The house Armed Services Subcommittee on Reform held a hearing on private security contractors in Iraq last week. The lack of accountability was stunning. This entry is the first of two, cross-posted to
IAVA to bring them out into the light of day.
Chairman Chris Shays, Representative Schakowsky and others questioned witnesses from both the government and from firms that provide these contractors to the US effort. Mr. William Solis and Shay D. Assad were among the government witnesses questioned. Mr. Assad worked with Raytheon for 20 years before entering the government contracting sphere. The witnesses for the government were very careful, as they should be, to only answer about the actions they directly supervised. But the amount of `I don't knows' or `It's not my department' or `It's a sub-contractor's fault' quickly stacked up, to the frustration of even some of the sympathetic legislators.
Members of the committee complained that they'd requested certain information since November 2004 and had yet to receive it. The most frequently given answer I heard on the panel was "I'll have to get you an answer." The lack of preparation for this hearing was nearly incredible to me unless you realize the degree to which these guys don't want to answer.
Shays told Assad to get him certain answers in two weeks and it will be interesting to see what replies if any, are given. I hope that I am able to follow up. He hammered home the point that no guidance is given from the executive or other branch of the government and that no one seems to be leading here. Bizarrely, he misspoke at one point and refered to "testicle services". I don't know what the hell he was talking about. Assad basically told Shays that he couldn't answer many questions and it was odd to me how easily a house member would defer to such lower tier agencies and private companies. Assad mentioned that certain forms were "signed in writing" which I thought was a nice way TO SIGN SOMETHING.
One thing the questions wanted to know was who made rules for Private Security Details and under what laws they fall. The rules for some contractors are contained in DoD Instruction 3020.41 but apparently no one was required to read or follow them initially. Most of the government witnesses said that contracts they issue now include these rules in such a way that they `flow' through the contract. Another practice discussed was "tiering" and how it works hand-in-glove with the cost-plus system to remove the maximum amount of tax dollars from the treasury possible.
Mr. Kumbar revealed how little even the people doing the hiring know about the true character of the services when he said (about the troops) that he "didn't want them to be cooks, standing guard, taking people from place to place." Huh? I wonder what the cooks and transportation specialists thought about that. I know that my most excellent cooks were literally begging to cook and to quit acting like body and prison guards in Iraq. I think that, if there is so little understanding of what our services are capable of then there is little chance that the contracts are awarded correctly.
I'll write about the money flowing into these people's hands in a separate post. Overall, I thought it an amazingly important hearing that got little press. When the subject of Iraq is discussed, the huge influence, money, and effect of these PSDs is hardly mentioned, yet they are one of the main factors on the battlefield in Iraq.
By: Perry Jefferies