Buy Tom's Books
  • Great Powers: America and the World After Bush
    Great Powers: America and the World After Bush
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating
    Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century
    The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • Romanian and East German Policies in the Third World: Comparing the Strategies of Ceausescu and Honecker
    Romanian and East German Policies in the Third World: Comparing the Strategies of Ceausescu and Honecker
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 1): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 1): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 2): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 2): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 3): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 3): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 4): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 4): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 5): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 5): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Emily V. Barnett
Search the Site
Powered by Squarespace
Monthly Archives

Recommend Filing under naÔve (Email)

This action will generate an email recommending this article to the recipient of your choice. Note that your email address and your recipient's email address are not logged by this system.

EmailEmail Article Link

The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.

Article Excerpt:

ìPhantom Legions For Iraq,î by Jim Hoagland, Washington Post, 4 Aug, p. A19.

ì$1.9 Billion of Iraqís Money Goes to U.S. Contractors,î by Ariana Eunjung Cha, WP, 4 Aug, p. A1.

Jim Hoagland writes with some incredulity about how the House of Saud seeks to influence U.S. presidential elections.

Can you imagine?

I canít remember the United States ever trying to influence other nationsí national elections before. Really, how dare they?

I mean, just because weíre the worldís sole military superpower, does it make sense that countries all over the world are keenly interested in who gets elected President here? Enough so theyíd try to do something about it?

God! I just must be so naÔve!

Like when I was working for the U.S. Agency for International Development in the 1990s and I realized that many of the contracts USAID gave out for development projects in failed states around the world actually went to U.S. firms!

Again, really, how dare they?

Certainly, any failed state must possess a host of well-run companies capable of running large-scale development projects, right? Wasnít Iraq just loaded with them after all those years of Saddamís rule?

The story on Halliburton is not that they won big contracts, because they are an industry leader. Nor is the story that they got those contracts without competition. When the U.S. Government wants deals cut fast, they do that all the time.

Whatís the issue on Halliburton is whether or not they did a good job. If they did, then all these criticisms are meaningless. And if they didnít, then all these criticisms are still meaningless, because the real point here is that the U.S. Government and ANY contractors it used in Sys Admin ops need to get a whole lot more efficient in their efforts than was demonstrated so far in Iraq.

The focus on process here is wrong, the focus on performance is dead on. But the answers we come up with canít be about labeling Halliburton the devil, but instead need to be about how weíre going to organize the Defense Department to handle the Sys Admin jobs of the futureóand yes, there will be plenty of them no matter what happens with Iraq or Bush-Cheney.


Article Link:
Your Name:
Your Email:
Recipient Email:
Message: