Will have rough draft of book proposal for you to edit later today; in the meantime, please look over this, as I want to send it to Rolling Stone and Atlantic.
Oliver North is upset. It seems that the Pentagon's increasing reliance
on civilian contractors has been receiving a minor degree of scrutiny
as of late, a development he characterizes as involving "threats of
inquisitions," which is literally true insomuch as that Congress will
perhaps make some inquiries into the matter. But North has been adverse
to Congressional oversight ever since that one time that Congress
forced him to lie about the crimes he had committed, and he is no fan
of the media, either; both, North says, are motivated by a sinister
ultra-pacifism. "Disparaging and de-funding civilian contractors is
just one more way of disarming America," he explains.
Now, one might point out that objections to private suppliers of men
and arms are nothing new and have in fact been made by men who are so
obviously not the sort to desire a disarmed America, and that such a
fact would certainly seem to poke a few holes in the argument that
those who make such objections are necessarily pacifists. In fact, I
was planning to point this out myself - but for some bizarre reason,
North points this out himself:
In the opening days of World War II, then Sen. Harry Truman became
famous for threatening to lock up civilian contractors for producing
sub-par munitions, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower ominously warned
against the threat of a military-industrial complex.
So after setting out to establish that those who criticize
contractors are wacky peace creeps, North cites the Supreme Commander
of the Alllied Forces in Europe and the fellow who dropped two atom
bombs on Japan as having criticized contractors. North probably thinks
he's doing really well at this point.
However, all that is pale by comparison to the viscera now being aimed
at civilian contractors supporting the campaigns in the land between
the Tigris and Euphrates and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush.
Our colonel does not cite any examples of these mainstream objections
that he deems so much more unhinged than Eisenhower's citation of the
military-industrial complex as something we must guard against lest
"the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes." He doesn't cite any mainstream objections of a more
critical nature because they don't exist; in order to top Eisenhower's
warning, someone would basically have to claim that civilian
contractors are secretly assembling a nuclear arsenal with which to
destroy the world in service to some ancient Sumerian deity.
Though
he can't point to any of these terrible things that have been said
about our nation's apple-cheeked mercenaries, North knows exactly who's
been saying them.
"Contractor is the new dirty word in the so-called mainstream media - and in Washington."
Worse, North notes that the non-existent objections that are somehow
more serious than Eisenhower's warning are leading to some
unprecedented and disheartening trends at the Pentagon:
"In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to hire 30,000
additional DoD employees to cut the percentage of work being done by
contractors. The FY 2010 Defense Budget request replaces nearly 14,000
contractor personnel with government employees - even though the
lifetime cost - counting government benefits and retirement - will
more than double the expense to American taxpayers."
So,
in the midst of two wars and numerous operations elsewhere, the
Department of Defense hires 30,000 employees who will be entirely
answerable to the Department of Defense rather than some board of
directors or Erik Prince, and suddenly North is worried
that too much money is being spent on the military. Here's a fun little
parlor game: try to find another instance in which Stone has expressed
concern about excessive military spending. And here's a fun little
parlor game that you can actually win: Google "Oliver North military
spending" and click on the first link that comes up, which itself turns
out to be a Fox News article North wrote just a few months agoin which he calls on the federal government to increase military spending:
But the Obama administration and their supporters
on Capitol Hill need to understand that when it comes to spending,
there are few things government can do that has a more immediate,
positive effect on jobs and the overall the economy than expenditures
on national defense.
Good point, Ollie. Perhaps the DoD could hire 30,000 new employees to
assist with the national defense. It might just be crazy enough to work.
Like any truly mediocre thinker, North does not anticipate the obvious
counterpoint to his sudden and disingenuous call for more mercenaries
on grounds of fiscal restraint - that price-gouging, late deliveries,
and shoddy worksmanship on the part of his beloved contractors have
already cost the American taxpayer billions in wasted dollars, with a
few of these incidents having resulted in injuries and even deaths
among our troops. Here is a man who cannot see two steps ahead of his
own argument and who does not seem to recall things he himself wrote
months ago or even just a few sentences prior, as if he were a goldfish
with thumbs and a keyboard and a crack pipe that works underwater.
North is not content to assail the federal government for doing what he
recently told it to do and to blast the mainstream media for things it
hasn't done - he is also compelled to attack the media for failing to
report things that it has reported countless times:
"Though its unlikely to make the lead story in any of the mainstream
media, contractors are performing tasks that U.S. government entities
either cannot do - or that cannot be done as economically."
Ready
for another parlor game? Google "civilian contractors Iraq" without
quotes and read the first two news stories that come up. You'll find a
CBS report from 2006 in which several contractors are interviewed about
the risks they faced in Iraq and the injuries that their swell
employers have refused to treat. The second is a CNN piece from 2004
that explains everything that North claims is unlikely to be explained
about the important role that contractors can play, and does so without
a single word of criticism. Spend a few more minutes searching and
you'll find plenty more stories in the same vein, all written and
published within the purview of the mainstream media, no doubt by
accident.
There are good reasons for the Pentagon to employ civilian contractors
and outside firms to assist with a variety of tasks both at home and
abroad; there are also good reasons to call attention to the problems
that have come up as a result. But there is no good reason to cry
"dolchstoss" when legitimate concerns are voiced by both media and
military; one would have to be an ignorant crypto-fascist like Oliver
North to behave in such a manner. That lets Oliver North off the hook,
I suppose.