Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Will Blackwater Be Kicked Out of Iraq After Recent Bloodbath?

By Jeremy Scahill, The Nation. Posted September 28, 2007.


So far Blackwater has only received a slap on the wrist after killing innocent civilians. Are the U.S. and Iraqi governments finally ready to send them packing?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It's being described as "Baghdad's bloody Sunday." On September 16 a heavily armed State Department convoy guarded by Blackwater USA was whizzing down the wrong side of the road near Nisour Square in the congested Mansour neighborhood in the Iraqi capital. Iraqi police scrambled to block off traffic to allow the convoy to pass. In the chaos, an Iraqi vehicle entered the square, reportedly failing to heed a policeman's warning fast enough.

The Blackwater operatives, protecting their American principal, a senior State Department official, opened fire on the vehicle, killing the driver. According to witnesses, Blackwater troops then launched some sort of grenade at the car, setting it ablaze. But inside the vehicle was not a small sect from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia or the Mahdi Army, the "armed insurgents" Blackwater described killing in its official statement on the incident.

It was a young Iraqi family -- man, woman and infant -- whose crime appeared to be panicking in a chaotic traffic situation. Witnesses say the bodies of the mother and child were melded together by the flames that had engulfed their vehicle.

Gunfire rang out in Nisour Square as people fled for their lives. Witnesses described a horrifying scene of indiscriminate shooting by the Blackwater guards. In all, as many as twenty-eight Iraqis may have been killed, and doctors say the toll could climb, as some victims remain in critical condition. A company spokesperson said Blackwater's forces "acted lawfully and appropriately" and "heroically defended American lives in a war zone."

Blackwater's version of events is hotly disputed, not only by the Iraqi government, which says it has video to prove the shooting was unprovoked, but also by survivors of the attack. "I saw women and children jump out of their cars and start to crawl on the road to escape being shot," said Iraqi lawyer Hassan Jabar Salman, who was shot four times in the back during the incident.

"But still the firing kept coming and many of them were killed. I saw a boy of about 10 leaping in fear from a minibus -- he was shot in the head. His mother was crying out for him. She jumped out after him, and she was killed."

Salman says he was driving behind the Blackwater convoy when it stopped. Witnesses say some sort of explosion had gone off in the distance, too far away to have been perceived as a threat. He said Blackwater guards ordered him to turn his vehicle around and leave the scene. Shortly after, the shooting began. "Why had they opened fire?" he asked. "I do not know. No one -- I repeat no one -- had fired at them. The foreigners had asked us to go back, and I was going back in my car, so there was no reason for them to shoot." In all, he says, his car was hit twelve times, including the four bullets that pierced his back.

While the shooting in Nisour Square has put the issue of private forces in Iraq -- and Blackwater's name specifically -- on the front pages of newspapers around the globe, this is hardly the first deadly incident involving these forces. What is new is that the Iraqi government responded powerfully. Within twenty-four hours of the shooting, Iraq's Interior Ministry announced that it was expelling Blackwater from the country; Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called the firm's conduct "criminal."

The next day, the State Department ordered all non-US military officials to remain inside the Green Zone, and diplomatic convoys were halted. The Iraqi government, acting as though it was in control of the country, announced that it intended to prosecute the Blackwater men responsible for the killings. "We will not allow Iraqis to be killed in cold blood," Maliki said. "There is a sense of tension and anger among all Iraqis, including the government, over this crime."

But getting rid of Blackwater would not prove to be so easy. Four days after being grounded, Blackwater was back on Iraqi streets. After all, Blackwater is not just any security company in Iraq; it is the leading mercenary company of the US occupation. It first took on this role in the summer of 2003, after receiving a $27 million no-bid contract to provide security for Ambassador Paul Bremer, the original head of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Since then, it has kept every subsequent US Ambassador, from John Negroponte to Ryan Crocker, alive. It protects Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she visits the country, as well as Congressional delegations. Since its original Iraq contract, Blackwater has won more than $700 million in "diplomatic security" contracts through the State Department alone.

The company's domestic political clout has been key to its success. It is owned by Erik Prince, a reclusive right-wing evangelical Christian who has served as a major bankroller of the campaigns of George W. Bush and his allies. Among the company's senior executives are former CIA official J. Cofer Black, who once oversaw the extraordinary-rendition program and led the post-9/11 hunt for Osama bin Laden (and who currently serves as GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's top counterterrorism adviser), and Joseph Schmitz, the Pentagon Inspector General under Donald Rumsfeld.

So embedded is Blackwater in the US apparatus in Iraq that the incident in Nisour Square has sparked a crisis for the occupation that is both practical and political. Now that Blackwater's name is known (and hated) throughout Iraq, the bodyguards themselves are likely to become targets of resistance attacks, perhaps even more so than the officials they are tasked with keeping alive. This will make their work much more difficult. But beyond such security issues are more substantive political ones, as Blackwater's continued presence on Iraqi streets days after Maliki called for its expulsion serves as a potent symbol of the utter lack of Iraqi sovereignty.

