Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association

Doug Brooks talks contractors

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Mother Jones: As U.S. troops begin to pull out, what happens to the contractors working in Iraq? Do they step up their role?

Doug Brooks: Obviously the money’s going to go down. If that money disappears, is the Iraqi government going to take over the contracts? I don’t know. The whole industry is demand-driven, so go back to World War II—700,000 contractors, right? They disappear at the end of World War II, go do other things or whatever, next conflict, it’s all on a spike; every time there’s a conflict, you bring in more contractors to do whatever needs to be done. Eighty thousand contractors in Vietnam, and again at the end of Vietnam, they’re gone again, and the numbers go down. So it’s constantly been up and down, and Iraq isn’t any different. We have a lot—maybe 100,000 or whatever, but it’ll go back down to where it was before. We think it will be higher than it was at the beginning because the value of contractors has been fully demonstrated. This is—no one has ever written this, but this is true—this is the best-supported and -supplied military operation in history. That’s important. And I think you’ll see NATO starting to copy this, the U.N. starting to copy this—the African Union uses private contractors all the time—so there’s still going to be a bigger role for private contractors than there has been in the past.

Take a look at Bosnia. We had more contractors in Bosnia than we did troops. There’s a huge value to using private contractors. The military doesn’t have to have all Americans doing only this sort of stuff. Why’d you need to have military guys building bridges in Afghanistan when Afghans can do it? I think this is of huge value that we’re recognizing that we don’t need to use their capability or money to do what we need to do. It’s cheaper, it’s certainly a lot faster, it supports the local economy, it creates capacities; it just makes a lot of sense.

Especially if there’s going to be a fast drawdown, you’re going to see a spike. A lot of equipment will just have to be removed and personnel and so on, so that’s going to require a huge spike in contractor activity.

MJ: Will there be new contracts required?

DB: Absolutely, or an expansion of existing contracts. What they’ve done is they’ve consolidated a lot of those smaller contracts into bigger contracts, so a lot of those smaller companies have disappeared and you have a lot of these larger companies, more resilient, more professional obviously, because they are better at following the contract and compliance issues.

MJ: Are contractors able to continue operating in Iraq even with a significantly diminished presence of U.S. troops?

DB: Absolutely. And a lot of them have made the point that they’re going to be there. And when over 90 percent of your workforce is local, it’s not a problem. They’ll continue to exist. Now they may reduce the number of non-Iraqis, or at least non-Arabs, but they can still operate.

It’s a dangerous job, and I would compare it to coal mining. Essentially, you get paid more, but you get paid more because you know how to mitigate the risk. You are going to be taking greater risks. You know how to do a particular kind of job and you have certain kinds of skill sets. It’s the same when you’re hiring security. You want someone who knows how to mitigate the risk, and when you look at our industry, and again, 95 percent of it is non-security, but if you’re going to set up a water purification station in Darfur you still have to face that risk. And you still have to face the reality that it’s going to be a lot more dangerous there than it is in Oklahoma. This is why you use a lot of ex-military people. They can tell the difference between an RPG and a mortar and how to defend against it or protect against it or whether it’s too dangerous to even do what they’re doing. I know for journalists, a lot of them go through the training that companies run in terms of what to do if you’re in a minefield, emergency medical…private companies do that training. You wouldn’t go to the military for that. Blackwater will do a better job than a 19-year-old private reading out of a manual.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate