Using contractors to cook the Iraq books endangers troops.

I have read that the high paid Halliburton-esque contractors in Iraq don't do the risky jobs. We seldom see contractor casualties reported. The contractors work in "support positions," guard buildings and the like.

OK, what might the secondary effects of that be? Might placing contractors in support rules behind the lines not force more American soldiers into the "tip of the tooth" where the real risk lies? Just asking. Are contractors, who get paid a hell of a lot more than our soldiers, taking up the cushy jobs and forcing our soldiers into the weeds?

Bush seems to be paying contractors a bundle to keep down the official troop count for political purposes. A secondary effect of that (besides huge expense) is that the troops who are there get screwed. Some might even suspect that troops are getting killed and wounded more often than they would normally be just so Rumsfeld can claim lower troop counts.

So one obvious question: "Mr. Bush, how many contractors are at work in Iraq pulling details that would normally go to coalition troops?"

That number should be counted in the official troop count, and the contractors pulling cushy details should have to rotate into harm's way, just like the American soldiers who are getting paid chump change for riskier work.

Hmmmmm....maybe you're on to something here. :sarcasm:

they flew pallets of dollars..$4 billion and told the contractors to show up with duffel bags and pick ups to haul off the money with.. it was just a bunch of monkeys at a salad bar.. no books

US troops, security contractors increasingly at odds in Iraq

"How does it feel to make that contractor money now?' "