Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Who's Fighting Our Wars?

By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet. Posted January 9, 2006.


A new documentary explores the role of the modern-day 'mercenaries' waging the war in Iraq for private companies like Blackwater.
shadowcompany
shadowcompany trailer

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Onnesha Roychoudhuri

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

During the first Gulf War, there was one private military contract (PMC) employee for every 100 soldiers. In today's Iraq war, that ratio has risen dramatically to one PMC for every 10 soldiers.

It's figures like this that make Nick Bicanic's new documentary, "Shadow Company," such an eye-opener. Nation-states are paying private companies to provide armed civilians, in lieu of soldiers, on an unprecedented scale. Yet, aside from a handful of allegations about contract workers firing on innocent civilians, little is known about PMCs.

In January 2004, Bicanic, of Purpose Films, began a correspondence with a friend who had joined a private military company and was stationed in Baghdad. Through the pseudonymous "James," who provides narration throughout "Shadow Company," and hundreds of hours of interviews, Bicanic became aware of how much of the war effort was being run by PMCs. "I realized that this film really had to be made because the rules of war had changed, and there was a relevant message about modern warfare that wasn't coming across in other media," he says.

Currently in negotiations for release, the film has already attracted attention from media outlets and Hollywood producers. Bicanic joined AlterNet via telephone to discuss the film.

What do you try to convey through the film?

The film is about the modern-day mercenary, or the private military contractor. They are vital in modern warfare today because the U.S. Army can't go to war without them. They're so overstretched in Iraq that they literally can't have dinner without PMCs. The film tells the story of the men that do this kind of work. It looks at what do they do, where they come from, and what motivates them to put their lives in harm's way on a daily basis. We wanted to chronicle what exactly is going on in the state of modern warfare and modern conflict resolution today. In order to do that, we also had to tell the history of privatization and warfare -- where it originated, historical precedents and where this happens today.

How far back can the concept of the mercenary be traced?

For as long as there has been war, there has been the outsourcing of war. One of the reasons why we wanted to make the film is to point this out. People look at what's happening in Iraq and think it's new. In actual fact, what's different is there's just a lot more of them and we're hearing about them more. Historically, it hasn't been 20,000 contractors in the same space as the U.S. Army. It might be 100 guys flying planes in Colombia or 50 guys doing executive protection in the Philippines. But, the idea of using private armed civilians to in some way affect the result of a conflict has been around for a long time.

Why has there been an upsurge in PMCs?

The upsurges throughout history have always occurred in a similar setup: where there's been a drastic reduction in the number of armed forces yet at the same time a conflict that requires armed forces. This is when people are culled from private environments. In this particular case, the U.S. government decided to enter a conflict that it did not have the ability to fully service with its own military. They had to create all these private roles because there weren't enough soldiers to fill them.

If PMCs have been around for so many years, why are we only getting a documentary made about them now?

It was difficult to find some of this information. The industry is not as transparent and accountable as it should be, and that's one of the points we try to make in the film. Back in the day, even if you tried to look for information on this stuff, it would have been much more difficult to find. In a sense, we started looking for it is just as it started to become more available. This is simply because, for the first time ever, the firms were forced to go on recruiting drives because so many people were needed.

What was the result of this urgency?

In the early stages in Iraq, so many people were needed so quickly that companies came out of nowhere. There was the infamous case of the company Custer Battles. This was a massive scandal because they appeared to be doing a good job for the better part of nine to 12 months. But that's because nobody was looking. And when they started looking, they realized that Custer Battles was charging the U.S. for employees that didn't exist. This kind of thing happened a lot in the beginning. But, as more people started paying attention, things stabilized more. Hopefully, enough stuff has been shaken out that the major bad apples like Custer Battles have gone away. However, unless we look more closely and educate both the government and the general public, people just aren't going to know what's going on.

From your interviews and research, what did you learn about the recruiting process?


Digg!

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is an editorial fellow at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Brave new world
Posted by: z on Jan 9, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we looking at the future? I believe so.
The ideals ofa quasi democracy are being cast aside in favor of the profit scheme. Big Business rules, no doubt. Forget about the notions of honor and patriotism. If the boys can make the bucks, that's what matters. Right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's New About it?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 9, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I thought that most nations used their militaries only with the purest of hearts, then the merc issue might bother me. But since economics and power is begind so many military actions anyways, what's the big deal about how countries achieve their aims or who they use for their armies? From a technical standpoint, any paid soldier is a mercenary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's New About it? Posted by: jbetterl
» RE: What's New About it? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: What's New About it? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: What's New About it? Posted by: jbetterl
» RE: What's New About it? Posted by: floopmeister
The Issue.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 9, 2006 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who controls the PMC?

He touched upon this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The big question
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 9, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How far up the chain is mercenary? Is it the US government attacking the citizens of Iraq or a consortium of giant corporations? Perhaps not only the private army is mercenary but also the private government is mercenary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We've always used 'Hired Guns'
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 9, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the wat of ALL rulerships. There's always been a number of folks that think their destiny is to kill for money. The Brits aused them in the Revolutionary War. The 'Flying Tigers' of WW2 were the same. We just 'incorperated' them
later in the war. We used them in Vietnam, We use them now.
Blackwater was even used in New Orleans. Where they only complained they got paid more for the same work in Iraq.
These are the methods of the Tyrant. They must be shut down for the benefit of all humanity. As should be their paycheck signers. Big Business hired them a 'Strike Breakers' in the last century and the only way to stop them is
to make 'private armies' so heavily taxed they don't exist.
The People Over Tyrants Party stands against such pratices.
So do many fine other parties like the Libertarians and the Greens. If we are going to stop this madness we have to pull together as a People and remove ALL the mechanisms of Tyranny. Starting in D.C.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pentagon shold be turned into a museum
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Jan 9, 2006 8:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The war planners starting in this fiasco (war), as has been mentioned by many, as the worst planned military invasion ever in US history and the worst in almost 2000 years since Rome invaded the Germanic tribes in middle Europe.

If the planners in the pentagon are going to continue to perform at such a high level of incompetence, then it will be outsorced.

Regarding the planners of our $400B military:
1. The war on terror was a set up to get to Iraq.
2. The war for the control of oil did not have enough troops to secure the peace.
3. The war planners thought the US would be welcomed as liberators is purely idiotic.
4. The war planners thought that looting and anarchy was a sign of an independent people rather than out of control criminal acts.
5. The pentagon "leadership" should face a wholesale replacement for such an act of complete incompetence and their budget should be cut by 50% if that is all the better they can do.
6. The civilian "leadership" are criminals for the oversight of the most pathetic management and planning in US history. They should be taken out of office and put behind bars for war crimes against the opposition and the displacement of the constitution and bill of rights with a military fascist plutocracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No wonder people are screaming about possible Martial Law
Posted by: Kalliope on Jan 9, 2006 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certain websites have been screaming for years about the possibility of Martial Law. It now seems concievable with a Nation-State Military policing us. The check has always been that no one would fire against their neighbors. They have no alliegence to anyone, other than a paycheck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My theory
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jan 9, 2006 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The move to PMC is a way to dismantle nation state armies so that when the day of reckoning comes, we won't have a military for the people, but only for hire and the corporations will hire them, not the people.

By the way my day of reckoning is when people get fed up with the corporatization of the world and revolt.

In my view our best hope is if the seeds of populist governments in South America spread across the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Wisdom of Michael Corleone
Posted by: malcolmartin on Jan 9, 2006 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is some insight about our government’s detour into Iraq in its faux-War on Terror in a scene from the movie Godfather II. The scene is set in the Cuba of 1958 and mob boss Michael Corleone is on a mission to Havana to check on the family’s very lucrative business interests. He witnesses a rebel cornered by the authorities scream out “Viva Fidel” and detonate a grenade that kills himself and a police captain.

Later Corleone meets with Hyman Roth, a character based on mobster Meyer Lansky, and the following exchange ensues:

Corleone: A rebel was being arrested by the military police, and rather than be taken alive, he exploded a grenade he had hidden in his jacket. He killed himself and he took a capital of the command with him…it occurred to me the soldiers are paid to fight, the rebels aren’t.
Roth: What does that tell you?
Corleone: They can win.

