1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Profits of war

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Fegwu, Jul 23, 2004.

  1. Fegwu

    Fegwu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    5,162
    Likes Received:
    4
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266328,00.html

    Halliburton has become a byword for the cosy links between the White House and Texan big business. But how did the company run in the 90s by Dick Cheney secure a deal that guaranteed it millions in profit every time the US military saw action? In this exclusive extract from his new book, Dan Briody reveals how the firm made a killing on the battleground

    Thursday July 22, 2004

    The Guardian

    On January 12 1991, Congress authorised President George HW Bush to engage Iraq in war. Just five days later, Operation Desert Storm commenced in Kuwait. As with the more recent war in the Gulf, it did not take long for the US to claim victory - it was all over by the end of February - but the clean-up would last longer, and was far more expensive than the military action itself. In a senseless act of desperation and defeat, Iraqi troops set fire to more than 700 Kuwaiti oil wells, resulting in a constant fog of thick, black smoke that turned day into night.
    It was thought the mess would take no less than five years to clean up, as lakes of oil surrounding each well blazed out of control, making it nearly impossible to approach the burning wells, let alone extinguish them. But with the fighting over, Halliburton angled its way into the clean-up and rebuilding effort that was expected to cost around $200bn (£163bn) over the next 10 years.

    The company sent 60 men to help with the firefighting effort. Meanwhile, its engineering and construction subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) won an additional $3m contract to assess the damage that the invasion had done to Kuwait's infrastructure - a contract whose value had multiplied seven times by the end of KBR's involvement. More significantly still, KBR won a contract to extract troops from Saudi Arabia after their services were no longer needed in the Gulf. Halliburton was back in the army logistics business in earnest for the first time since Vietnam. The end of the Gulf war saw nothing less than the rebirth of the military outsourcing business.

    Military outsourcing was not new. Private firms had been aiding in war efforts since long before KBR won its first naval shipbuilding contract. But the nature of military outsourcing has changed dramatically in the last decade. The trend towards a "downsized" military began because of the "peace dividend" at the end of the cold war, and continued throughout the 1990s. This combination of a reduced military but continued conflict gave rise to an unprecedented new industry of private military firms. These firms would assist the military in everything from weapons procurement and maintenance to training of troops and logistics.

    In the decade after the first Gulf war, the number of private contractors used in and around the battlefield increased tenfold. It has been estimated that there is now one private contractor for every 10 soldiers in Iraq. Companies such as Halliburton, which became the fifth largest defence contractor in the nation during the 1990s, have played a critical role in this trend.

    The story behind America's "super contract" begins in 1992, when the department of defence, then headed by Dick Cheney, was impressed with the work Halliburton did during its time in Kuwait. Sensing the need to bolster its forces in the event of further conflicts of a similar nature, the Pentagon asked private contractors to bid on a $3.9m contract to write a report on how a private firm could provide logistical support to the army in the case of further military action.

    The report was to examine 13 different "hot spots" around the world, and detail how services as varied as building bases to feeding the troops could be accomplished. The contractor that would potentially provide the services detailed in the report would be required to support the deployment of 20,000 troops over 180 days. It was a massive contingency plan, the first of its kind for the American military.

    Thirty-seven companies tendered for the contract; KBR won it. The company was paid another $5m later that year to extend the plan to other locations and add detail.

    The KBR report, which remains classified to this day, convinced Cheney that it was indeed possible to create one umbrella contract and award it to a single firm. The contract became known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme (Logcap) and has been called "the mother of all service contracts". It has been used in every American deployment since its award in 1992 - at a cost of several billion dollars (and counting). The lucky recipient of the first, five-year Logcap contract was the very same company hired to draw up the plan in the first place: KBR.

    The Logcap contract pulled KBR out of its late 1980s doldrums and boosted the bottom line of Halliburton throughout the 1990s. It is, effectively, a blank cheque from the government. The contractor makes its money from a built-in profit percentage, anywhere from 1% to 9%, depending on various incentive clauses. When your profit is a percentage of the cost, the more you spend, the more you make.

    Before the ink was dry on the first Logcap contract, the US army was deployed to Somalia in December 1992 as part of Operation Restore Hope. KBR employees were there before the army even arrived, and they were the last to leave. The firm made $109.7m in Somalia. In August 1994, they earned $6.3m from Operation Support Hope in Rwanda. In September of that same year, Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti netted the company $150m. And in October 1994, Operation Vigilant Warrior made them another $5m.

    In the spirit of "refuse no job", the company was building the base camps, supplying the troops with food and water, fuel and munitions, cleaning latrines, even washing their clothes. They attended the staff meetings and were kept up to speed on all the activities related to a given mission. They were becoming another unit in the US army.

    The army's growing dependency on the company hit home when, in 1997, KBR lost the Logcap contract in a competitive rebid to rival Dyncorp. The army found it impossible to remove Brown & Root from their work in the Balkans - by far the most lucrative part of the contract - and so carved out the work in that theatre to keep it with KBR. In 2001, the company won the Logcap contract again, this time for twice the normal term length: 10 years.

    To the uninitiated, the appointment of Cheney to the chairman, president, and chief executive officer positions at Halliburton in August 1995, made little sense. Cheney had almost no business experience, having been a career politician and bureaucrat. Financial analysts downgraded the stock and the business press openly questioned the decision.

    Cheney has been described by those who know him as everything from low-key to downright bland, but the confidence he inspired and the loyalty he professed made him an indispensable part of Donald Rumsfeld's rise to power. In the 1970s, Rumsfeld became Gerald Ford's White House chief of staff, with Cheney as his deputy. In those days, Cheney was assigned a codename by the secret service that perfectly summed up his disposition: "Backseat".

    But Halliburton understood Cheney's value. With him as CEO, the company gained considerable leverage in Washington. Until Cheney's appointment in the autumn of 1995, Halliburton's business results had been decent. After a loss of $91m in 1993, the company had returned to profitability in 1994 with an operating profit of $236m. With the new revenue coming in from Logcap, Halliburton and its prize subsidiary, KBR, were back on track. Though Logcap was producing only modest revenues, it was successful in reintegrating KBR into the military machine.

    The big opportunity came in December 1995, just two months after Cheney assumed the post of CEO, when the US sent thousands of troops to the Balkans as a peace-keeping force. As part of Operation Joint Endeavour, KBR was dispatched to Bosnia and Kosovo to support the army in its operations in the region. The task was massive in scope and size.

    One example of the work KBR did in the Balkans was Camp Bondsteel. The camp was so large that the US general accounting office (GAO) likened it to "a small town". The company built roads, power generation, water and sewage systems, housing, a helicopter airfield, a perimeter fence, guard towers, and a detention centre. Bondsteel is the largest and most expensive army base since Vietnam. It also happens to be built in the path of the Albanian-Macedonian-Bulgarian Oil (Ambo) Trans-Balkan pipeline, the pipeline connecting the oil-rich Caspian Sea region to the rest of the world. The initial feasibility project for Ambo was done by KBR.

    KBR's cash flow from Logcap ballooned under Cheney's tenure, jumping from $144m in 1994 to more than $423m in 1996, and the Balkans was the driving force. By 1999, the army was spending just under $1bn a year on KBR's work in the Balkans. The GAO issued a report in September 2000 charging serious cost-control problems in Bosnia, but KBR retains the contract to this day.

    Meanwhile, Cheney was busy developing Halliburton's business in other parts of the world. "It is a false dichotomy that we have to choose between our commercial and other interests," he told the [public policy research foundation] Cato Institute in 1998, speaking out against economic sanctions levied by the Clinton administration against countries suspected of terrorist activity. "Our government has become sanctions-happy," he continued.

    In particular, Cheney objected to sanctions against Libya and Iran, two countries with which Halliburton was already doing business regardless. Even more disconcerting, though, was the work the company did in Iraq. Between his stints as secretary of defence and vice-president, Cheney was in charge of Halliburton when it was circumventing strict UN sanctions, helping to rebuild Iraq and enriching Saddam Hussein.

    In September 1998, Halliburton closed a $7.7bn stock merger with Dresser Industries (the company that gave George HW Bush his first job). The merger made Halliburton the largest oilfield services firm in the world. It also brought with it two foreign subsidiaries that were doing business with Iraq via the controversial Oil for Food programme. The two subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co, signed $73m-worth of contracts for oil production equipment.

    Cheney told the press during his 2000 run for vice-president that he had a "firm policy" against doing business with Iraq. He admitted to doing business with Iran and Libya, but "Iraq's different," he said. Cheney told ABC TV: "We've not done any business in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

    Three weeks later, Cheney was forced to admit the business ties, but claimed ignorance. He told reporters that he was not aware of Dresser's business in Iraq, and that besides, Halliburton had divested itself of both companies by 2000. In the meantime, the companies had done another $30m-worth of business in Iraq before being sold off.

