It’s funny how certain sections of the American public, with the help of mainstream media of course, are now so outraged by the actions of a handful of ACORN employees that Congress is now bravely cutting off all funding for this already underfunded, inconsequential organization. Yet the recent — nearly invisible — actions in Kabul by morons working for the private military contractor ArmorGroup, being paid far greater sums of American taxpayer dollars than anything dreamed of by ACORN, have been dismissed by the same media as little more than the exploits of silly boys letting off a little steam. Sure a few will be fired, but have a look for yourself:
Let’s put the whole issue into perspective. ACORN, a non-profit, grass-roots organization that represents poor Americans has received a mere $53 million in federal funds since 1994, while these douchbag contractors from ArmorGroup are the recipients of a $189 million 5-year contract to defend the US embassy in Kabul. That comes to $3.5 million a year for ACORN as opposed to nearly $38 million per year for ArmorGroup. Where’s the outrage? Barely a peep is heard.
One of the more obvious problems stemming from the government’s need for contractors like ArmorGroup — a relatively minor player in the realm of private military contractors — is that, given the US government’s commitment to the military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon must rely on these sorts of for-profit corporations to fulfil the work and procedures once handled by the US military.
It’s so bad that actions like those pictured above must go un-addressed. There’s little the Pentagon can do, even though they have had multiple problems with ArmorGroup. The New York Times recently discussed this issue:
The troubles with the ArmorGroup contract, and the State Department’s frustrated dealings with the company over two years and through two administrations, illustrate how the government has become dependent on the private security companies that work in war zones, and has struggled to manage companies that themselves are sometimes loosely run and do not always play by the government’s rules.
With a stretched military, the government relies on the security companies themselves to vet, train, and discipline the guards, all at the lowest cost.
“It’s expensive for the State Department to withdraw a contract from one company, rebid the project and award it to a new one,” said Janet Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who represents one of the ArmorGroup whistleblowers. “So businesses know that once they get a contract, State may ding them around a little bit, but it’s not going to fire them.”
The perils of this reliance were most graphically illustrated in Iraq in 2007, when security guards from another contractor, Blackwater, were involved in shootings that left 17 civilians dead on a Baghdad street. But interviews and documents show that the ArmorGroup affair, in its mundane, unsavory details, offers perhaps a more representative look inside the troubled relationship between contractors and the government in war zones.
