Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Haliburton subcontracted nearly everything that they provided. I have never bought that they were the only company capable of providing the services.

Though you say he left on bad terms (I never heard this before) he did not sell his stock in it and made millions as VP of the us on his holdings each year. (Am I not correct?)

To me the way we waged war was an outrage in Iraq and Afganistan. It was a thinly disguised way to channel huge contracts to private contracors like Haliburton. Privatizing things like trucking, and the food services inside the two countries. The big US company gets a huge cost plus contract, hires a local company to do the work.

The local company in turn to get the trucks safely through areas not completely secure yet (we have this "lean" military presence now) have to pay "security" payments to the local war lords. The money goes right into the insurgent purse to finance the anti american fighters. We are (were) finincing the people killing our military personell.

In this was the administration was allowed to speak of our presence in Iraq for example as (what was the number?) 140,000 troops, when if you counted all the privatized contracting presence the number was probably really 500,000 people there doing what in previouis wars (like ww2) would have all been done by men and women in the us uniform.

Of course these contractors funneled huge contributions to their political allies.

When I was on the local school board we could not even take school items like desks and file cabinets to the dump when we bought new ones, we had to offer them for bid. No such rules or anything close hampered the war efforts in the middle east.