Heard this one on Marketplace today: commercial contracting firm Contrack International has decided to suspend its operations in Iraq, citing concern for the safety of its employees and the excessive cost of maintaining necessary security.

The primary job for which this company contracted with the US government to perform in Iraq was…..may I have a drumroll please…..rebuilding the roads.

Does anyone besides me think that civilians patching potholes in a region known for roadside bombs might not be the greatest idea?

Um, I know it’s supposed to be more efficient and fiscally responsible and Republican and all for the government to contract non-essential jobs out to private companies, but doesn’t the Army have a special Corps of, like, Engineers, to do this sort of thing in war zones? Guys who not only have the tools and the training to build roads, bridges, stuff like that, but also have guns, mortars and rockets and the training to use them?

What the hell are these companies doing in the heart of a war anyway? Even if I accept the idea that a private company can do a job more economically than the US government (which, by the way, I do not), I really feel that there are certain situations where no one but soliders should be allowed. Incredibly dangerous occupied territories, where soldiers and civilians die almost every day, would seem to be one of those situations.

Contrack claims that the cost of security alone was adding 60% to the bill for their services. If there’s a job that no one but trained personnel from a particular organization can perform, why can’t the US military provide security?

I have trouble believing that private firms can provide armed escorts for employees in the field cheaper than Uncle Sam can. Not given the abysmal wages our troops receive.