War
profiteering
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought frequent
assertions that various businesses with connections to President George W.
Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney or other members of the current administration
have profited unjustly by providing goods and services for our military
efforts. The prime example in the
Iraq war has been Haliburton, for which Cheney was the Chief Executive Officer
before he became vice president.
The implication is that Haliburton’s prices, as well as
those of a multitude of other suppliers, have been excessive, which, in effect
makes them “war profiteers.” But, the question is, or should be: Who or what is
a war profiteer?
“A war profiteer is any person or organization that
improperly profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to
parties at war. The term has strong negative connotations. General profiteering
may also occur in peace time.” (Wikipedia).
The operative word in the definition is “improperly,”
whatever that may mean. Business
Pundit lists the “25 Most Vicious Profiteers,” but does not provide any basis
for determining whether they have been “improperly” profiting from their
contracts with the government.
Halliburton heads the list, followed by Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp,
Washington Group International, Environmental Chemical, Aegis, International
American Products, Fluor, Perini and URS Corporation, which it says comprise
the top 10 scofflaws. (www.businesspundit.com)
However, it seems to me that making money by providing
goods and services for national defense, including the military, is not an
adequate basis for labeling a company a “war profiteer.” The list of firms that fit this
criterion is probably endless and includes manufacturers of aircraft, missiles,
automobiles, tanks, fuels, plastics, ships, computers, clothing, foods, among
many others. They all make money
doing business with the government, but surely they are not “profiteering” just
because the U.S. government is their customer.
For one thing, it’s essential for the U.S. to have sources
for war supplies and materials, ranging from airplanes to tanks, ships,
missiles and other weapons, and yes, even oil, within our own borders, where we
can be assured of reliable sources of supply when needed, especially during
wartime. It makes no sense to be
dependent on foreign sources for the products and services we need for our own
national defense, which leaves us with the undeniable fact that it is important
to be as self-sufficient as possible in this regard. Unfortunately, the world has become so interdependent in
recent years that it has become virtually impossible to completely reach this
goal.
There have been a flood of claims that many companies have
been “profiteering” in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, my sense is that most of the suppliers that sell
products and services to the government are not guilty of profiteering, unless
making any profit at all is unacceptable when the customer is the government
during wartime.
On the other hand, there are invariably people and
organizations that are “profiteers,” such as international arms dealers, some
commodity dealers, and those politicians who may be involved in approving
legislation that benefits companies or industries in which they may have
investments, direct or indirect.
The popular view of war profiteering is that it is done by
rich businessmen who sell weapons to governments and black marketeers who sell
goods to ordinary citizens during periods of shortage. But, how is it possible to prevent or
punish “profiteering” when it can’t be defined clearly? Among other factors,
the price of goods or services must necessarily take into account the risk
involved, including the potential loss of life in a war zone.