I just read an interesting book, titled “1759” and subtitled “The year Britain became master of the world.” The author, Frank McLynn, explores the conflicts between Britain, France, and the other major European powers through the lens of that one eventful year. 1759 was four years into what we in the U.S. call the French and Indian War, and what the rest of the world calls the Seven Years War. One of the fronts he covers is New France, now known as Canada. The colony of New France was governed by several officials more recommended for their connections at court than their competence or honesty. (Does this sound familiar?) The outstanding scoundrel was the Finance Minister and Intendant (military supply officer) of New France, Francois Bigot. He controlled a web of corruption from the top to the bottom of the supply chain. To quote Mr. McLynn:
“A favourite wheeze was importing provisions from Bordeaux (where Bigot's corrupt partners had a trading company) on the grounds that there were food shortages in Canada. Since prices were higher in Canada, there were already profits to be made, but Bigot increased his profit margins by escaping import duties: he simply had his officials at the customs house wave the goods through as the King's personal stores and therefore exempt from duty. The stores were then sold back to the government and the military at inflated prices fixed by edict, often with other rogues taking cuts along the way: the first buyer would make a profit, then the second, until finally `the King' bought at a grotesquely distorted high price. One transaction netted Bigot and his associates twelve million francs: they bought for eleven million and managed to sell for twenty-three million.
But there was simply no end to the defalcation and embezzlement of which the ‘Bigot ring’ was capable. Bigot liked to force farmers to part with grain at a fixed, low price on pain of confiscation, on the grounds that they were ‘hoarding’, then sell to the highest bidder when dearth or famine threatened. He would bribe officers at the military forts to sign for, say; two million francs of goods, then deliver one million and pocket the difference. He bought up boats for military purposes, then leased them to the King at high prices. A favourite scam was cheating France's Indian allies. Let us suppose that Bigot had raised an invoice allowing him to give gifts to 2000 Indians. First, `payroll padding' would be employed, for there would be just 500 Indians, not 2,000. Then Bigot would charge the highest prices and sell one-third of the gifts to the tribes, keeping the other two--thirds as ‘perks’. Another dodge was to employ free labour in the form of boatmen, drivers and porters in return for a rear's exemption from military duty; then charge the government for their wages. All the time Bigot enjoyed the protection of Vaudreuil, who in turn was a beneficiary of the corruption.”
248 years later we find ourselves in Iraq, spending hundreds of billions of dollars on food, fuel, ammunition, vehicles, and housing. We have machine guns, not muskets, and helicopters instead of horses, but the categories of need are much the same. Alas, so are the categories of corruption. To term it a hog trough would be to slander good swine. Matt Taibbi wrote an excellent article in Rolling Stone on the subject, which was reprinted online at Alternet. A few choice excerpts:
“Like most contractors, Custer Battles was on a cost-plus arrangement, which means its profits were guaranteed to rise with its spending. But according to testimony by officials and former employees, the partners also charged the government millions by making out phony invoices to shell companies they controlled. In another stroke of genius, they found a bunch of abandoned Iraqi Airways forklifts on airport property, repainted them to disguise the company markings and billed them to U.S. taxpayers as new equipment.”
“The company [KBR] has been exposed by whistle-blowers in numerous Senate hearings for everything from double-charging taxpayers for $617,000 worth of sodas to overcharging the government 600 percent for fuel shipments. When things went wrong, KBR simply scrapped expensive gear: The company dumped 50,000 pounds of nails in the desert because they were too short, and left the Army no choice but to set fire to a supply truck that had a flat tire. ‘They did not have the proper wrench to change the tire,’ an Iraq vet named Richard Murphy told investigators, ‘so the decision was made to torch the truck.’
In perhaps the ultimate example of military capitalism, KBR reportedly ran convoys of empty trucks back and forth across the insurgent-laden desert, pointlessly risking the lives of soldiers and drivers so the company could charge the taxpayer for its phantom deliveries. Truckers for KBR, knowing full well that the trips were bullshit, derisively referred to their cargo as ‘sailboat fuel.’”
Monsieur Bigot would smile.
But this should be no surprise to a student of military history. As Marine General Smedley Butler put it, “War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”
I can imagine one Roman soldier on the Gallic frontier, grousing to another, “Rancid olive oil and diluted wine, if you can call it that, and Kappa Beta Rho is getting double the local market price. And have your heard what the AquaNiger mercenaries are getting paid?”
War is the mother of corruption. To some, that is its chief appeal. When we try to answer the question of why the Bush Administration invaded Iraq we should realize that nothing happens for one reason alone. Yes, it was about oil. Yes, it was about being a war president in an election year. Yes, it was about neocon fantasies of empire. We still have our foot on the dime and crude is trading above $80, so the oil play can be called a success. The political gains are long gone, along with dreams of hegemony. However, no matter what happens on the ground in Iraq, the cash is in the bank for a horde of swindlers and the corporate behemoths they serve. Taxes on millionaires have been slashed, so the beneficiaries of a privatized military can hold their loot while the rest of us hold the bag – a multi-trillion dollar deficit. Mission accomplished.
In a previous post I suggested that our elected representatives, upon declaring war, should sign a statement acknowledging that they take responsibility for the inevitable killings of innocent civilians. Perhaps there should be an addendum to that statement where they declare their understanding that the nation’s wealth will be wasted as well.