Iraq war may cost U.S. trillions

[W*GS]

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10495

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hmmmm.....trillions. :pity:

Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, GE, Lockheed Martin, et al, must be extremely happy with their purchase (read: Bush and the GOP Congress.)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Over 1 trillion alone for VA care as of now, not counting future American casualties. Bush should be imprisoned for this alone.

[Rascal]

Hmmmm.....trillions. :pity:

Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, GE, Lockheed Martin, et al, must be extremely happy with their purchase (read: Bush and the GOP Congress.)

Lockheed Martin...how have they benefited from it?

[alkemical]

Probably due to contracts for orders.

[alkemical]

rascal - orders for what?


You do know what lockheed martin does as a company, correct?

[Rascal]

rascal - orders for what?


You do know what lockheed martin does as a company, correct?

I work with Lockheed on a daily basis.

I assumed you were talking about orders for planes but I wanted you to clarify because the number of orders for planes has decreased since the Iraq war...not increased.

[alkemical]

they also sell weapons parts too if i am not mistaken.

[Rascal]

they also sell weapons parts too if i am not mistaken.

Yes they also deal in missles to be exact, but do you or LABF have the numbers for the amount that's been ordered? I'm looking for something to back up his claim that Lockheed has been a big beneficiary for the Iraq War cause frankly I don't see it.

[alkemical]

How's the stock doing?

[Rascal]

Since 2003 the price is up roughly 12 dollars per share and since 1999 their net income has risen 29%...an average of 5.8% increase per year.

Only have data through 2004. 2005 data is not on their website.

[alkemical]

Wartime is good for stocks then. I do understand that they have vested interests in sattilites too - which with all the homeland security stuff and cellphone sats going up that is a big business as well.

[Rascal]

How did the US stocks do during WWII?

[alkemical]

I'm sure companies that dealt with goods consumable by the military did quite well.

[Rascal]

Wartime is good for stocks....I guess you can count Sonic as a beneficiary of the Iraq War then as their stock has gone up 11 dollars since 2003.

Stock price does not correlate into being a beneficiary of the Iraq war and you have shown zero proof to say that Lockheed has benefited from it.

[alkemical]

Wartime is good for stocks....I guess you can count Sonic as a beneficiary of the Iraq War then as their stock has gone up 11 dollars since 2003.

Stock price does not correlate into being a beneficiary of the Iraq war and you have shown zero proof to say that Lockheed has benefited from it.


LOL just as you have shown no proof they haven't. :)

Considering they are a benificary of the missle defense contract(s), and not to mention that i'm sure we are using more missles during war than not during war - i'm safe to bet that lockheed has bettered themselves with defense contracts during wartime.

Not to mention the $1b they recieve for plant closings and relocations.... (corporate welfarists they are)

[Rascal]

LOL just as you have shown no proof they haven't. :)

Considering they are a benificary of the missle defense contract(s), and not to mention that i'm sure we are using more missles during war than not during war - i'm safe to bet that lockheed has bettered themselves with defense contracts during wartime.

Not to mention the $1b they recieve for plant closings and relocations.... (corporate welfarists they are)

The missle defense contract is not related to Iraq.

Since the initial onslaught and the occasional use, the # of missles used has not been high.

BTW...the burden of proof isn't on me since I'm not the one who made the claim :thumbsup:

[alkemical]

The missle defense contract is not related to Iraq.

Since the initial onslaught and the occasional use, the # of missles used has not been high.

BTW...the burden of proof isn't on me since I'm not the one who made the claim :thumbsup:


Sure it is, you claim it is not - and yes - the missle defense system is RELATED TO WAR TIME (War on terror, lest how you rightwingers forget those pesky details), less it wouldn't have been passed if 9/11 had not happened. Not to mention most of the contracts are classified due to having 'contractor' secrets - it's not open domain to find those numbers.

But here's some examples:

The U.S. Navy on Tuesday said it awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. an $869 million contract to fund continued production of Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles in fiscal year 2006

___
A new world of transit security in New York City began to take form this morning, as officials disclosed plans to saturate the transit system with 1,000 video cameras, 3,000 motion detectors and a wide array of sophisticated gadgets, all intended to buffer the city's subways, bridges and tunnels from a terror attack.


____
US: Jets, IT Drive Lockheed Gains
by Renae Merle, Washington Post
April 28th, 2004

Lockheed Martin Corp. reported a 16 percent jump in first-quarter profit yesterday as demand for fighter aircraft and information technology continued to boost sales.


But it's ok to deny, i already know you are intellecutally dishonest by nature, i wouldn't expect you to try to hold any form of converstation with me. I sink your battleship time after time..

[elsid13]

The 1 and 2 tier defense contractor hate this war because ruins potential profits. First there is only so much monies Congress allocates to DoD, and most of that is allocated to military and civilian pay, health care, military housing, ect. That leave only small amount in DoD that be used weapons systems and platforms. The GWOT, Iraq and Afghanistan cost cut into those new weapons and tools(which they buy from folks like LM, NG, BEA). Most of the money going to bullets, armor and other stuff were not a lot of profit. Once Congress stop provided supplemental funding, the DoD is going to be cash crunch and procurement is going to be tight. So war is bad for contractors

While all this is going on, we are trying to make up for procurement holiday that occurred in 90s under Bush and Clinton. Our ships, tanks, planes are getting old and wearing out.

[alkemical]

The 1 and 2 tier defense contractor hate this war because ruins potential profits. First there is only so much monies Congress allocates to DoD, and most of that is allocated to military and civilian pay, health care, military housing, ect. That leave only small amount in DoD that be used weapons systems and platforms. The GWOT, Iraq and Afghanistan cost cut into those new weapons and tools(which they buy from folks like LM, NG, BEA). Most of the money going to bullets, armor and other stuff were not a lot of profit. Once Congress stop provided supplemental funding, the DoD is going to be cash crunch and procurement is going to be tight. So war is bad for contractors

While all this is going on, we are trying to make up for procurement holiday that occurred in 90s under Bush and Clinton. Our ships, tanks, planes are getting old and wearing out.


Considering Lockheed/Boeing not only get defense contracts, but corporate welfare for other issues - i'd say they make a tidy profit from the US people.

[elsid13]

Considering Lockheed/Boeing not only get defense contracts, but corporate welfare for other issues - i'd say they make a tidy profit from the US people.


OK, if Lockheed and Boeing are making money and providing quality product to defend our troop and this nation why is that bad? The companies and their subs and suppliers work in same nation as we do? They want jobs, to feed their families, etc. IT not like the money is flowing out of the US.

[W*GS]

Considering Lockheed/Boeing not only get defense contracts, but corporate welfare for other issues - i'd say they make a tidy profit from the US people.

Why limit the discussion to big defense companies? Why not Office Depot/Office Max/Staples, for example?

Should the government buy things it needs from private companies, or (say) create all its own #2 pencils for bureaucratic consumption?

[Rascal]

Sure it is, you claim it is not - and yes - the missle defense system is RELATED TO WAR TIME (War on terror, lest how you rightwingers forget those pesky details), less it wouldn't have been passed if 9/11 had not happened. Not to mention most of the contracts are classified due to having 'contractor' secrets - it's not open domain to find those numbers.

But here's some examples:

The U.S. Navy on Tuesday said it awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. an $869 million contract to fund continued production of Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles in fiscal year 2006

___
A new world of transit security in New York City began to take form this morning, as officials disclosed plans to saturate the transit system with 1,000 video cameras, 3,000 motion detectors and a wide array of sophisticated gadgets, all intended to buffer the city's subways, bridges and tunnels from a terror attack.


____
US: Jets, IT Drive Lockheed Gains
by Renae Merle, Washington Post
April 28th, 2004

Lockheed Martin Corp. reported a 16 percent jump in first-quarter profit yesterday as demand for fighter aircraft and information technology continued to boost sales.


But it's ok to deny, i already know you are intellecutally dishonest by nature, i wouldn't expect you to try to hold any form of converstation with me. I sink your battleship time after time..

So now you are resorting to name calling...how quaint.

You sure those fighter purchases were US?

Oh...and BTW I work on those classified contracts so I am aware of the numbers involved.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Since 2003 the price is up roughly 12 dollars per share and since 1999 their net income has risen 29%...an average of 5.8% increase per year.

Only have data through 2004. 2005 data is not on their website.

Their stock has risen about 20% since '03.

Haliburton has gone up from about $17 in '03 to over $65.


Stock price does not correlate into being a beneficiary of the Iraq war and you have shown zero proof to say that Lockheed has benefited from it.
LOL
See Haliburton and all other Bush/Cheney companies and friends that are becoming billionaires from Bush's little war.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lockheed Martin...how have they benefited from it?

