"All the Money You Make Will Never Buy Back Your Soul"
by Ron Jacobs
Recently, the Boston Globe reported that the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) had set up an offshore company to hire close to half of the men and women working for KBR in Iraq as contractors.
by Ron Jacobs
Recently, the Boston Globe reported that the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) had set up an offshore company to hire close to half of the men and women working for KBR in Iraq as contractors. According to the report, this enables KBR to avoid paying social security, unemployment insurance and other taxes. When workers complained, they were essentially told that they had already signed a contract with the offshore company and therefore had no recourse.
On the other hand, at another time KBR argued that some of its workers that sued the company after being exposed to dangerous chemicals in Iraq were KBR employees and, because of laws granting contractors doing military work overseas, the company was not legally responsible.
Like the lawyer for the nine men suing KBR said, "When it
benefits them, KBR takes the position that these men really are
employees. You don't get to take both positions."
Of course, this is exactly what KBR wants to do. After all, this corporation and most other companies involved in what is euphemistically called contracting in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and “homeland security” are much more interested in making money than they are in being fair or even patriotic.
Of course, this is exactly what KBR wants to do. After all, this corporation and most other companies involved in what is euphemistically called contracting in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and “homeland security” are much more interested in making money than they are in being fair or even patriotic.
The bounty provided by what London and DC term the
“war on terror” has moved the money grubbing of these corporations to
an even higher level of greed. The executives of these companies are
not interested in seeing this war end. If it did, then they would lose
the gravy train it has become.
This is what Solomon Hughes makes quite clear in his new book War on Terror, Inc. Corporate Profiteering From the Politics of Fear just released by Verso.
Hughes is an
investigative reporter that does that title proud. His work has
appeared in British newspapers and the journal Private Eye. What he
does in this book is nothing less than rip the mask of false patriotism
and concern for the world's well-being from the faces of the
corporations that constitute a major part of the today's war industry.
In the process, he exposes the shallow greed and willing corruption of
the politicians and government bureaucrats who hand over their nation's
coffers to those companies, despite their public ineptitude and
chicanery—not to mention the lies the whole shell game is based on.
Meanwhile, people die for no reason.
A topic of conversation amongst some Boston Red Sox baseball fans a few years ago was the revelation that a member of one of the ownership groups was a man named Philip Morse.
It seems that Morse owned at least one plane
that was leased to the CIA for rendition flights. This revelation
didn't cause any Red Sox fans that I know to end their support for
their team -- given the irrational nature of sports fandom to do so
would make too much sense -- but it did serve to illustrate just how
connected the dots are between corporate American and US intelligence.
Furthermore, it showed that money is more important to those businesses
involved in the military-industrial complex than morality or even
legality.
Hughes' book takes these connections even further, suggesting that the corporations' drive for profits is what might very well drive the US government to attack a certain country, even if the government believes there might be other methods it could use. Now, when I was younger, a teacher once explained to me the difference between Soviet-style communism and fascism like this:
Hughes' book takes these connections even further, suggesting that the corporations' drive for profits is what might very well drive the US government to attack a certain country, even if the government believes there might be other methods it could use. Now, when I was younger, a teacher once explained to me the difference between Soviet-style communism and fascism like this:
- Under the former the state is the corporation and under the latter the state serves the corporations.
The litany of corporate involvement in war and preparing
for war described in War On Terror makes it clear that the US and UK
are certainly headed towards the latter. Furthermore, Hughes suggests
(and documents with a long list of supporting facts) that once the US
is in a country, its policies are driven as much if not more by private
contracting companies' desire for profits than by a government policy
that might actually make Washington's intervention less bloody and
shorter in duration.
An example of this scenario, suggests Hughes, can
be found in the policy of separating societies along ethnic, religious
and tribal lines. This was done in the former Yugoslavia and continues
in the case of the occupation of Iraq.
If one accepts this theory,
what becomes even clearer is that the sectarianism now apparently
rampant in Iraq is more the result of the US/UK intervention and its
complementary use of mercenaries than it is from any intent by Iraqis
to foment a civil war.
Whether or not this widening of the sectarian divide was Washington's intention or not it no longer matters because it has created a situation Washington seems to prefer--a country divided amongst itself.
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Hughes' work is that one can see his thesis played out in the daily news. Walls dividing neighborhoods in Iraqi cities. Airbus gaining contracts to build refueling planes and being challenged by Boeing on the grounds of unfair business practices and a false patriotism. Airplane charter services lending their services to Homeland Security to fly prisoners being held in private prisons by private contractors out of the country so they can be tortured in prisons overseas by private interrogators.
Just recently, a story crossed the wires about
a $30 million dollar wall being built in Iraq to protect an oil
pipeline from insurgent attacks. This occurred despite several Iraqis
(and others) stating that the work of guarding the pipeline could have
been done much cheaper just by hiring local tribesmen to guard it. Of
course, the latter choice would not have put several millions into the
coffers of whatever western corporation is building the wall.
War On Terror, Inc. works on at least two levels. Hughes challenges the legality and morality of the roles played by these firms and, as mentioned above, he also exposes their sheer ineptitude and gross corruption.
War On Terror, Inc. works on at least two levels. Hughes challenges the legality and morality of the roles played by these firms and, as mentioned above, he also exposes their sheer ineptitude and gross corruption.
The collaboration of western politicians in this
conspiracy is something that should be front page news and provoke the
outrage of every citizen of these countries. The fact that it doesn't
is witness to the effectiveness of the neoliberal myth that
privatization is better than anything any government could do. The
narrative in War on Terror, Inc. is proof that that myth is a brazen
lie.
Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of
the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs'
essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on
music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short
Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (0)

Write comment

Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio