Charlotte's++2

 **Halliburton: the Profiteering and Privatizing of War? **

=
**Brief Summary and Overview ** =====

=
 Halliburton is the world's second largest oilfield services corporation with operations in more than 70 countries. It has close to 300 subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, brands and divisions worldwide and employs over 50,000 people. Until 2007, Halliburton worked with its subsidiary, KBR, a major construction company of refineries, oil fields pipelines, and chemical plants. With the start of the Iraq war, the Army awarded Halliburton a no bid contract in March 2003 to rebuild Iraq's oil industry infrastructure; this no bid contract created a firestorm as allegations began to fly that Dick Cheney was working for Halliburton, and that Halliburton was cashing in on its "revolving door." ======

=
 Halliburton ea-rns most of its money through "cost plus" contracts, where the corporation purchases anything necessary to complete the job, and is repaid by the government, plus a percentage for the commission; this type of job makes spending more lucrative, because as costs go up, so too do the percentage fees. ======

=
 Halliburton's largest contract is with the U.S army, and is known as "LOGCAP" (or Logistic Civil Augmentation Program). It is a "cost plus" contract to feed, house, and transport U.S troops in Iraq. The job is carried out by Halliburton's subsidiary, KBR. This contract has been largely controversial, as media and the public rant about this form of "privatized warfare," and the Military's dependence on the private sector. This page is going to examine both mainstream and citizen media coverage on the Halliburton's "privatized warfare" as seen in the Iraq war. ======

=
**Patriots and Profits **New York Times OP-ED by Paul Krugman ======

// "The biggest curb on profiteering in government contracts is the threat of exposure: sunshine is the best disinfectant. Yet it's hard to think of a time when U.S. government dealings have been less subject to scrutiny." // //"After 9/11 the U.S. media — which eagerly played up the merest hint of scandal during the Clinton years — became highly protective of the majesty of the office. As the stories I've cited indicate, they have become more searching lately. But even now, compare British and U.S. coverage of the Neil Bush saga."//

// "The point is that we've had an environment in which officials inclined to do favors for their business friends, and contractors inclined to pad their bills or do shoddy work, didn't have to worry much about being exposed. Human nature being what it is, then, the odds are that the troubling stories that have come to light aren't isolated examples." //

//"Harry Truman .. rose to prominence during WWII by leading a campaign against profiteering. Truman believed, correctly, that he was serving his country .. Franklin Roosevelt chose Truman as his vice president. George Bush, of course, chose Dick Cheney."//


 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">New York Times OP-ED: Opinion piece
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Demonstrates investigative skills through comments on news coverage of this event: tells the reader that in general, the media doesn't prod past government comments.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">OP-ED formatting: Krugman lays out the evidence, but also injects opinion.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Get historical frame of "military industrial complex" - not a fragmented news piece: adds legitimacy to point
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Liberal formatting
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Provides one sided view (no POV from a corporation) and lacks a intellectual debate on the pros/cons of Halliburton profiteering
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Strongly ideological
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Doesn't blame government/corporations for this "profiteering" phenomenon, rather, blame's media's lax investigative skills

Published: December 16, 2003
[|NYTimes OP-ED 12/16/2003]

====//<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif; text-align: center;">Pratap Chatterjee on "Halliburton’s Army: How a Well-Connected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized the Way America Makes War” //====

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Democracy Now! is an independent program of news, analysis, and opinion aired by more than 700 radio, television, and cable TV networks in North America. Below is a clip from a one hour "War and Peace Report," a weekly show by Amy Goodman.

media type="youtube" key="AwA7obevz4c" height="385" width="480" align="center"
 * ======<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Discussion on Democracy Now ======
 * ======<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Draws on book by Pretap Chatterjee - "Halliburton’s Army: How a Well-Connected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized the Way America Makes War” ======
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;"> "Halliburton's army" - provocative and catchy: meant to attract attention
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">opinion based, question-answer analysis: meant to denote intellectual debate, but in fact, just dual affirmation of single point
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Certainly bias from both ends: Halliburton's practice of profiteering despicable. No counter-opinion
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Uses visual of Titoko Savuwati to appeal to pathos of viewer
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Factual base: uses "change over time" phenomenon: Not "fragmented" news-media
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Uses catchy phrases and provocative sentence
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Phrases such as "excess" and "waste," in connection to Halliburton, alludes and reinforces corruption in Halliburton's spending
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">"Accountability" is the way to fixing problem - demonstrates resentment for Government blind-eye acceptance of Halliburton
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Ideological base backed with facts

February 9, 2009 http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/9/pratap_chatterjee_on_halliburtons_army_how

**<span style="background-color: #b5140d; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif; text-align: center;">Mainstream Media Coverage **
==<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif; text-align: center;">**<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">MSNBC ** ==

