Inside File: Dollars and no sense

But no, Aegis, headed up by former Scots Guards commander Tim Spicer, has been having problems getting things in proper order, even with that potent combination of British military discipline and bucketfuls of greenbacks.
As reported, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has cited Aegis for not complying with several stipulations set out clearly in its $293 million contract with the Department of Defense.
Now as things go in Iraq, this particular mess might seem like small potatoes. For example, the Special Inspector General has carpeted Aegis for not being able to prove that their employees in Iraq were qualified to use weapons. In one case, 20 employees were issued with 30 assorted weapons. It turned out that the employees were proficient in only about half the weapons issued.
This might be a bit nitpicking in a country where just about everybody out of diapers seems to be adept with an AK47. But still, the little things do count when you’re talking hundreds of millions.
It’s a bit like splashing out on a five star hotel and not getting those chocolates when the bed sheets are turned down.
Then there is the matter of security vetting. The Special Inspector General is miffed over the fact that Spicer’s lieutenants on the ground in Iraq have not properly vetted employees.
Think of the red faces in Washington if it turned out that some characters walking around with pocketfuls of taxpayer dollars were rooting for the other side. Worse, shooting for it.
The SIG report also highlighted problems over background checks. In a sample of 125 Iraqis on the Aegis payroll, six had not been interviewed for the job at all, 18 had not been given background checks by the Iraqi police, and there were no records at all for two hires. Sloppy — was anybody in this lot named Zarqawi?
The report turned up other problems. Clearly, the feeling in the Special Inspector General’s office is that the taxpayer is getting the wrong kind of bang for the buck from Spicer & Co.
One taxpayer who is feeling especially incensed is Senator Russ Feingold. The Wisconsin Democrat is perhaps best known for his efforts, alongside John McCain, to reform campaign financing.
Feingold is rightly fussy about the way that taxpayer dollars are spent and he has characterized the entire SIG report — which also highlights $100 million floating around Iraq that can no longer be accounted for at all — as “deeply troubling.”
At the same time, Feingold is particularly concerned over that portion of the national pie that has ended up in the lap of not just Spicer, but also another dodgy character from the world of big boys adventures, Viktor Bout.
Tajikistan-born Viktor might have been plucked from a Robert Ludlum novel. Reputedly the world’s biggest arms dealer, Bout has been dubbed “Africa’s merchant of death.”
Bout had been linked with arms sales all over that continent, and also to the Taliban, Al Qaeda’s babysitters in pre-9/11 Afghanistan. He has also more recently been doing a flying business in Iraq, apparently with money that has come by the way of subcontracts farmed out by, wit for it, private companies contracted to the Department of Defense.
The U.S. Treasury Department moved in recent days to corral Bout, whose assets include an airline called Aerocom.
The move pleased Feingold.
“I’m glad that Treasury has finally taken this action to isolate Viktor Bout and his air trafficking network, but it has become increasingly clear that there is a vast gulf between Treasury’s actions and the State Department’s policies on the one hand, and what appears to be a passive, see-no-evil approach of the Department of Defense on the other,” Feingold said in a statement.
“Multiple reports have surfaced, and continue to surface, indicating that DOD contractors in Iraq have subcontracted with Bout-affiliated firms. Most Americans would be appalled to learn that taxpayer dollars intended to help U.S. policy in Iraq succeed are actually finding their way into the coffers of the likes of Viktor Bout, a man associated with the Taliban and forces that committed unspeakable atrocities in West Africa,” Feingold added.
Feingold issued a separate statement on the SIG criticism of Aegis.
“Aegis was supposed to be providing security for government and reconstruction contractor personnel in Iraq. Not only does it appear that U.S. dollars were not well spent, but the consequence of the haphazard practices revealed in this report . . .could very well be deadly,” Feingold said.
Of course, all this talk of lost money, Aegis and Mr. Bout begs a question. Has any of the Aegis money ended up in the cargo hold of one of Viktor’s planes?
One who is asking is former Washington Post investigative reporter and author Douglas Farah. On his website, www.douglasfarah.com, Farah mentions both Aegis and Bout in a report related to the Pentagon’s contracting business in Iraq. The
“From my sources on the ground in the region, it seems that Viktor Bout’s Aerocom continues to fly for the U.S. military, using the call sign designator ‘MCC,'” Farah writes.
Farah opined that it seemed “somewhat incredible” that nine months after the State Department circulated a letter to the rest of the U.S. government telling them not to deal with Bout, he continued to “enjoy the largess of U.S. taxpayer dollars.”
But, adds Farah, there is an emerging story that may explain Bout’s longevity and the inability and unwillingness of the Department of Defense to cut him loose.
Farah goes on to describe the Pentagon deal with Aegis and Tim Spicer and poses a question: “Could it be that our tax dollars paying a British mercenary almost $300 million also provide the umbrella and protection under which Bout continues to fly despite the protestations of the State Department and ostensible U.S. policy?”
And he continues: “One of Aerocom’s main businesses now seems to be flying U.S. contractors around Iraq and the Middle East, an activity Aegis has a direct interest in and some say over.”
The Pentagon has stated “case closed” with regard to complaints against the Aegis contract — lodged in part due to Spicer’s controversial defense of the shooting of Belfast teenager Peter McBride in 1992.
Well, maybe not.