Army doing business with Al Qaeda?

[MaggieD]

In a scathing passage of his latest report to Congress

, Special Inspector General John Sopko said his office has urged the Army to suspend or debar 43 contractors over concerns about ties to the Afghanistan insurgency, "including supporters of the Taliban, the Haqqani network and al Qaeda." Sopko wrote that the Army "rejected" every single case.


Read more: Army won

This whole thing sounds nuts to me. If you read the article, you'll see the Army rejected the recommendations because they have contracts with these companies and think across-the-board cancellation would violate their rights to due process. The Army wants to see all of the information, classified and unclassified, upon which the decisions were made.

I think that's bull****. Do you mean to tell me that after 200 YEARS!! we don't have clauses in our contracts with foreign powers in war zones that allow cancellation for ANY reason?? (As if they wouldn't do business with us if we could cancel on a whim. That'd be the day.)

If, at any time, our government believes your company has ties with our enemies, this contract is null and void.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Unfortunately the army is a huge bureaucracy that moves crushingly slow. Like all government it has become top heavy with lawyers and career people more concerned with their retirement benefits, their rank and position rather than their job or the country they supposedly serve. It is a CYA culture.

 

[ChrisL]

This whole thing sounds nuts to me. If you read the article, you'll see the Army rejected the recommendations because they have contracts with these companies and think across-the-board cancellation would violate their rights to due process. The Army wants to see all of the information, classified and unclassified, upon which the decisions were made.

I think that's bull****. Do you mean to tell me that after 200 YEARS!! we don't have clauses in our contracts with foreign powers in war zones that allow cancellation for ANY reason?? (As if they wouldn't do business with us if we could cancel on a whim. That'd be the day.)

I really don't see a problem with the army wanting some actual evidence before just cancelling contracts with certain businesses and organizations.

 

[ChrisL]

This is kind of like a "he said/she said" it sounds like to me. The army claims there isn't enough evidence, the watchdog group says that there is, but we have to be careful with just cancelling contracts without due cause and because of "alleged" activities unless there is some solid evidence. I think that doing business with some of these companies (who aren't doing anything untoward), is important to our relationship with other countries. I'm thinking that it shouldn't be too difficult to prove if companies are funneling money to terrorists, so if there is some solid evidence there shouldn't be a problem with presenting it.

 

[Surtr]

"The fact that U.S. taxpayer money has ended up in the hands of terrorists and insurgents in Afghanistan is totally inexcusable. It's sickening to think that we've been giving money to the very people who are killing our brave service men and women,"

roflcopter inbound

 

[apdst]

This whole thing sounds nuts to me. If you read the article, you'll see the Army rejected the recommendations because they have contracts with these companies and think across-the-board cancellation would violate their rights to due process. The Army wants to see all of the information, classified and unclassified, upon which the decisions were made.

I think that's bull****. Do you mean to tell me that after 200 YEARS!! we don't have clauses in our contracts with foreign powers in war zones that allow cancellation for ANY reason?? (As if they wouldn't do business with us if we could cancel on a whim. That'd be the day.)

Of course there are those clauses, but also have a president that doesn't necessarily see those outfits as the enemy, but rather misunderstood victims of American oppression.

 

[Arbo]

This whole thing sounds nuts to me. If you read the article, you'll see the Army rejected the recommendations because they have contracts with these companies and think across-the-board cancellation would violate their rights to due process. The Army wants to see all of the information, classified and unclassified, upon which the decisions were made.

I think that's bull****. Do you mean to tell me that after 200 YEARS!! we don't have clauses in our contracts with foreign powers in war zones that allow cancellation for ANY reason?? (As if they wouldn't do business with us if we could cancel on a whim. That'd be the day.)

Seems quite silly.

But they can't be doing business with AlQaeda, were were told they were no longer a problem. Oh wait, now we have embassies in many countries closed due to 'threats' from them. Hmm...

 

[specklebang]

Well, I suppose this will be an unloved opinion but I'll test the waters.

I think we should buy as much stuff as possible from Al Qaeda. Nothing is as provocative as money. If they had money, they would mellow out.

Do you remember how we conquered the USSR? We gave them help when they needed it and with that we poisoned their political culture by making our way look so much more appealing. Same with China. They were as crazy as loons and now can you realistically imagine them attacking us? Exchanging lethal doses of destruction to the respective infrastructures? Not a chance.

If we could just get these crazies to want a better life than skulking in the desert hoping for virgins, we'll have won the war. The drones just make things worse.

Am I wrong?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Unfortunately the army is a huge bureaucracy that moves crushingly slow. Like all government it has become top heavy with lawyers and career people more concerned with their retirement benefits, their rank and position rather than their job or the country they supposedly serve. It is a CYA culture.

And for this you can't even blame the Army (or any branch of the military).

I have been saying for years that the biggest problem with the military is the Department of Defense, that gigantic civilian bureaucracy of civilians that actually runs things. First, last and always they have their own jobs in mind, then that of Union contractors, then contractors, then finally the military itself.

I am sure that if given half the chance, the military would prefer most of the contractors fired and replaced by their own people again.

 

[Dooble]

Military dining halls serve some of the most average food that you'll ever taste.

 

[Thoreau72]

Is this a trick question? :mrgreen: