ShareThis Page

Ralph R. Reiland: Bankrolling U.S. troops' killers?

| Sunday, Nov. 5, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

I remember when Johnson & Johnson was a nice, big American company selling warm-hearted products like baby powder.

Now the company, along with several of the other largest U.S. and European medical companies — including Pfizer and GE Healthcare — is targeted in a federal lawsuit. Families of dozens of U.S. troops killed or injured in Iraq allege that J&J and the other companies knowingly financed the anti-American Mahdi Army militia.

The lawsuit “claims the companies regularly paid kickbacks to officials in Iraq's Ministry of Health through their local agents,” reports USA Today correspondent Aamer Madhani, previously a White House and Baghdad correspondent for that newspaper.

“Officials at the ministry in turn used the proceeds to help fund the militia that carried out attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq, the suit alleges,” Madhani says.

Following months of debate about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003 with U.S. and British forces entering southern Iraq and other land, air and sea assaults.

“In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, Iraq's health care spending surged,” reports Madhani, “and the Health Ministry's budget ballooned from $16 million during Saddam Hussein's final year in power to about $1 billion in 2004.”

Western companies seeking entry into the expanding Iraq market “were willing to pay kickbacks — billed as ‘commissions' or ‘free goods' — that amounted to as much as 20 percent of the value of a contract to ministry officials, the lawsuit alleges.”

The defendants also supposedly made illegal payments by promising after-sales support and services funded by giving money to their “local agents.”

The lawsuit says: “In reality, such services were illusory and functioned merely to create a slush fund the local agents could use to pass on ‘commissions to corrupt ministry officials.'”

The plaintiffs claim the companies' financial transactions aided and abetted the militants and thus violated U.S. anti-terrorism law.

“By 2005, the (health) ministry came under the control of loyalists of Muqtada al-Sadr, an Iranian-backed cleric,” explains Madhani, while “al-Sadr's political clout grew amid dissatisfaction among some Iraqis over the U.S. military presence.”

Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army backers “killed and injured hundreds of American troops in the years-long insurgency in the aftermath of the invasion,” Madhani notes.

The lawsuit claims the defendants “did not intend for the ‘free goods' provided” to the health ministry “to serve any legitimate charitable or medicinal purpose.

“It was widely understood in Iraq that the (ministry) operated more like a terrorist organization than a legitimate health entity,” the lawsuit says.

In 2007, Madhani writes, global intelligence firm Stratfor, which provided briefings to several of the companies named as defendants, reported that “U.S.-led forces in Iraq had arrested the then-deputy health minister for ‘selling health services and equipment in return for millions of dollars that he later funneled to Shiite militias.'”

Ralph R. Reiland is associate professor of economics emeritus at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.