Lockheed Martin

The world's #1 military contractor, responsible for the U-2 and SR-71 spy planes, F-16, F/A-22 fighter jet, and Javelin missiles. They've also made millions through insider trading, falsifying accounts, and bribing officials.

CEO: Vance D. Coffman

Military contracts 2004: $20.7 billion

Campaign contributions in 2004: $1.78 million (defense related) $1.9 million (total)

This Bethesda, Maryland-based company is the world's #1 military contractor as well as the world’s largest arms exporter. Lockheed Martin built the U-2 and the SR-71 Blackbird spy planes. Today they make F-16, F/A-22 jet fighter, Hellfire and Javelin missiles, as well as designing nuclear weapons. Its F-117 stealth attack fighters were used to “shock and awe” the population of Iraq at the start of the US invasion, while since the start of that war the Air Force has increased production of Lockheed’s PAC-3 Patriot missile – which cost $91 million per copy.

According to the Arms Trade Resource Center, Lockheed Martin gets $105 from each U.S. taxpayer and $228 from each U.S. household. In 2002 the company was effectively taxed at 7.7% compared to an average tax rate for individuals of 21-33%.

In late 2001 the company was awarded the world's largest weapons contract ever, a $200 billion deal to build the Joint Strike Fighter, a "next-generation" combat jet that eventually will replace aircraft used by the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. In the last few years the SEC has investigated Lockheed for insider trading and falsifying their accounts.

Lockheed Martin did not win the contract on force of personality alone, or fighter plane design. During the calendar year 2000, Lockheed Martin spent more than $9.8 million lobbying members of Congress and the Clinton administration, more than double the $4.2 million the company spent during 1999. Among the company's newest lobbyists: Haley Barbour, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Lockheed Martin contributed just over $2.7 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties. More than two-thirds of that money went to Republicans. Lockheed Martin spends more on lobbying Congress than any of its competitors, spending a whopping $9.7 million in 2002. Only General Electric and Philip Morris reported more lobbying expenses. And in the 2004 election cycle, Lockheed contributed more than $1.9 million.

Lockheed has also been able to exercise its influence in a larger way – in support of the invasion of Iraq. The company’s former vice-president Bruce Jackson chaired the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, a bipartisan group formed to promote Bush’s plan for war in Iraq. Bruce Jackson was also involved in corralling the support for the war from Eastern European countries, going so far as helping to write their letter of endorsement for military intervention. Not surprisingly, Lockheed also has business relations with these countries. In 2003 Poland shelled out $3.5 billion for 48 F-16 fighter planes, which it was able to buy with a $3.8 billion loan from the US.

In 1976 Lockheed paid millions of dollars to Japanese government officials to smooth the way for the sale of Lockheed's airplanes to a Japanese airline corporation, All Nippon Airways. They paid Japanese gangster and yakuza chief Kodama Yoshio $2.1 million in payoffs to help them sell their new wide-bodied passenger airplane, the TriStar L1011, against stiff competition from Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas. Kodama relied on familiar yakuza techniques to force the resignation of Tetsuo Oba, president of All Nippon Airways. At a stockholders' meeting, Kodama packed the room with "sokaiya" -- financial specialists -- who leaked information about an illegal $1 million loan which had been paid to Oba. In disgrace, ANA's president stepped down to be replaced by a candidate favorable to Kodama's interests.

The former prime minister, the former minister of transportation, and the former parliamentary vice-minister of transportation were arrested and prosecuted. The former prime minister was sentenced to four years imprisonment with forced labor but he died while the case was in the Supreme Court.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=9

[Rascal]

Their stock has risen about 20% since '03.

Haliburton has gone up from about $17 in '03 to over $65.


LOL
See Haliburton and all other Bush/Cheney companies and friends that are becoming billionaires from Bush's little war.

I already said their stock has gone up roughly 11 dollars since 2003.

Never said anything about Haliburton.

[Rascal]

Today they make F-16, F/A-22 jet fighter

How many F-16's have we bought since the Iraq war? How many reductions in planned purchases of F/A-22 have their been since the Iraq war?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How many F-16's have we bought since the Iraq war? How many reductions in planned purchases of F/A-22 have their been since the Iraq war?

How would the two figures you're asking for be relevant in the broader context of the article I posted (you did read the article, didn't you?) and in reference to my original statement?

