Explaining Iraq, pt. 4

Question #4: Isn't there rampant corruption going on?

A. Hell, yes. But before you get too upset, it's time to go through a little fun stuff I call subatomic physics.

No, don't stop reading. This isn't hard, and it makes sense. Just give me a chance. I promise not to use too much science to make my point.

There are these tiny things called atoms; that much you probably remember from your school days, even if you were asleep in your science classes. They are made up of three things: protons, neutrons, and electrons. And there are a bunch of smaller particles you only really care about if you're a physics geek, so we'll leave them be.
Hell, we'll even leave out the protons and the neutrons for a minute. Just the electrons, those tiny little buggers whirling around the nucleus, that's all we care about for this analogy.

We face a problem when studying this stuff. It's so damned small that even the light we might use to see it will zap it full of energy. So, we can either determine the charge of it, or determine where it is. The more we try to see exactly where it is, the less accurately we know how much energy it has. It's a give and take. You get something at one end, you've got to give at the other.

Now that we've got the notion of give and take out of the way, it's time to consider the money in Iraq. Or, if you prefer, the money in Katrina relief, because the two concepts are identical.

The more accountability you have over money, the slower its transfer. Anyone who'se ever applied for a home loan, a car loan, and a credit card will understand this. You can get a credit card approved while you're at the register at some department stores, if your credit rating is high enough. For a car loan, you're probably looking at anywhere from a half hour to four hours as all of the paperwork is processed. For a home loan, you're likely looking at days of processing, even if you're ready ahead of time.

When things are needed immediately, like during post-war reconstruction or when dealing with refugees from a devastating storm, the people with the money have two options: screen for those trying to scam the system, and in so doing risk letting the needy be further injured, perhaps even die, but drastically minimize waste and fraud; or just get the money out immediately, and in so doing recognize that the waste and fraud is going to be rampant, but that the money is going to get to the needy as well.

This is a fundamental truth. It has nothing to do wish someone intervening and skimming off the aid, such as happened with various warlords during Live Aid's attempt to curb African hunger; it's just a choice made at the onset. Everyone sensible recognized that there would be waste and fraud, and they were willing to accept it in order to get aid to the needy. That's true whether you're talking about wads of cash handed out to Iraqi citizens or emergency cash cards handed out to hurricane survivors.

I'm all for fiscal responsibility, but there's also importance in recognizing that when four people are starving and a fifth is just scamming a meal, you feed them all and try to ferret out the conniving bastard afterward.

There's where we have gone wrong in Iraq. The overwhelming amount of government contracts have been profitable for both citizenry and foreign workers, but even with that, some have engaged in fraud. The immediate fingers go toward Halliburton, and they deserve some of the blame: their subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root was involved in a few shady dealings early on, and rather than divest themselves of the company or even change out the leadership, they simply conducted internal sanctions against the subsidiary. This pissed off some Americans, who wondered why fraudsters weren't being prosecuted.

(The answer, for those who got upset but didn't bother to actually investigate, is that KBR is heavily staffed by Kuwaitis, including Kuwaiti nobles, and we really didn't want to alienate a significant political ally in the region. So we basically wrote off the money as aid money, or payoffs. Yes, that is offensive, but it's also done with dozens of other countries in the world, so it's not as unusual as one might like.)

Halliburton's no-bid contracts and ties to Dick Cheney made them an easy target for further attacks; the only problem is that it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Halliburton is earning a smaller profit in Iraq than just about any of the company's other projects, worldwide. It's not a cash cow for the company. Truthfully, we've pretty much forced them to stay there, under penatly of cancelling some of the company's other long-term governmental contracts. And those, many of which have been running for more than twenty years, ARE cash cows for Halliburton.

In a situation truly representative of American politics, they're being slammed for being sleazy in the one area where they're being upstanding, and given a pass for the areas where they're making exceptional profits due to sweetheart deals. The American public isn't dumb, but we are very inattentive.

But it's not just KBR. Other, smaller firms have conducted fraud as well... and been given a pass. The attitude seems to be that because of the danger posed in some of the provinces of Iraq, especially around Baghdad, we're afraid to prosecute examples of fraud for fear it will put off other outside contractors.

This is foolish. Fear of being nailed for fraud will only prevent the fraudulent contractors from working over there... and we don't want them there! They rip us off, and they do substandard work for a people we're trying to convince to give up their aggressions. It's a stupid policy decision, and has aided criticism by providing examples of unlawful behavior which have not been punished.

So, what's the upshot?

There's been a lot of corruption, but we knew there would be, and accepted it because we knew the alternative would be devastating. But when we found evidence of it, we haven't pursued the perps, and that has weakened support among the very people who are providing the money.