Concerning contractors

By Libby

Avedon flags an interesting post at My DD about a new White House policy geared towards electronically automated security clearances. I don't have any real objections to that idea but the one gaping hole in the scheme, and in fact in the whole administration of the occupation, that remains unaddressed does give me pause.

The Bush administration has yet to resolve the loophole that allows overseas contractors go unregulated and unaccounted for. Even if the Joint Security Reform Team were to surprise us all and put together a program that actually strengthened our security, it wouldn't matter because of the legislation that allows contractors to make their own rules, accountable to no one.Given March's report on waste, fraud and abuse of war funding, which found that a significant amount of both weaponry and money had somehow ended up in the hands of the insurgents, thanks to the lack of accountability enforced upon the contractors, shouldn't we be worrying about the prospect of classified materials ending up in enemy hands?

The Bush administration has claimed to be tough on security. But when measures of security interfere with safeguarding the enormous profits reaped by favored corporate interests, President Bush continues to throw security to the wind. ...

It's a good point. Losing money and weapons to infernally corrupt contractors is irritating but the same laxity relative to security is dangerous. I would say far more dangerous than the terrorists we're supposed to be defeating.

By that I mean, if we weren't still in occupation in Iraq, there would be far less opportunity for our enemies to get their hands on classified information that is exchanged among our military. If they're getting their hands on our money and weaponry, I see no reason to believe they aren't also able to get damaging documents that endanger our troops abroad and ourselves at home.