Features > March 28, 2003

Halliburton’s Axis of Influence

By Frida Berrigan

Is Dick Cheney still on Halliburton’s payroll? Even though he supposedly sold off his assets when he moved to Washington, the vice president’s financial records reveal he is receiving between $100,000 and $1 million in “deferred compensation” from the company where he served as CEO for five years. The payment is not a bonus for a job well done: Cheney decided to take his severance package over five years instead of in a lump sum. Nonetheless, as his former company rakes in millions in new contracts from the war Bush and Cheney are presently pursuing in Iraq, one has to ask, “Who does Cheney work for?”

Even as the war rages on, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) is lining up for contracts to rebuild Iraq. According to the Wall Street Journal, this could be the “largest government reconstruction effort since Americans helped to rebuild Germany and Japan after World War II.” And while it is too soon to say exactly how much reconstruction will cost or how much profit is at stake, Michael Urban, an analyst with Deutsche Bank, estimates that Halliburton and other companies could reap $3 billion in infrastructure and restoration work.

But is Halliburton right for the job? Critics argue that the U.S. Agency for International Development ignored the expertise and experience of well-regarded NGOs with decades of experience in humanitarian work in Iraq in their secretive contract process. USAID asked just five for-profit corporations to submit bids for $900 million in reconstruction contracts for the initial phase of work, scheduled to last just six months. Of course, these companies will be best situated to win billions in future contracts. An American Academy of Arts and Sciences report estimated that the reconstruction of Iraq could cost anywhere from $30 billion to $105 billion over the next decade.

KBR not only has the corner on postwar reconstruction, they were also granted a potentially huge contract to fight oil well fires throughout Iraq, even though they did not submit a bid for the job. In November, the Pentagon hired KBR to write a classified contingency plan for dealing with the fires, allowing the company to position itself for this job long before the war was a fait accompli. President Bush just asked Congress for $500 million for oil field repair, and KBR is standing by to take the money.

The war on terrorism, which Cheney warned might never end-”at least not in our lifetime”-promises profits almost guaranteed to last a lifetime. In December 2001, the company was granted an open-ended contract for Army troops supply and Navy construction. KBR is providing planning, base camp and facilities maintenance, laundry, food and airfield services, and property accountability wherever U.S. troops go in the next 10 years. So far they have gone to Afghanistan, the Philippines, Yemen, Iraq and probably other countries the public has not yet been told about.

The contract is unique in that there is no ceiling on cost. So while the deal could be worth billions, it’s unclear how many billions. KBR will be reimbursed for every dollar spent plus a base fee of 1 percent, which guarantees profit. On top of that, if the military is pleased with KBR’s performance, they’ll add a bonus, calculated as a percentage of the company’s costs. Contract expert Steve Schooner, a law professor at George Washington University, described the deal as an unprecedented way of saying, “Come up with creative ways to spend my money, and the more you spend, the happier I’ll be.”

In addition to KBR’s blank check, they have been granted several other contracts related to the war on terrorism:

• $2 million to reinforce the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in November 2001;
• $100 million to convert the Subic Bay U.S. Navy base in the Philippines into a modern commercial port facility, in the same month;
• $16 million to build a prison for captured Taliban fighters at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in March 2002.

All of this has not escaped the attention of critics of the Bush administration. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) recently offered an amendment in the House that would restrict companies that enjoy close ties to the administration from bidding on government rebuilding contracts. The measure was roundly defeated. Waters notes: “Given the suspicion that many Americans have about why we’re going to war and the constant speculation that we’re at war for oil, I think the vice president should do everything he can to remove even the appearance of conflicts of interest.”

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Your observations are undoubtedly correct. Living for several years amongst the oil-exploration-community in Central Asia (in particular Azerbaijan) opened my eyes for me in this respect. My only surprise is that so few people have been commenting on Mr. Cheney / Halliburton’s huge, direct and obvious advantage from the propagation of the so-called ‘War on Terror’ and in particular from the assault on Iraq.

  Incidently, some serious further reading on this and a number of related issues can be found on www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-toc.htm - a Report on the US War Crimes Against Iraq / the International War Crimes Tribunal. Interested readers may see the US Consiracy that was the direct cause behind the Kuwait crisis 13 years ago - and the 19 charges of War Crimes levelled directly against Mr. Richard Cheney (and Mr. Bush senior and other high level members of his administration), long before his ‘disposal’ of Halliburton assets. Interestingly Mr Cheney et al were found guilty on all 19 charges by the International War Crimes Tribunal.....but little more has been heard of it since.

  Posted by Alexandra Carpenter on Mar 29, 2003 at 2:13 AM

  Thanks for the stuff. I’m fascinated. Here’s some for you. 

  Posted by J.Caldarola on Mar 29, 2003 at 8:12 PM

  I notice that the washington post reports that the halliburton group is out of the picture in iraq. any comments? 

  Posted by terry bardwell on Mar 29, 2003 at 9:35 PM

  Smoke,

  With guys like Cheney, I may join your relatives and vote for Dracula the Democrat next time. There is obviously a big problem here.

  PHIL

  Posted by L. Genta on Mar 30, 2003 at 8:01 AM

  Did the Clintons leave office or just change his name to Cheney? I am not sure who is worse.

  Posted by A. Mischnick on Mar 30, 2003 at 8:03 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 21 posts.

Member Login

Username

Password

Forgot password?