Should the military contractors be nationalized?

[JackRiddler]

Poll question: Should the military contractors be nationalized?

Remove the profit incentive from war and preparation for war.

The innovative forces unleashed by a free market should no longer be directed toward creating the next generation of mass-death weaponry, or maintaining an international market for such tools. Let the capital flow elsewhere.

We've paid enough, to the point of bankruptcy, and in lives lost to military interventionism and its predictable consequences of instability and blowback.

Halliburton is now headquartered in Abu Dubai?*

Nationalize the contractors and scale back the war machine. Take measures to shut down the war trade internationally. Negotiate arms reductions with all other powers, in all regions. Start closing the bases and bringing the troops home. Put the savings into energy and transport conversion.

Discuss. Kick. Thanks.

[JackRiddler]

1. The footnote: *

Yes, I know Halliburton has spun off Brown and Root, presumably to forestall accusations that a US military contractor is now headquartered in a foreign country in the main military theater in which the US is waging war and maintaining a military occupation. Spun off means the owners start out being the same set. Do you really believe the interests of the two will not remain enmeshed?

[stillcool]

2. They should stick to the

Global Corporate Interests they represent. I think the outsourcing of government contracts should be limited to U.S. Corporations that do not have contracts with foreign governments. I don't know about 'nationalized'. What would that mean? Wouldn't they then just be 'the military'? I do think the laws regarding the Pentagon, and the Defense Industry need to be frigging demolished, and start all over.

[notesdev]

3. Don't be naive

A nationalized military industry will suck up no fewer dollars than a private one, and will be no more accountable.

The problem is not the ownership of those industries but the process by which the military budget is bloated with waste by Congressmen "bringing home the bacon".

[JackRiddler]

5. I understand nationalization differently then...

It would be done explicitly within a policy of reducing the size of the military, as described above.

But perhaps cancel the contracts and let them whither is better!

[notesdev]

9. How could you pass that?

Military budget largess is a major instrument by which Congressmen - both houses, both sides of the aisle - buy their re-elections.

They're not going to get behind a policy that restricts their ability to do that. We would need to replace 2/3rds of people in federally elected offices in order to construct a coalition with the power to reduce the military budget significantly. And even if we do, it will be easier to reduce private military industry than a federal industry, the feds then aren't responsible to figure out something to do with all those people as they would in reducing a nationalized industry.

[JackRiddler]

10. Convincing argument, but what about... ?

I don't entirely buy this 'Congressional largesse' argument. They could be spending money on anything else, and bring even more jobs and cash to their districts (military is capital intensive).

Ask yourself: What created the atmosphere in which spending on alternative energies or education or health, all of which create a lot more jobs than military, is a waste, but military spending is both dandy and necessary?

Who writes fear scenario after fear scenario to justify military spending? Hint: a lot of them are private contractors and think-tanks funded by private contractors or their shareholders.

Who gets to employ and enrich beyond all proportion the Pentagon officials and generals when they go through the revolving door to the not-so private sector?

Of course corporate profit incentive is a factor in all of these.

I wouldn't want to be seeing nationalization as a business proposition, but as a way of decapitating the war profiteering and scaling back these industries.

[notesdev]

11. All that would happen

Is that you'd have to pay for another big bureaucracy on top of all the costs we're paying now. Put in a federal military industry, it will subcontract out everything but management to private corporations, as federal departments do today. Nothing will change except for adding a new class of people who get to profiteer by beating war drums.

[Thothmes]

13. IMO, a poor idea

Most people on this forum think of Haliburton or GE when they think military contractors. It goes much deeper than that that. Burgerking contracts with the DOD for services, do we want the Govt to be running BurgerKing. The small machineshop down the road has a contract with SupShips for machine work. Do we want the Govt taking over this 8 man operation. Thousands of businesses in this country do contract work for DOD, that makes them defense contractors. They employ many many thousands of Amercian workers. Lets cancel the contracts and put them all out of business.

[JackRiddler]

16. Okay, fine...

Nationalization of the weapons-making divisions of the major contractors in the military sector, obviously not everyone in logistics or, as you point out, Burger King. (!!!)

[Oregone]

4. Screw nationalizing. Just revoke all contracts and let them wither.

We should only nationalize it if we needed it in the future. Lets work on eliminating the need for it.

[JackRiddler]

8. An even better idea, perhaps. However...

There is the problem of how, long as they are private, they will do their damndest to reverse such a policy, to sell arms everywhere, and to create instability around the world.

[hogwyld]

6. I say, bring every single American troop

that's serving overseas, back home, cancel all military spending except for payrolls, and let's fix this country so that we no longer need to go to war for oil.

[jody]

7. The process of contracting-out has been aggressively pursued since the Carter administration. IMO

the supporting cost-benefit analysis that always seems to conclude "privatize a military function" are flawed because of the underlying assumptions.

In the past two years, Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) that is exempt from the Federal Acquisition Request to lease out DoD housing for 50 years so private companies can operate military housing for profit.

That's another instance of privatization endorsed by Democratic and Republican senators and congresspersons.

[Wizard777]

12. No: We need to go back to a self sufficient military.

We need to quit this bull shit of having wars catered. I mean really! What candy ass shitin yellow snot nosed brat has a War catered? :eyes: Oh yeah, That one.......

[dysfunctional press]

15. Ding! Ding! Ding!...a winner!

nt

[MrCoffee]

19. There's the correct answer.

[Uncle Joe]

20. I agree on all counts. I also believe the biggest reason they don't

is because it becomes less accountable to have private corporations do it and one thing that candy ass shitin yellow snot nosed brat believes in is less accountability.

[dysfunctional press]

14. only if by "nationalized" you mean shot for treason.

nt

[JackRiddler]

17. The two have often gone together...

:evilgrin:

[JackRiddler]

18. kickie