to recruit for these modern-day mercenaries from anywhere other than the armed forces, surely there's a case for similar restrictions to apply. After all, it's not just that the relationship between state and contractor is above board: it has to be seen to be above board, and the perception of a revolving door between the boardrooms of War, Inc. and the Pentagon doesn't help.
posted by riviera at 4:36 PM on May 6, 2002

Cheney's not on the Board, and even then - in order to fit the legal definition of "conflict of interest" , his fiduciary responsibilities as a board member would have to be at direct odds with his responsibilities to the DoD.

Frankly, i think the revolving doors do more good than harm in the long run. i wouldn't want DoD procurement people that had never seen the defense contracting industry from the inside. Nor would I want defense contractors with no ex-government employees. There are plenty of mechanisms that prevent abuse of the system. The contracting process itself makes it virtually impossible for a single player (i..e., Cheney) to influence the award decision. Cheney couldn't forcably push a contract to Root & Brown without the support of a lot of other people and some level of perfunctory objective evidence that Root & Brown offered the best services at the best price. (Root & Brown has, incidentally, been contracted for ths program since before Cheney was in office).
posted by lizs at 4:55 PM on May 6, 2002

18 USC 207
posted by dhartung at 4:59 PM on May 6, 2002

sinner: a revision from the inchoate...
how does one infiltrate something that has been 'infiltrated'. Qua, "The Dark Future bit is the replacement of government with private corporations."
as stated by Badstone.
most government work is already done by private firms.
to me, badstone is creating his own paradigm (archtype) based upon presuppostion. (requires antecedent)

shoulda stuck to the basics.

klar?
posted by clavdivs at 5:45 PM on May 6, 2002

presupposition-sorry.
posted by clavdivs at 5:48 PM on May 6, 2002

clavdivs,

Thanks for the explanation, but my point was a bit broader than just this post. You're clearly a bright (wo?)man. Is there any particular reason you make your particular argot so hard to understand ?
posted by Sinner at 10:32 PM on May 6, 2002

badstone -- I think the neologism for this is corpocracy. Come to think of it, there's a historical precedent for the phenomenon:

Hark back to 1862, when the US Army's military intelligence gathering during the Civil War was performed by Pinkerton & Co., who told Gen. George B. McClellan what he apparently wanted to hear -- that the Army of Northern Virginia was huge, much larger in fact than it really was, giving GBMcC the excuse to stall for time and bleat for more, more, more men and materiel before he'd move his blue-clad ass into combat. GBMcC and Pinkerton were buddies from the former's prewar railroad days, and it evidently seemed a natural to hire a former business associate to do reconnaisance and intelligence work that the Army should have been doing.
posted by alumshubby at 7:28 AM on May 7, 2002

"bright (wo?)man." god i wish. great point alumshubby, perhaps even Jeffersons corp. of discovery could be used as an example.
sinner, give it whurl, take that one out for a test drive.
posted by clavdivs at 8:31 AM on May 7, 2002

or wellington and waterloo! the house of rothschild, "For them, it was just business." :)
posted by kliuless at 10:11 AM on May 7, 2002

note to self - no more science fiction discussions with republicans, no matter how fun it sounds at first...
posted by badstone at 2:37 PM on May 7, 2002