We’re delighted at the volume and depth of coverage of government contracting lately, an area too long neglected by the private press army in Washington and the business press almost entirely.
The coverage was triggered by the events of September 16, when Blackwater USA employees fired on a Baghdad square, killing seventeen Iraqis and wounding twenty-four. The incident spurred appropriate coverage from political and war reporters.
says prosecutions may have been compromised because the guards were promised immunity of some sort by State Department officials investigating the incident.
But the incident in Iraq has also brought to prominence long-overdue money questions—about accountability and the use of contractors across the federal government. These are questions business reporters are better equipped to ask.
And they are, for now. And while no one is talking, at least someone’s asking.
Last week, government agencies released several reports on the accountability of contractors and the swelling amount of money the government shells out.
The New York Times covers contractors largely as a political story, but pulled back in last Wednesday’s front-page story to focus on the numbers and money behind the growth in the use of contractors.
Over the past four years, the amount of money the State Department pays to private security and law enforcement contractors has soared to nearly $4 billion a year from $1 billion, administration officials said Tuesday, but they said that the department had added few new officials to oversee the contracts.
Our main beef is with the press’s disappointing reliance on anonymous sources for a subject that couldn’t be more public.
The Times story, for instance, offers few on-the-record quotes—from a Brookings Institution analyst, a law professor, a DynCorp spokesperson, a former executive. Otherwise the sources are administration officials, auditors, outside experts, former state department officials, former employees of contractors, and even members of Congress. None of whom are identified.
The best quote come at the end and is on-the-record: a Califoria National Guard captain, Jonathan Shiroma, tells the Times that while some Dyncorp trainers were ” ‘outstanding,’ ” others preferred to stay on the base.
We’re not sure what’s worse: reporters use of the unnamed sources or the fact that they need to use them.
Still, the story homes in on a previously obscure office that has emerged as a big source of the problem: the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
Today, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the small State Department office that oversees the private security contractors in Iraq and elsewhere, is overwhelmed by its responsibilities to supervise the contractors, according to former employees, members of Congress and outside experts. They say the office has grown too reliant on, and too close to, the 1,200 private soldiers who now guard American officials overseas.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq opened new opportunities in the burgeoning world of government security. Blackwater got a toehold with a $27 million no-bid contract to guard L. Paul Bremer III, the administrator of the American occupation in Baghdad. A year later, the State Department expanded that contract to $100 million. Blackwater now employs 845 of the more than 1,100 private security contractors at work in Iraq and holds a contract worth $1.2 billion.
Assistant Secretary of State Richard J. Griffin, who oversees the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, told Congress this month that his office had 36 agents overseeing the guards.
Griffin abruptly resigned the same day this story appeared.
The Washington Post has been out in front on the contracting story both in terms of the volume and depth of its reporting.
Of particular interest was Robert O’Harrow Jr. and Dana Hedgpeth’s profile
of Erik Prince, who founded Blackwater, on the rise of his company. The article and a nearby slide show of photos accompanied by his voice includes interviews with Prince and a visit to the Blackwater Lodge and Training Center in Moyock, North Carolina.