The 07-18-08 New York Times carried an article entitled, "Electrical Risks at Iraq Bases Are Worse Than Said." The first paragraphs state:
"Shoddy electrical work by private contractors on United States military bases in Iraq is widespread and dangerous, causing more deaths and injuries from fires and shocks than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to internal Army documents.
During just one six-month period — August 2006 through January 2007 — at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military’s largest dining hall in the country, documents obtained by The New York Times show. Two soldiers died in an electrical fire at their base near Tikrit in 2006, the records note, while another was injured while jumping from a burning guard tower in May 2007.
And while the Pentagon has previously reported that 13 Americans have been electrocuted in Iraq, many more have been injured, some seriously, by shocks, according to the documents. A log compiled earlier this year at one building complex in Baghdad disclosed that soldiers complained of receiving electrical shocks in their living quarters on an almost daily basis.
Electrical problems were the most urgent noncombat safety hazard for soldiers in Iraq, according to an Army survey issued in February 2007. It noted “a safety threat theaterwide created by the poor-quality electrical fixtures procured and installed, sometimes incorrectly, thus resulting in a significant number of fires.”
it is bad enough that our troops are at risk from snipers, suicide bombers, and improvised explosive devices. Must they also worry about being electrocuted while taking a shower? In January, 2008, Green Beret Staff Sgt. Ryan D. Maseth was electrocuted while showering. His death was caused by faulty electrical grounding.
The article also notes that "Since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, tens of thousands of American troops have been housed in Iraqi buildings that date from the Saddam Hussein era." Private contractors were hired to, amongst other duties, upgrade electrical systems before U.S. troops took up residence.
One issue is, why private contractors instead of armed forces trained electricians? Several people I know who served in the Navy, Air Force, Army, or Coast Guard praised the high quality of training they received in diverse trades. If, for whatever reason, private contractors had to be used, why wasn't their work checked and verified by our own trained military personnel before these buildings were used to house our troops?
The primary conntractor cited in this article is KBR (Kellogg Brown & Root LLC), based in Houston, which is a former subsidiary of Halliburton. KBR's official website notes that its Mission, Vision, and Values include:
- Uncompromising commitment to Health, Safety and Environment
- Best in class Risk Awareness
- Integrity in all we do
Does KBR make a concerted effort to live by these values, or are they mere platitudes trotted out on a web page because they look good?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
May I be the first to say: "No comment".
Thank you. Move along... nothing to see here.
OK, I will quote you "Electrical problems were the most urgent noncombat safety hazard for soldiers in Iraq, according to an Army survey issued in February 2007. " Well here it is, July of 2008 and this is according to you a big deal. And a company that has connections with Haliburton is involved. Why am I not "shocked" by this??
Like I said, nothing to see here... move along.
Subject Las Vegas to six years of mortars, bombs and destructive looting of electrical fixtures, then send in your team of electricians to try and fix it.
Of course it's unsafe. That's why it's called a war-zone.
Plus, civilian contracts have always been a reality (and should be). Haliburton is just a punching bag for lefties.
Just to clarify, based upon your data, these electrical problems are not some dirty little secret that the Army had no knowledge of. The Army and the former "Henny Penny" Rumsfeld and Cheney and others decided to run this little short term war on an outsourced basis with all their little buddies getting sweet deal contracts for housing and food services, etc. "YA GETS WHAT YA PAYS FOR!" They will probably get one of there contractor buddies to provide extra thick shock resistant flip-flops for protection in those stunning showers.
Oh, forgot to mention that those flip-flops will probably cost the USA a paltry $178.99 a pair (Made in China of course). That's with the 100 or more discount.
And I also forget to mention that it will likely be a no-bid contract for those flip-flops.
So who's the culprit? KBR for their substandard work that endanger our forces unnecessarily? Or the Pentagon, for not taking action when the problems became known? Or nobody, since the area is unsafe and a war zone anyhow, so what's a little more danger added to the mix?
I love how you pretend to care about the welfare of our military folks while, at the same time, secretly wish to put them all on welfare.
Yeah, let's bring em home so we can immediately call for base closures and force reductions and put these brave men and women on the streets to fend for themselves... But wait! Well, call them heroes and give them a free bowl of soup twice a week.
Just cut to the chase and say that you are against, the war, the troops, civilian contracts, the current administration, and the military in general.
Why hide behind the guise of caring about their wellbeing? I say this is more about trying to point out failure in any way you can find it.
Yes, the contracted work can be "questionable" at times... just like your motives.
Yes, that was me questioning your motives.
I have to wonder if your alleged concerns for the troops is genuine, or if they are mere platitudes trotted out on a web page because they look good?
Given just the context of the story, I agree that our troops deserve the best facilities possible, but much of this comes from the fact that the government is penny wise and pound foolish (both on the military and civilian side) and it's a shame. The brave people who risk their lives at their own volition to protect us ought to get the best we can offer, not the cheapest.
On the flipside Ken has some good points and I take opinions on military very seriously by those who were in it. I wish the article went into more specifics as to what caused the injuries.
And it's no secret that the NYT has a leftist agenda.
"Or nobody, since the area is unsafe and a war zone anyhow, so what's a little more danger added to the mix?"
Are you suggesting that the contractors made things worse? The contractors added danger?
What? Do you think these areas are club-med? The conditions may be unsafe... but it is a vast improvement over how it was found. Blown out walls, and exposed wiring. Fixtures that were ripped (not safely removed) from walls and ceilings by looters. Plumbing pipes in direct contact with in-wall electrical wiring. Damaged fuse boxes, damaged street to house wiring, shorted transformers, Burned or corroded insulation on wiring...
You act like everything was in great shape until the contractors f***ed it up. You proclaim that they ADDED to the danger!
They made things better.
But since it's not up to your five-star, vacation hot-spot standards, it's time to point fingers.
Let me take a crack at a wild guess... you've never been in a war zone.
I respect ken's opinions on military issues, as he is a war veteran, and thank him not only for his service, but also for his views on this matter.
Then, there is the issue of the NYT trying to sensationalize the issue with lines like this:
"...tens of thousands of American troops have been housed in Iraqi buildings that date from the Saddam Hussein era."
They try to make it sound like it's some antiquated, ages-gone-by time forgotten somewhere in history.
Pssst... The "Saddam Hussein Era" was... ONE day before we arrived.
Let's not let overly dramatic media do our thinking for us.
Post a Comment