<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif; text-align: center;">Interview with Robert Greenwald, Director of Iraq for sale: The War Profiteers
media type="youtube" key="xr-VuxybIkU" height="385" width="480" align="center"
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">The title of the peace, "Blood Money," is dramatized
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Interview: question and answer based
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Relies on Ethos (credibility) of Robert Greenwald
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Dramatic air: the two men talk in a rushed, sincere way
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">References historical war profiteering: During Truman's time it was looked down upon and not embraced
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Uses provocative phrases to relay this development: "Back then, war profiteers were run out of town, now, they run the town"
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Pathos: watcher is meant to react to the fact that the "military morale is low due to the unfair private sector pay"
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Shows videos of Halliburton worker testifying about contaminated water. The worker cries; pathos evoker.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Other videos of Halliburton in Iraq: Dirty water, and tanks with Halliburton trucks in the back. Preys on logos because viewer sees dirty water and tanks, and connects it to Halliburton.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">"label placement" in videos: Halliburton logo placed on water containers etc.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Published Sep 19, 2006

**<span style="background-color: #b5140d; color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif; text-align: center;">Citizen Media Coverage **
==<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif; text-align: center;">Profitless Profiteering<span class="h1_subhead">; Why can't Halliburton make good money in Iraq? == <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif; text-align: center;"> By Daniel Gross <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Slate is a online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996.

//<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">"Is it war profiteering if you barely make a profit on your war work?" //
"//<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">In March 2003, the KBR unit of Halliburton the oil-services company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, controversially received huge no-bid contracts to provide a range of services in Iraq—everything from fixing oil fields to delivering fuel to feeding soldiers. For many administration critics, KBR's central role in the reconstruction of Iraq stands as evidence that the war in Iraq was a pretext for crony capitalists to grow fat on borrowed taxpayer dollars. ////<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">But here's the funny thing. So far, the Iraq war hasn't proved much of a boon for Halliburton's shareholders. Because of incompetence, the chaos of working in the war zone, and a contract that limits profits, KBR's margins on its hazardous work are pretty marginal." //

=
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">//Suppliers don't get paid and invoices are routinely lost. As KBR rushed into Iraq, "Many of its systems, from procurement to billing, got overloaded, creating a breeding ground for potential corruption and more inflated prices—not to mention inefficiency on a huge scale," Gold writes.// ======

KBR hasn't lost money on its sweetheart Iraq contracts—yet. It has made a small profit. But the amounts are nothing to write home about—and they're certainly not worth starting a war over.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Ideological bias against - favors corporate agenda (of profiteering)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Uses vague analysis of costs such as "pretty marginal" and "portion"
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Relies on vague proof in justifying article's point that Halliburton doesn't make a large profit
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Says, logistically, that it can be proved through profits, yet shows statistics only from KBR (needs comparative sums)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Says company can "earn performance bonuses" - but in reality, the cost plus programs are pre-set percentages that provide incentive for the company to spend
 * <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Badly structured - goes from arguing that profits are not reimbursed as much as they should because invoices are lost, to arguing that the the billing gets overloaded, "creating a breeding ground for potential corruption and more inflated prices." Stick with a story!

<span class="dateline" style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">

Published April 29, 2004,

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">[| Slate article]

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;"> Halliburton's largest contract is with the U.S. army, and is known as LOGCAP; It is a "cost plus program." that has been quite a contentious topic. As a company that has received fed. contracts since WWII, Halliburton's war-contract profits have been a highly contentious topic. As Eisenhower warned of the Military-Industrial complex in his farewell address of 1961, the country as further fallen into a period of privatized war, and the grand denouement of military self-sufficiency. We are in an age where military is profitable; this idea of "military profiteering from private sector corporations has been a hot topic; With the large contract that Halliburton received to rebuild Iraq's oil industry during the bush administration, the topic of "war profiteering," and fear of the biggest-yet "corporatocracy" has grown into a bigger-than ever issue. This page is dedicated an analysis of this idea of "war profiteering" as seen through the example of Halliburton and Iraq. Through two contrast examples of mainstream vs. citizen media, the way that this topic is investigated, digested, and delivered will be examined.
 * Introduction**

The first example is a comparison between a New York Times OP-ED "Patriots and Profits," and a citizen media site, "Democracy Now" video interview. The citizen media example, a ten minute excerpt from Democracy Now!, an independent radio/television/cable program, is an interview-type analysis of Pretap Chatterjee's book, "Halliburton's army: How a Well-Connected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized the Way America Makes War." The implications of these two articles, is that there is a general ideological bias; both oppose "wartime profiteering." But more specifically, there seems to be a different way by which the mainstream and citizen media support this. Mainstream, in this case supports its opposition by pointing out the change over time decay of Government opposition to this type of "iron triangle." Mainstream, too, seems to have a propensity of blaming the media itself for letting Gov contracting (outsourcing) become so corrupted by profit-driving. While mainstream blames itself, the Citizen media supports its argument by anecdotal evidence; smaller tales that are more likely to make one see the "moral decay." Not, so to speak, the "poor widow" type scenario, but rather, stories that are more relatable to the viewer (less colloquial, more vernacular). In affect, the New York Times effectively analyzes the situation, where as the citizen media site, though it points out the flaws in <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">Halliburton's means-end chain, does not vocalize how or why this type of corruption has run unchecked.
 * Example One**

