Jeremy Scahill - Blackwater

Like General Boykin, Schmitz often gave speeches during his tenure at the Pentagon that were overtly soaked in religious and Christian rhetoric and demeaning of other cultures and traditions. “The rule of law can scarcely be said to exist in tribal cultures, such as, for example, parts of Iraq and Afghanistan, where loyalty to one’s own often trumps everything—honesty, the law, fairness, and even common sense,” Schmitz said in a March 2004 speech. 107In another, he declared, “The men and women of our armed forces today do not doubt the enduring principles that make America great—the same principles President Reagan mentioned in the midst of the Cold War: ‘individual responsibility, representative government, and the rule of law under God.’” 108Schmitz ended his address by quoting Donald Rumsfeld’s “admonition” in the aftermath of 9/11: “We pray this day, Heavenly Father, the prayer our nation learned at another time of righteous struggle and noble cause—America’s enduring prayer: Not that God will be on our side, but always, O Lord, that America will be on Your side.” Schmitz then told the audience, “If we want to remain one nation, under the rule of law and under God, we must always hold ourselves to a higher standard.” 109

So prevalent was the religious rhetoric in Schmitz’s speeches that after one, he was told by an audience member, “The flavor of your speech has kind of troubled me because I always believed that the Constitution is a secular document, and I thought government is supposed to be a secular organization. I find that the church/state separation has been blurred by this Administration.” 110Schmitz proceeded to ignore the question, babbling on about chaplains in the military, before the questioner said, “That wasn’t the tenor that I had. I thought I was talking about—.” At that point, Schmitz interrupted the man and declared, “The American people, unlike other people around the world, are profoundly religious. That’s a historical and a current fact. So for us to pretend, somehow, that we shouldn’t be acknowledging the existence of Almighty God is just—it ignores reality, Sir. I’m sorry to have to say that. But that’s how I see it.” 111

Some of the most bizarre stories about Schmitz’s time at the Pentagon stem from what colleagues described as his “obsession” with Baron Von Steuben, the mercenary who fought in the Revolutionary War. 112Von Steuben reportedly fled Germany after learning that he was going to be tried for homosexual activities and was welcomed by George Washington in America as a key military trainer—one of several mercenaries who fought the British. Soon after Schmitz was appointed to his post at the Pentagon, according to the Los Angeles Times :

He spent three months personally redesigning the inspector general’s seal to include the Von Steuben family motto, “Always under the protection of the Almighty.” He dictated the number of stars, laurel leaves and colors of the seal. He also asked for a new eagle, saying that the one featured on the old seal “looked like a chicken,” current and former officials said. In July 2004, he escorted Henning Von Steuben, a German journalist and head of the Von Steuben Family Assn., to a U.S. Marine Corps event. He also feted Von Steuben at an $800 meal allegedly paid for by public funds, according to [Sen.] Grassley, and hired Von Steuben’s son to work as an unpaid intern in the inspector general’s office, a former Defense official said. He also called off a $200,000 trip to attend a ceremony at a Von Steuben statue… in Germany after Grassley questioned it. 113

“[Schmitz] was consumed with all things German and all things Von Steuben,” a former Defense official told the Los Angeles Times ’s T. Christian Miller. “He was obsessed.” 114Schmitz also peppered many of his official speeches as Inspector General with references to Von Steuben, referring to him in almost messianic ways. “We all rely on his precedent and his wisdom to provide a compass for leadership within the Pentagon—to help find our way when things appear convoluted and distorted, as often is the case in large bureaucratic organizations, particularly in the heat of battle,” Schmitz said in a May 2004 speech at a dedication ceremony for a Von Steuben monument in New Jersey. 115In Iraq, Schmitz said in June 2004, “We must stay the course and stand behind our troops. For my part, I have deployed my very best ‘Von Steubens’ on the ground in Iraq to help train their new Inspectors General as champions of integrity and engines of positive change in each of the new Iraqi ministries.” 116