Remember - my original statement was "I'll bet Lockheed Martin, et al, are happy about purchasing themselves a president," or words to that effect.

The article I posted, taken in totality, supports this contention in a big way.

F-16s and F/A-22s aren't the only contracts owned by LM - far from it. (See article.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Forget about your F-16s for just a second and read these excerpts from the article, rascal:

Its F-117 stealth attack fighters were used to “shock and awe” the population of Iraq at the start of the US invasion, while since the start of that war the Air Force has increased production of Lockheed’s PAC-3 Patriot missile – which cost $91 million per copy.

According to the Arms Trade Resource Center, Lockheed Martin gets $105 from each U.S. taxpayer and $228 from each U.S. household. In 2002 the company was effectively taxed at 7.7% compared to an average tax rate for individuals of 21-33%.

In late 2001 the company was awarded the world's largest weapons contract ever, a $200 billion deal to build the Joint Strike Fighter, a "next-generation" combat jet that eventually will replace aircraft used by the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. In the last few years the SEC has investigated Lockheed for insider trading and falsifying their accounts...

More at link:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=9

[Rascal]

Good find LABF.

My question is how much has it increased production of the patriot missle? By 1%, 10%, what?

And the JSF was planned long before the war.

And the comment on Lockheed winning the contract not because of it's personality or fighter plane design is pure speculation. Have you actually compared the two designs (if so I'd like to know how you got the clearance)?

Regarding Poland...at least we got our money back :). I guess I would prefer that the US to build F-16's (thus creating jobs/revenue for our workers here)for a foreign country (see Israel also BTW) then give away nuclear secrets. :poke:

I haven't heard of the 1976 incident, but almost every company has some dark moments in it's history and does not always reflect it's current standing.

I don't know enough of the tax situation to make a comment, but I do wonder what the average corporation of their size pays in taxes % wise. Basically I'm wondering if it is Lockheed alone.

[alkemical]

OK, if Lockheed and Boeing are making money and providing quality product to defend our troop and this nation why is that bad? The companies and their subs and suppliers work in same nation as we do? They want jobs, to feed their families, etc. IT not like the money is flowing out of the US.


So making billions of dollars a year, and then having the audcity to say "hey can you give us $1b uncle sam, we are going to close a base, and we think the taxpayers should pay for it, and not us, it would hurt our bottom line."

[alkemical]

Why limit the discussion to big defense companies? Why not Office Depot/Office Max/Staples, for example?

Should the government buy things it needs from private companies, or (say) create all its own #2 pencils for bureaucratic consumption?


Wags,

Come on now - i'm not falling into your loophole argument.

[alkemical]

So now you are resorting to name calling...how quaint.

You sure those fighter purchases were US?

Oh...and BTW I work on those classified contracts so I am aware of the numbers involved.


I called you a rightwinger, if that gets you riled up (since i'm on your ignore list) you are weak.

Well if the NAVY said they are giving the contract to Lockheed - i'd probably have to assume yes.

Fact is you are intellectually dishonest and when you get cornered you bail and become a whimp. Go back to arguing with LABF, you only like to use rhetoric, you never actually have substance.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And the comment on Lockheed winning the contract not because of it's personality or fighter plane design is pure speculation.

No, it isn't.

Lockheed Martin did not win the contract on force of personality alone, or fighter plane design. During the calendar year 2000, Lockheed Martin spent more than $9.8 million lobbying members of Congress and the Clinton administration, more than double the $4.2 million the company spent during 1999. Among the company's newest lobbyists: Haley Barbour, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Lockheed Martin contributed just over $2.7 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties. More than two-thirds of that money went to Republicans. Lockheed Martin spends more on lobbying Congress than any of its competitors, spending a whopping $9.7 million in 2002. Only General Electric and Philip Morris reported more lobbying expenses. And in the 2004 election cycle, Lockheed contributed more than $1.9 million.

Lockheed has also been able to exercise its influence in a larger way – in support of the invasion of Iraq. The company’s former vice-president Bruce Jackson chaired the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, a bipartisan group formed to promote Bush’s plan for war in Iraq. Bruce Jackson was also involved in corralling the support for the war from Eastern European countries, going so far as helping to write their letter of endorsement for military intervention. Not surprisingly, Lockheed also has business relations with these countries. In 2003 Poland shelled out $3.5 billion for 48 F-16 fighter planes, which it was able to buy with a $3.8 billion loan from the US.

