And you could just call yourself “Frank” like last time, or even “Frank di Salle” like you sometimes do for some reason.

I didn't say we weren't fighting al Qaeda ("I didn't say we were fighting al Qaeda, although they are included in the mixed bag of people we are fighting")

It is absolutely wrong to say that even an uneducated Iraqi was "indifferent to us before" with an anti - American Ba'athist as head of state.

He was so desperate to establish Islamofascist "creds" he (Hussein) slapped a Islamic looking crescent on Iraq's previously sectarian looking flag.

You are only right about one small point -- for all I know, you are unaware of it. The desert peoples of the Middle East are noted for having prodigious "historical memories". All the people who were killed by Hussein, as well as by the coalition, will be remembered for a long, long time.

But, if you remember, Tito kept all this potential historical internecine violence under control. Sure, he was a dictator, but it was accomplished without too much bloodshed or repression.

Before writing the Iraqis off as unable to control their urge to kill each other, we might be wise to teach them why that would be unprofitable as well as having a high price in lives.

There are several plans to hold the Iraqis together. Right now, they are getting little or no publicity.

Here’s one

No doubt, when the Democrats are officially ensconced in 2007, or if they, miraculously, win the White House in 2008, those Plans will mysteriously appear, and be named “Exit Strategies” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

1) too much overall - more than half of discretionary spending
2) too much on heavy arms that serve no purpose in today’s war - F-22
3) too much on poorly executed contracts - Osprey
4) too much on poorly drafted contracts - Haliburton

The MIC is wrapped up in all of these things. Dugger, you are trying to make an argument about the last two items without accounting for the bigger picture.

fdxxxxx, or whatever your name is. If we are not attacking al Qaeda - thank you for acknowledging it by the way - what the hell are we doing over there and for whom? If we are trying to make new enemies of either radical Shiites or Baathists or whatever - people who were largely indifferent to us before - by counting their bodies and using those as markers for our success, how long do you think their children, parents, neighbors, tribe will hold a grudge?

Easy. Not saying we ever ‘like’ sole source, cost plus, BOA etc but sometimes they are the only way to get a contractor to do something. Why? Because the requested action/effort may be extremely risky dollar-wise or technology wise to the contractor. He flat won’t bid on it unless he is protected in some way - which cost plus does. In DOD if you don’t use an instrument at times, the job flat can’t be done becasue contractors won’t bid on it. The type on instrument makes a huge difference sometimes.

How do “cost plus” contracts ever squeeze anything other than the taxpyers? What incentive does Halliburton have to keep costs down if they know that no matter how high they go, they still get the same profit?

I’m not a fan of the “low bid wins” method of awarding contracts. But I’m also not the one who said “the military is always trying to squeeze extra effort at no cost out of them.”

Wasn’t a dodge. No one has ever shown Halliburton was a bad or inappropriate choice.

And it isn’t quite as easy as just deciding who can deliver an Osprey on budget. Generally, the answer is nobody can. Contractor A can give you a 90% Osprey (the Osprey you want is usually unobtainable - you ask for the best possible on paper and take the best available in reality)at 120% budget. Contractor B can give you 95% of an Osprey at 130%. Neither will be able to do it on schedule. Thats reality.

Furthermore contractors like Halliburton are often the only ones with the full capability and resources (proven- anybody could ’say’ they ccould do the joba nd buy in) available to do the types of complex, multi-purpose jobs in Iraq. And importantly, it might take four years for another contractor to fully gear up and hire and acquire needed people and stuff to do what Halliburtobncan do today. Sole source takes about 1/4 time to award as competiton. Put it all together and you see why the services do what they do at times. Its never as easy as the critics would have you believe.

More revisionist history, and a recipe for partition. Definitely liked this part:

Would such a savage tilt against Iraq’s Sunni Arabs bring Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia into the war? This is unlikely

Actually, this is delusional. Rich Saudis are already bankrolling the Sunni resistance to a certain degree. That support would likey become institutional should the recommendations in that article become policy.

The only worthwhile thing in the article?

Like the late General Pinochet, Mr. Bush might be advised to never leave the country again for fear of arrest.

Classic…

Rather than asking which contractor can better deliver an Osprey on budget, why not have some oversight about whether we need the friggin thing in the first place. The MIC is both about the pigs at the trough and about whether we should have a government diet composed mainly of pork.

So nihilistic, would you do away with all sole source contracts. Hint to save embarrassment: think before you answer.

I’ll make it harder: if there are two qualified contractors, would you insist on competiton regardless of all other consdierations and award to low bidder?

(fish in a barrel)

On the topic of Iraq, here are some very interesting ideas:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121806A

Is that why Haliburton gets no-bid cost-plus contracts?

I don’t understand why liberals (please don’t waste your time denying it by call yourself a progressive or something equally evasive) are so quick to resort to profanity and insults before they have even grasped the full content of a person’s remarks.

It gives lie to the purported liberals’ talk of tolerance and openmindedness. And it happens here so often that it can’t be an anomaly.

(I guess now we know why Kerry was for it before he was against it. Yeah, great, send a whole bunch of money to Iraq and don’t pay any attention to where it’s coming from or where it goes! And destroy the civil service so no one is keeping track, either! Wheee!)

Indeed I’m telling you there is military, and there is industry. There are common interests and there are divergent interests. In the USAF, I butted heads with contractors (industry) constantly. Nobody ever ever told me where the secret governing cabal of the MIC actually met. Fact is, the contractors are always at war (business) against each other. Fact is, the military is always trying to squeeze extra effort at no cost out of them.

When you say stupid shit like “terrorists of all stripes and descriptions,” it is an announcement to the world that you don’t understand the issues.