It didn’t take long for Schmitz to be called to accounts by lawmakers of various political stripes and the critical in-depth investigative reporting of Miller in the Los Angeles Times . Perhaps the most serious heat Schmitz faced for his role in several scandals came from a powerful Republican—Senator Grassley. One centered on Rumsfeld aide John “Jack” Shaw, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense. A diehard, highly partisan Republican operative who had worked in every GOP administration going back to Gerald Ford, Shaw was put in charge of Iraq’s telecommunications system by the White House once the occupation got under way, despite the fact that “he had no background in either defense contracting or telecommunications,” wrote Miller. 117Whistleblowers from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq charged that Shaw attempted to use his position to steer lucrative contracts to corporate cronies, according to the Los Angeles Times . 118Shaw worked behind the scenes with powerful Republican lawmakers in an effort to redirect lucrative mobile phone network contracts in Iraq to businesses run by people with whom Shaw had a personal relationship, according to Miller. 119

In 2003, Schmitz, in his capacity as Inspector General, signed an agreement with Shaw that gave him investigative authority, which Shaw allegedly used to press for the redirection of the telecommunications contracts to his friends. 120“In one case, Shaw disguised himself as an employee of Halliburton Co. and gained access to a port in southern Iraq after he was denied entry by the U.S. military,” Miller reported, citing Pentagon officials. “In another, he criticized a competition sponsored by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to award cell phone licenses in Iraq. In both cases, Shaw urged government officials to fix the alleged problems by directing multimillion-dollar contracts to companies linked to his friends, without competitive bidding, according to the Pentagon sources and documents. In the case of the port, the clients of a lobbyist friend won a no-bid contract for dredging.” 121

When the whistleblowers’ allegations about Shaw came before Schmitz, rather than investigating the case himself, he sent it to the FBI, citing a potential conflict of interest because Schmitz had deputized Shaw. “It’s a safe bet you can bury something at the FBI, because they won’t have time to look at it,” a Pentagon official told Miller. 122“The [FBI] was far more interested in terrorism than in official corruption,” Miller observed in his book Blood Money . “Schmitz’s own senior investigators objected to the transfer, seeing the decision as a calculated move to help a fellow political appointee. Predictably, the FBI investigation never went anywhere, and it was eventually dropped.” 123

After Shaw’s suspected corruption was revealed by the LA Times , Schmitz personally helped draft a Pentagon press release that sought to exonerate Shaw. 124“The allegations were examined by DoD IG criminal investigators in Baghdad and a criminal investigation was never opened,” the Pentagon release, dated August 10, 2004, read. “Shaw is not now, nor has he ever been, under investigation by the DoD IG.” 125The press release referred journalists to the FBI for further information. According to Miller’s reporting, Schmitz deputy Chuck Beardall e-mailed his boss, saying the press release was “dead wrong and needs to be removed ASAP. Failure to do so reflects poorly on the DOD’s and our integrity.” 126Schmitz, according to Miller, “told an assistant, Gregg Bauer, that he was inclined to ‘let the sleeping dog lie.’ ‘We did the right thing by recommending a less-inclined-to-misinterpretation’ version of the press release, Schmitz wrote in an e-mail response.” 127In a subsequent letter to Rumsfeld, Senator Grassley wrote, “What I find most disturbing about this situation is the alleged involvement of the IG, Mr. Schmitz, in this matter. First there is a paper trail that appears to show that Mr. Schmitz was personally and directly involved in crafting the language in this press release. And second, I understand that Mr. Schmitz was repeatedly warned by his own staff ‘to take it down’ because it was ‘patently false.’ Even the FBI weighed in on that score, I am told.” 128Grassley told Rumsfeld that after he informed Schmitz of his intention to investigate him and requested access to Schmitz’s files on the matter, “I have been informed unofficially by sources within the IG’s office that ‘all papers related to Shaw and the other matter were stamped law enforcement sensitive to prevent my access.’” 129Grassley also accused Schmitz of thwarting an investigation of a senior military official who Grassley believed may have lied under oath. 130For his part, Shaw denied any wrongdoing and claimed allegations against him were a “smear campaign.” 131