At any rate, you wanted to know why I included LM in my comment about big corporations who are happy that they put up big $$ to get GeeDubya into office.

I think I've provided a more-than-adequate explanation.

[elsid13]

So making billions of dollars a year, and then having the audcity to say "hey can you give us $1b uncle sam, we are going to close a base, and we think the taxpayers should pay for it, and not us, it would hurt our bottom line."


I don't understand your question? are you talking about BRAC or are you talking about a defense plant?

[alkemical]

I don't understand your question? are you talking about BRAC or are you talking about a defense plant?


What's there to question? They make billions of dollars a year, and then have the audacity to ask for money from the gov't for relocation. That is corporate welfare.

There is no question.

[elsid13]

What's there to question? They make billions of dollars a year, and then have the audacity to ask for money from the gov't for relocation. That is corporate welfare.

There is no question.

Not trying to be dick, I just not familiar with the event that you are referring to. Did LM close a plant and relocate to another state for tax cuts?

[alkemical]

That's part of the racket, they get states to pay for the relocation costs, and also get the fed. gov't to pay for such items as well....

other infractions (from 1993):

Under the revised policy the merged Lockheed Martin Corporation has already submitted bills for $855 million in restructuring costs.(2) Further requests for hundreds of millions of dollars from Lockheed Martin alone are expected, and other corporations could add "several billions of dollars" to government outlays, according to the General Accounting Office.(3)


The policy contributes to the problem of extravagant corporate executive salaries since corporations have been permitted to bill executive compensation as restructuring costs. In the most controversial case, after its merger Lockheed Martin requested $31 million from the taxpayer for former Martin Marietta executives.(4)


At the same time as the policy uses government funds to pay lavish executive salaries, it also subsidizes huge layoffs of workers in post-merger downsizing. Lockheed Martin announced the layoff of 19,000 employees soon after its merger.(5) Then-Deputy Secretary Deutch put a benign face on the policy for Congress by noting that "restructuring costs include such things as relocation, retraining, and severance for workers. Allowable restructuring costs do not include such things as golden parachutes for executives and fees for investment bankers." According to labor unions, however, little money has gone to workers.(6)


According to CEOs themselves, the policy leads the government to intervene in the free market, promoting corporate mergers even when the market rules against them. Martin Marietta Chairman Norman Augustine testified that his company would not have acquired General Dynamics Space Division without government payment of restructuring costs and sharing of savings because it would have been "a bad business deal."(7) Savings for the government from corporate mergers are unlikely to materialize when government bureaucrats, rather than private corporations, are deciding which mergers are more efficient than others.


However, the claim that corporations need government subsidies to convince them to merge is itself highly implausible. The wave of major defense mergers and acquisitions in the 1990s belies the claim, and shows that business leaders privately understand the many sound economic reasons to undertake mergers, that hold true even when the corporations pay their own costs and pass on direct savings to the government. Not least, more efficient contractors can make more profit on their "fixed price" contracts with the government, improve their profits on all their commercial business, bid lower on future government contracts, and expand their market share. Merger subsidies are not needed to promote mergers, and hence are not needed for the government to realize savings accruing from mergers.


Further, many are skeptical that promised savings to the government - which is the ostensible rationale for the government paying costs up front - will materialize at all. Creation of subsidized mega-corporations - Lockheed Martin Loral alone now accounts for 40% of defense procurement spending(8) - will likely stifle competition in the defense industry. And savings are hard to prove. As the Department of Defense admitted,


(source: http://www.pogo.org/p/contracts/co-960601-reform.html) -

[Rascal]

No, it isn't.



At any rate, you wanted to know why I included LM in my comment about big corporations who are happy that they put up big $$ to get GeeDubya into office.

I think I've provided a more-than-adequate explanation.

You don't think Boeing, who was also trying to get the contract, also didn't donate money to republicans that year? Just because they donated money to the republicans does not constitute has them winning the contract because of that. You look up Boeing for that same year and I'm confident you would find similar donations. But that isn't the point, like you said I asked where you came up with Lockheed and you've shown enough of a debate to at least mention them.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You don't think Boeing, who was also trying to get the contract, also didn't donate money to republicans that year? Just because they donated money to the republicans does not constitute has them winning the contract because of that.

The contract went to the biggest contributor, viz., Lockheed Martin.