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">**Example two** The mainstream example is a MSNBC video clip of Keith Olbermann in an interview discussion with the film-director of "Iraq for Sale," Robert Greenwald.” The interview, dramatically dubbed “blood money,” (a dark pun on Blood Diamond, no?) discusses the concept of corporate war profiteering, emphasizing the change over time phenomenon. Recalling, from the first mainstream example, the MSNBC clip, that also acknowledges the change that has occurred since Harry Truman's time in the Government's outlook towards wartime profiteering. The video goes on to show a heartfelt clip of an ex-Halliburton worker crying because he was "there to help [the troops]," but didn't properly serve his country; pathos if I've ever seen it. The viewer is meant to feel as if corporate profiteering is directly affecting them when Greenwald states that because the tax money is funding these cost plus contracts, hospitals aren't built! The black and white dramatized web that shows the connections between corporate elite and the federal elite is a form of visual manipulation that causes the viewer to see negative connotations. In effect, there is no doubt, from the blood diamond type title allusion, to the ex-Halliburton employee crying on the screen, that the clip ultimately relays an ideological bias.

The citizen media article, " Profitless Profiteering<span class="h1_subhead">; Why can't Halliburton make good money in Iraq?" <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">, is an article that opposes the other three in its ideological bias, arguing that there isn't profiteering because there isn't enough - to put it simply - profit.

The two examples were both ideologically biased. The former, holding more water weight with its solid evidence and non-fragmented media coverage of the situation, seems to be the better media source. However, this conclusion has been drawn off what may be a reader bias on my part, due to the fact that the ladder, a pro-corporate citizen media piece, explains its point of view in a capsulated way.

<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">What are the implications of the coverage of this topic; Krugman would argue that the coverage itself is the problem, and that the lack of media attention is what is allowing Halliburton's dubious profiteering agenda to survive. Pretap Chatterjee might argue that the problem with the coverage of this topic is the lack of morality, and the fiscal incentive on the part of the corporations. Robert Greenwald would in all likeliness state that the media had in fact joined in as an extra angle in the iron triangle, and would have dramatically draw lines connecting the private sector elite to government elite. Daniel Gross might argue that the problem is the lack of income, and that there is no profiteering problem to begin with. Conclusively, all these answers would be right. Realistically, they all lack an overarching element; the problem with the media coverage of this event (if one can even call it an event based on its longevity), is that these articles lack an overarching realization on the real problem. The articles did a good job when it came to showing what was happening on a contract/profit level, but none addressed what the outcome of this profite ering, neo-corporatocracy era phenomenon would have on our nations. What are the implications of this for our democracy? Will this type of privatization of war make us more cavalier about using our men to fight? Does this create a larger "marketization of war?" Beyond a title, MSNBC should have probed into the reality of "Blood Money;" What about its influence on our war-making decision?<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;"> Who is the government making decisions on behalf of? The people? The Corporations? Krugmanwas right when he said that transparency was the best solution to the problem, but where is that transparency? If the media is the investigative catalyst, than isn't it the journalists obligation to provide that very transparency? Sure, the media did a fantastic job when it came to making witty commentary about how ironic it was the Roosevelt chose Truman to be his VP, and Bush chose Cheney, but neither Mainstream or Citizen media asked the question of how to reverse this cycle.
 * Conclusion** <span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype','Book Antiqua',Palatino,serif;">

In conclusion, both media outlets demonstrated a general ideological bias. Though the four examples do not represent a wide enough spectrum to provide a complete analytical comparison on the two forms of media, there is a general difference between the two. Though the differences must can only be assessed by these limited examples, there is a general divergence in the way that the citizen media and mainstream media approach their views and biases. Citizen media has a general propensity of relying on overarching themes; relaying a story in the grand scope, which provides a less-than-expected media fragmentation. Mainstream, on the other hand, tended to package the "profiteering" topic into a capsulized 6 minute synopsis, relying on small stories that call to the pathos of readers. Which was better in this case? Citizen media. However, though citizen media was able to provide a better analysis of the subject matter, there is still that lack of legitimacy, which means that though citizen media maybe be //better in providing a more dynamic view of the topic,// mainstream beats it out in its credibility (ethos). A distilled, dramatized, radicalized opinion might say that for pathos, mainstream dominates, but for logos, citizen media dominates; but though logos may seem the more important of the two, it doesn't matter, because without ethos, a story lacks legitimacy - and therefore holds no weight. Though this might seem like a palpable analysis of the state of the citizen vs. mainstream media struggle, one has to realize that this is a conclusion being based off of four examples, and that this radical conclusion is made within the narrow confines of these singular coverages.
 * Final Comparative Note**