Where Have All the $$$ Gone?

July 20, 2005

The [Government Accountability Office] has been examining the Pentagon’s Iraq expenses, and ”we’re having extreme difficulty in getting the Department of Defense to provide a full accounting of what they’re spending" there, Walker said. ”I can’t understand how we’re spending $1 billion a week.
GAO investigator rips Pentagon on Iraq war finances, Boston Globe, July 15, 2005

In my reporting for this story, one theme that emerged was the Bush Administration’s increasing tendency to turn to off-the-books covert actions to accomplish its goals. This allowed the Administration to avoid the kind of stumbling blocks it encountered in the debate about how to handle the elections: bureaucratic infighting, congressional second-guessing, complaints from outsiders.
GET OUT THE VOTE, The New Yorker, July 18, 2005

Posted by b on July 20, 2005 at 17:06 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Lovely juxtaposition, just lovely.

Posted by: Colman | Jul 20 2005 17:11 utc | 1

not totally OT
money makes the world go round

“Billions of U.S. arms sales to Afghanistan in the 1980s ended up empowering Islamic fundamentalist fighters across the globe,” notes report co-author William D. Hartung. “Our current policy of arming unstable regimes could have similarly disastrous consequences, with U.S.-supplied weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, insurgents, or hostile governments.”
“Perhaps no single policy is more at odds with President Bush’s pledge to ‘end tyranny in our world’ than the United States’ role as the world’s leading arms exporting nation, ” said Frida Berrigan, the report’s co-author. “Although arms sales are often justified on the basis of their purported benefits, from securing access to overseas military facilities to rewarding coalition partners, these alleged benefits often come at a high price.”
As in the case of recent decisions to provide new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan while pledging comparable high tech military hardware to its rival India, U.S. arms sometimes go to both sides in long brewing conflicts. And the tens of millions of U.S. arms transfers to Uzbekistan exemplify the negative consequences of arming repressive regimes.

Posted by: annie | Jul 20 2005 17:42 utc | 2

jeez

Posted by: annie | Jul 20 2005 18:00 utc | 3

From annie’s jeez link,
Arming undemocratic governments often helps to enhance their power, fueling conflict or enabling human rights abuses. These blows to the reputation of the United States are in turn impediments to winning the “war of ideas” in the Muslim world and beyond, undermining efforts to dry up financial and political support for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.

None of this should be a surprise to anyone. It simply confirms that the reptiles in charge have no credible “war of ideas” going at all. Increased conflict and instability is the unpublicised name of the game.
“undermining efforts to dry up… support for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda.”
is pure PR bullshit; there is nothing resembling such an effort in this administration.

Posted by: rapt | Jul 20 2005 18:30 utc | 4

Annie- I’m impressed we have a sensei among us. 🙂
You know, I wonder if I’m not underestimating the Cheney administration. Iraq is just act two, after the invasion of Afghanistan. But the plan to build bases in Iraq, even if they do not control the country, and the invasion of Afghan. and the hold on the capital, accomplishes another goal that I’d forgotten about.
Iran has the threat of an American presence on three sides: Afghan. Iraq, The Persian Gulf…
this guy has some good maps. His bit about Khazia sounds a bit off the wall, but who knows what lurks in the heart of Wolfie. I don’t know how sound any the other information is, either, but I can only remember one ship that the Navy has sent home…and maybe I’ve got that wrong too.
Considering this was posted back in 2003, I’d say that the Cheney administration is doing what it can to get its war on.

Posted by: fauxreal | Jul 21 2005 0:37 utc | 5

Back to Main