Recent polls indicate that the vast majority of the American people believe the U.S. cannot or will not win in Iraq. These Americans are simply drawing from that same well of common sense as the fictional Michael Corleone did in the film.

Our youth are locked into this deadly imperial war in Iraq based on loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush. Otherwise they have no stake whatsoever. They are motivated only by the common peril they face. U.S. soldiers are fighting for their own survival and for their brothers and sisters-in-arms next to them in a hostile place far from home.

This past April one of Iraq’s insurgent groups issued a statement that concluded, “We are coming.” A tidal wave of attacks, suicide and otherwise, followed that turned May and June of 2005 into unspeakably bloody months for U.S. and Iraqi government forces. Who will win in Iraq? Try to imagine any American, military or civilian, willing to enlist in a suicide mission, much less shouting “Viva Bush” as they perished for the noble cause he has fabricated. Compare the act of gladly giving up your life for an insurgency with the government of an occupation force that will not even slightly discomfort its rich with higher taxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah So.
Posted by: Artkansas on Jan 9, 2006 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Bush pulls out Guard troops. He fills in with subcontractors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate Armies
Posted by: Barbara on Jan 9, 2006 4:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if all armies were Corporate armies ? As Cororations benifit from wars, and usually wars are created on the behalf of Corporates, then they should be paying for the military to go to war.
Don't get me wrong. I do not support any war. And, perhaps there would be fewer wars if Corporates had to fund fully.

Also, the decision to go to war would have to be supported by the shareholders. They would have to decide whether they would be willing to have people killed on their behalf, in order to have the value of their shares would rise.

Perhaps it would be a way to have Companies directly accountable for their actions.

But, the bottom line is, do most investors really care whether the money they make is blood money or not ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blackhawk crash
Posted by: bluecollar on Jan 9, 2006 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yesterday (1/8), a Blackhawk helicopter went down in Iraq, killing all twelve "Americans" on board. The reports did not specifically say they were American soldiers. A day later, the mainstream media is through with the story. However, note that the DOD has acknowledged that four of the twelve were not soldiers at all.

Aside from the fact that if the DOD acknowledges there were four mercenaries on the chopper, that means there were really at least eight, this means is that these soldiers are now using our equipment and riding alongside our soldiers. If it's our chopper, paid for with our tax $, our soldiers should be on it. These guys should be equipping themselves.

This sounds like not only poor fiscal policy but also poor military policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blackhawk crash Posted by: biff777
rover
Posted by: Roverton on Jan 11, 2006 1:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are we ever scared of a corporation? What should we do instead?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Merc = Soldier
Posted by: Jordon on Feb 6, 2006 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mercenary: A person payed to fight.

Soldier: A person payed to fight.

No difference. War is bad, but sometimes necessary (not Iraq), but the technical name of the people we use to do the killing and dying makes no difference. This is irrelevant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

kery
Posted by: kmore on Aug 14, 2006 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The DVD release of Shadow Company is coming up on the 23rd of August, I encourage everyone to go and get a copy.

http://www.shadowcompanythemovie.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This interview about mercenaries in Iraq
Posted by: LucasII on Aug 31, 2006 7:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Irritating and frustrating. The interviewee speaks "langue de bois." Doesn't answer questions. Like the worst politicians. Sounds himself like a PR mercenary. The trailer announces a propaganda movie, a recruiting device, sounds and looks like a tv commercial. Sleak, colgate and cold. Leaves a very, very frustrating and bad impression. If mercenaries aren't tied under their contract to the laws of the country they contribute to rape, then they... don't break the laws when they break them. These people are not war mercenaries. They're not warriors. There are no more wars, and they know it. Wars don't exist anymore. There's only mass butchery, mass poisoning, mass cruelty. These people are monsters. Butchery, cruelty, mass poisoning mercenaries. For money. For oil. For profit. For death. Makes me puke. And again. And again. Contributing to spread massive carpets of DU on others and on themselves. For money. For profit. Sicker than that...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]