    The Dresser merger was, it appeared, the crowning achievement of the Cheney years at Halliburton. But Cheney left Halliburton several other legacies. David Gribbin, Cheney's former chief of staff, became Halliburton's chief lobbyist in Washington. Admiral Joe Lopez, a former commander of the sixth fleet, was hired to be KBR's governmental operations expert. Together, Cheney's team made Halliburton one of the top government contractors in the country. KBR had nearly doubled its government contracts, from $1.2bn in the five years prior to his arrival, to $2.3bn during his five years as CEO. Halliburton soared from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors.

    After 9/11, KBR went to work on the war on terrorism, building the 1,000 detention cells at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for terrorist suspects, at a cost of $52m. The work had to feel familiar to KBR: it had done the exact same job 35 years earlier in Vietnam. When troops were deployed to Afghanistan, so was KBR. It built US bases in Bagram and Kandahar for $157m. As it had done in the past, KBR had men on the ground before the first troops even arrived in most locations. They readied the camps, fed the troops, and hauled away the waste. And they did it like the military would have done it: fast, efficient, and effective. It was good work, solid revenues, but nothing like the windfall the company had experienced in the Balkans.

    In addition, Halliburton won the contract for restoring the Iraqi oil infrastructure - a contract that was not competitively bid. It was given to Halliburton out of convenience, because it had developed the plan for fighting oil fires (all, by this time, extinguished). Despite the new business, the fortunes of Halliburton and its subsidiary have not prospered. The stock that Cheney cashed in near its peak, when he renewed his political career in 2000, has since plummeted. The main culprit was the 1998 merger with Dresser, which saddled the company with asbestos liabilities that ultimately led to two Halliburton subsidiaries - one of them KBR - having to file for bankruptcy.

    When Cheney left to become Bush's running mate, he took a golden parachute package - in addition to the stock options he was obliged to sell for $30m. In September 2003, Cheney insisted: "Since I've left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice-president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't now for over three years."

    The Congressional Research Service (CRS), a non-partisan agency that investigates political issues at the request of elected officials, says otherwise. Cheney has been receiving a deferred salary from Halliburton in the years since he left the company. In 2001, he received $205,298. In 2002, he drew $162,392. He is scheduled to receive similar payments through 2005, and has an insurance policy in place to protect the payments in the event that Halliburton should fold. In addition, Cheney still holds 433,333 unexercised stock options in Halliburton. He has agreed to donate any profits to charity.

    · The Halliburton Agenda by Dan Briody is published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd at Ј16.99. To order a copy for Ј14.99 plus p&p, call Guardian Book Service on 0870 836 0875.

    Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
     
  2. Rockets2K

    Rockets2K Clutch Crew

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2000
    Messages:
    18,050
    Likes Received:
    1,271
    If Halliburton is doing so damngood out of all this...one must wonder why the rumors coming out of Halliburton here in Houston says that they will be cutting back a number of jobs soon..

    Wonder where all that money went? :confused:
     
  3. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    What's the point? If Halliburton hadn't gotten the contracts then someone else would have, as in '97-2001, when the other company had the contract. It sounds like Cheney knew the downsizing (Peace Dividend) of the military would require outsourcing. Smart but hardly criminal.

    (and I haven't and wouldn't vote for either Bush or Cheney)
     
  4. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,809
    Likes Received:
    20,467
    What is criminal is the fact that the defense department hadn't paid Haliburton, because Haliburton was over charging, and the money paying Haliburton for their rip off scheme was tax payer money. They are crooked, and I would have preferred another company that might have honestly charged us taxpayers, rather than trying to rip us off.
     
  5. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    You'd be hard pressed to find a large defense contractor that hasn't been accused of overcharging by the GAO.

    And again what does this have to do with anything? Pointless article by the Guardian.
     
  6. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,809
    Likes Received:
    20,467
    It has to do with the mismanagement of the war and it's planning by this administration. Open up the bidding, get some of the Russian companies that had previously been working on the Iraqi oil infastructure to put up some bids, and let's have some competition. Those that can do it cheaper will get more contracts, so ideally there would be a reason to not rip off people who pay taxes.
     
  7. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    Except that then the taxpayer money would be going to Russia instead of the US economy. Doh. Besides, you don't want foreign corp's basically embedded in US military op's, right? And remember as I stated before, you'd be hard pressed to find none of these things in any other large government contract. Not with Lockheed or GE or Boeing or anyone else. As far as whether or not its a taxpayer drain, in comparison to the behemoth it replaced its still cheaper (that is the central draw of outsourcing after all).
     
  8. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,809
    Likes Received:
    20,467
    I don't really consider my money going to Haliburton going to the U.S. economy. I would rather pay less, and hopefully have someone do the work honestly. I would rather pay more than pay money to people who are ripping me off.

