Edwards on Contractors

Later today, John Edwards is going to be speaking in Portsmouth where he will, among other things, say "We clearly need fundamental reform of our system for providing security contractors in Iraq and other places" and present a plan for doing so based on the classic five bullet-point model:

• Establishing Strong Quality Control and Accountability Measures
• Implementing a Formal Evaluation of the Role of Contractors
• Removing Cronyism out of Security Contracts
• Expanding Legal Oversight and Prosecutions
• Reestablishing a Democratic Military

As best I understand this admittedly somewhat vague preview I've been given, this actually turns out to be a surprisingly measured policy -- a "mend it, don't end it" -- approach to the contractor abuse issue. That may well be correct, though it seems to me that part of mending it ought to be some actual reduction in the scale on which contractors are used. Maybe that's what "reestablishing a democratic military" means, though.

Comments

You call this 'policy'? It's just a bunch of talking points, and not a very good one either.

Posted by abb1 | October 3, 2007 8:10 AM

If he can not come outright and say get rid of the contractors, then his whole point is useless.

I find even in the most enlightened members of the US political, media and economic elite there is still a sense of exceptionalism. The idea that Edwards will not come flat out and say get rid of them, or list it as his number one priority indicates that he has imbibed some of the Kool Aid - at some level, the Blackwaters of the world is needed by the US.

Posted by Don | October 3, 2007 8:15 AM

I was trying to read the bullet points and for some reason I parsed 'Romoving Cronyism' and 'Expanding Legal Oversite' as 'Expanding Full Acronyms...'.

So I am totally guessing that Edwards, not doing so well in the polls, is pressing for victory on the wonk front by spreading mass confusion ('More Wonk, Less Talk!').

max
['The abbster is right.']

Posted by max | October 3, 2007 8:16 AM

That Edwards didn't feel it was appropriate to note that hiring mersonaries is the height of madness in truly beyond me (I don't follow his campaigning so maybe he did it elsewhere). Logic and history would suggest that this is a very dangerous "game" and I don't think any politician would be going out on a limb to point this out, BLUNTLY.

My fears (sometimes irrational, I admit) that an all voluntary military may result in a military that is less representative of the general population is dwarfed by my nightmare that we'll continue to rely on a "private" army. The images, statements, and background of that Price fella (can you say creepy, dangerous fundamentalist nutbag) just don't give me the warm fuzzies...

Posted by Rihilism | October 3, 2007 9:05 AM

Despite my bleak and unfounded portrait of Vincent Price, I meant to say, Prince.

Posted by Rihilism | October 3, 2007 9:08 AM

I guess Point 6 Bring Back The Draft doesn't poll well. The volunteer military is breaking down. In Korea and Vietnam, you'd do one year long combat tour and then you were done. Now soldiers are sent back to Iraq for tour after tour, its like some kind of sick psychology project to see how much combat the mind can take before it snaps. I find it impossible to believe the current system is more equitable than sending draftees in for a single tour each.

Since Bush screwed the pooch by not bringing back the draft when he could (immediately after 9/11), the only way we can relieve pressure on our servicemen is to hire more Hessians. Therefore, no candidate will call for PMCs to be banned from war zones.

Posted by beowulf | October 3, 2007 9:18 AM

Johnny Come Lately strikes again. Barack Obama introduced legislation in February and got it enacted last week.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.674:

This was agreed to in the Senate as S.Amdt.3073

Posted by Geek, Esq. | October 3, 2007 9:21 AM