But consider everything we know about this administration based on its five-year track record:

Bush and the current crop of house repubs have turned influence peddling, cronyism, sweetheart deals, political appointments as patronage perks, and a general "legislation to the highest bidder" approach to government into standard operating procedure in D.C. Yes - you can point to some Dems who are guilty of some of the same offenses, but this administration has taken this sort of sleaze to a whole new level.

Connecting the dots as I have here isn't unreasonable in light of the BushCorp record, IMO.

[alkemical]

http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2006_231/news/11954-1.html

Meet the New Interrogators: Lockheed Martin
The military contracting giant expands its wartime offerings


Because their contracts with the government haven't been made public, it's difficult to determine the full involvement of private companies that serve the military. For Lockheed Martin at least, it's clear interrogation is only a fraction of its war services. Since the war's origins, a variety of the company's planes and missiles have been used, in addition to its satellite imagery. But that's only on a material level. Chatterjee quotes New York Times national security reporter Tim Weiner as writing, the company is an "information-technology empire" serving the government at nearly every level -- sorting mail, cutting Social Security checks, counting the census, monitoring air traffic, and, in the process, writing "more computer code than Microsoft."
-- Ty Otis

[Rascal]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/iraq.main/index.html

(CNN) -- In a newspaper column Friday, L. Paul Bremer, the former U.S. administrator of Iraq, admitted, "I made some mistakes" in Iraq and argued the United States needs to be better prepared for post-conflict operations in the future.

Bremer made the remarks in a New York Times op-ed piece published Friday called "In Iraq, Wrongs Made a Right." The column follows a book Bremer has written entitled "My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope," which Simon & Schuster published this month.

Among the mistakes Bremer cited in the column were the implementation of de-Baathification and reconstruction policy.

While he defended the U.S. decision to ban former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from public office, Bremer wrote that his "error was that I left the implementation of the policy to a political body within the nascent Iraqi government."

De-Baathification, he wrote, "became a tool of politicians who applied it much more broadly than we had intended."

The policy "should have been administered by an independent judicial body," he added.

Another mistake involved the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority placing "too much emphasis on large-scale reconstruction projects. While the urgent need for modern highways, electrical generating plants and the like was clear, we should have anticipated that building them would take a long time," he wrote.

"Our earlier efforts should have been directed more tightly at meeting Iraqis' day-to-day needs," he added.

He said he should have urged "exemption from the usual bureaucratic and contracting rules" to "speed up those larger projects."

Bremer described learning a few weeks after arriving that "six major hospitals in Baghdad urgently needed new generators to run their operating rooms and air-conditioning plants."

"Our budget director told me I could use American funds, which were subject to United States federal contracting rules, or Iraqi government funds, which were not," he wrote. "Using American money, he told me, would mean waiting four to six months for the generators. We used Iraqi funds and got the equipment in eight days. In the future, Congress must make provisions for legitimate exemptions."

Critics, including Republicans and military veterans, have complained the Bush administration was not prepared to handle the chaos in Iraq after Saddam was toppled from power.

As for the post-conflict phase in the future, Bremer wrote, reconstruction efforts "must be broadened through the government and especially the private sector."

"The goal should be a quick-reaction, public-private Civilian Reserve Corps consisting of people with expertise on matters like the establishment of telecommunications facilities, rebuilding of electrical power plants, modernizing health care systems and instituting modern budgeting procedures."

In Bremer's book, he asserted that at one point he asked for more troops, but the request was ultimately turned down. In Friday's column, he elaborated, saying he "disagreed" with the "respectable argument" from military leaders that "they had sufficient forces to ensure law and order and that additional soldiers might increase Iraqi hostility."

The Bush administration has long rejected criticism it failed to send enough troops to secure Iraq. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the request was seriously considered by the nation's top military leaders but rejected as unnecessary. (Full story)

In the column, Bremer said that while he "had concerns about the quality of Iraqi forces two years ago," improved training has led to their "playing an increasingly important role in defending Iraq."

But he called an immediate pullout of troops or setting a timetable to do so would be "a historic mistake."

Such moves would be a "betrayal of the sacrifices Americans and Iraqis have made; a victory of the terrorists everywhere; and step toward a more dangerous world," he wrote.

[W*GS]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/iraq.main/index.html

(CNN) -- In a newspaper column Friday, L. Paul Bremer, the former U.S. administrator of Iraq, admitted, "I made some mistakes" in Iraq[...]

Geez. No sh*t Sherlock!