    I don't care what it replaced, or that the money would be going somewhere else, as much as I do being dealt with honestly.

    It sounds like your saying, 'Oh well here's my money, it doesn't matter that you are ripping me off, because someone else would probably rip me off too. So here you go.'
     
  9. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Of course, if we had opened it up to the rest of the world, there would have been a FAR greater probablility of those countries committing troops and money to the rebuilding. GWB and his cronies chose to go it alone in part to assure that only US companies profited from the war.
     
  10. 4chuckie

    4chuckie Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 1999
    Messages:
    3,300
    Likes Received:
    2
    One question for you, where do you stand on America losing jobs to other countries? I know that is one of Kerry's big points is that the economy is bad not because of economic facts as much as it is because we're losing jobs (that's his story at least in Ohio and WV) to foreign countries.

    Now doesn't giving alot of buiness to Halliburton help keep people employed in the US? Would you be complaining if we gave up 80% of the business to another country and it cost American jobs.
     
  11. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    I would be happier if the rest of the world was involved in both contracts AND war operations (troops, money, etc.). I believe that we should do what we can to keep jobs here, but that is a completely different situation from starting a preemptive war and then excluding all but American companies from the "spoils."
     
  12. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    (here's my trader_jorge impression)

    Maybe they didn't post it in the funny pages where you would have seen it, but Halliburton just posted a huge quarterly loss. So much for reaping the profits of war. In fact Haiilburton has been forced into adopting a high risk business plan just to pay off the blood sucking trial lawyers who extorted billions by their dubious claims of asbestos posioning by a company Halliburton didn't even own at the time. How can the company be expected to fulfill those judgements with only legitimate business profits?

    Blah blah... owned!
     
  13. rockbox

    rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2000
    Messages:
    22,827
    Likes Received:
    12,607

    The problem as briefly stated in the article is the asbestos liabilities from their merger with Dresser which will reach into the billions. It is causing a financial strain for the whole company.
     
  14. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    Nope. I'm merely saying that in any large bureaucracy you'll have waste/overcharges. It simply is too big and too much money to track to the dollar. It happens in welfare, agriculture, defense, healthcare, and every other industry. It doesn't make it right but no matter which company you pick its going to happen. As for giving it to someone else vs halliburton, you are foolish if you think its better for us to give that money to a Russian company instead of an American one if your goal is to halliburton. The Russians are guaranteed to rip you off as well. That kind of thing really is inevitable.
     
  15. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Except that with the value of their currency, their waste would be FAR less because they would do the job for MUCH less. It's funny, when corporations have to cut costs, they outsource cheap labor from other countries but when they get a flat percentage of the contract, paying $10,000 per month to a truck driver just means more money in the bottom line.

    Sickening.
     
  16. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,809
    Likes Received:
    20,467
    The Russians might rip us off as well, or perhaps the fact that other companies can bid for the contracts would cause Haliburton to feel the competition and inspire them to be more honest in their dealings.

    I don't believe that every single contractor out there is going to rip off the taxpayers, and certainly they won't all do it to the same level that Haliburton has. This isn't the first time they've been found guilty of this kind of thing.

    Competition might provide the incentive for whoever wins the contract to be honest in their dealings knowing that the company can be replaced or barred from future bidding as a result.

    As a sidenote a favorite conservative battle cry is less govt. regulation. But these kinds of rip offs I think is evidence why we should have more govt. regulation.
     
  17. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    FB,

    I'm not saying waste is good, but opening contact bidding is not going to solve the problem. As an example, why don't you pick the name of a large government contractor. I'll bet a simply google search will reveal that they've been accused of misappropriation/overcharging more than once. That seems easy enough, right? My main point is that I don't understand what ground this article breaks. What is the point? Big corps make money? Uh, ok. I knew that. Government contractors overcharge the government? Uh, ok. I knew that. So does everyone else. What is the point besides another negative headline with Cheney in it? (and I'm not a Bush or Chaney supporter).
     
  18. bnb

    bnb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    316
    Sometimes I fear that the blanket defense of Halliburton interferes with proper diligence in monitoring their work.

    To some in the administration, the political fall-out of exposing a Halliburton misdeed might just exceed the benefit of uncovering the deed.

    Not saying they shouldn't get the work...just that i don't get a cozy feeling they're subject to enough scrutiny.
     
  19. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,809
    Likes Received:
    20,467
    I'm sorry, I moved on from the original article, and into a more general dissatisfaction of the bidding process and Haliburton.
     
  20. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    I agree completely then. Certainly it isn't GOOD that they rip us off and I didn't mean to suggest that.
     

Share This Page