Maliki has been under heavy US pressure to back off his initial demands. While Rice immediately called the Iraqi prime minister ostensibly to apologize, she made a point of emphasizing publicly that "we need protection for our diplomats." A few days later, Tahseen Sheikhly, a representative of Maliki's government, stated, "If we drive out this company immediately, there will be a security vacuum. That would cause a big imbalance in the security situation." Given the carnage of September 16, it was a difficult statement to wrap one's head around.

Maliki then agreed to withhold judgment on Blackwater's status, pending the conclusion of a joint US-Iraqi investigation. If he ultimately goes along with the United States and tolerates Blackwater's presence, the political consequences will be severe. Among those calling for the firm's expulsion is Muqtada al-Sadr. A cave-in by Maliki could weaken his already tenuous grip on power and reinforce the widespread perception that he is merely a puppet of the US occupation. Clearly aware of this, while visiting the United States a week after the shootings, Maliki went so far as to call the situation "a serious challenge to the sovereignty of Iraq" that "cannot be accepted."

In Baghdad there is great determination to bring the perpetrators of the Nisour Square slaughter to justice. An investigative team made up of officials from Iraq's Interior, National Security and Defense ministries said in a preliminary report that "the murder of citizens in cold blood in the Nisour area by Blackwater is considered a terrorist action against civilians just like any other terrorist operation."

But Iraqi investigators claim that they have received little or no information from the US government and have been denied access to the Blackwater operatives involved in the shootings. A US official appeared to dismiss the validity of the Iraqi investigation, telling the New York Times, "There is only the joint investigation that we have with the Iraqis."

Still, Iraqi officials announced their intent to bring criminal charges against the Blackwater forces involved in the shooting, and the report stated, "The criminals will be referred to the Iraqi court system." Abdul Sattar Ghafour Bairaqdar, a member of Iraq's Supreme Judiciary Council, the country's highest court, recently said, "This company is subject to Iraqi law, and the crime committed was on Iraqi territory, and the Iraqi judiciary is responsible for tackling the case."

Unfortunately, things are not quite so simple.

On June 27, 2004, the day before Paul Bremer skulked out of Baghdad, he issued a decree known as Order 17, which granted sweeping immunity to private contractors working for the United States in Iraq, effectively barring the Iraqi government from prosecuting contractor crimes in domestic courts. The timing was curious, given that Bremer was leaving after allegedly "handing over sovereignty" to the Iraqi government.

Shortly after the Nisour shooting, Maliki said he wanted to change Order 17 to permit prosecution in Iraqi courts of criminal activities committed by contractors. The Iraqi Parliament could also try to pass a law repealing it altogether. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, characterizes Order 17 as a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty but points out that it contains a provision that allows the United States to waive the immunity with regard to individuals.

"A possible first step for Iraq is to ask the US to waive the immunity of those involved in the killing," says Ratner, who concedes that this is an unlikely move from Washington, "as it would frighten other private contractors." He also said the immunity is a part of the US strategy for using private companies like Blackwater to deter resistance attacks on occupation personnel. "None of this is by chance; their very purpose is to brutalize and strike fear into the people of Iraq -- that is why they are back on the streets."

Former CIA case officer Robert Baer says that the cleanest solution would be for the United States to rescind Order 17. "Do we let Iraqi Embassy private security contractors race around Washington or New York, machine guns sticking out the window, to prevent carjackings?" asked Baer. "This would effectively close down private security companies. There is no reason the State Department cannot provide its own security." He points out that State Department security officers are under diplomatic immunity, but if there's a questionable shooting, the Iraqi government would have the option of expelling the perpetrators under the Vienna Convention.

This discussion of Order 17 is important but in practical terms it may well be moot, as it is hard to imagine the United States allowing the prosecution of US private security forces in an Iraqi court. Industry representatives say that in cases where contractors are alleged to have committed crimes or engaged in misconduct, Washington has told them to get the contractors in question out of Iraq quickly. As one private security contractor recently told the Washington Post, "We were always told, from the very beginning, if for some reason something happened and the Iraqis were trying to prosecute us, they would put you in the back of a car and sneak you out of the country in the middle of the night."

That is precisely what happened after an incident that occurred last Christmas Eve, in which an off-duty Blackwater operative allegedly shot and killed the Iraqi bodyguard of Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi inside the Green Zone. Blackwater officials confirm that they whisked the contractor safely out of Iraq, which they say Washington ordered them to do. Iraqi officials labeled the killing a "murder."

Blackwater says it fired the contractor, but he has yet to be publicly charged with any crime. Representative Dennis Kucinich, a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has suggested that "there's a question that could actually make [Blackwater's] corporate officers accessories here in helping to create a flight from justice for someone who's committed a murder." According to a memo from the US Embassy to Secretary Rice, after the shooting, Abdul-Mahdi tried to keep the story under wraps because he believed "Iraqis would not understand how a foreigner could kill an Iraqi and return a free man to his own country."

While there may be a debate about subjecting private forces to Iraqi courts, legal mechanisms do exist to prosecute armed contractors in US courts for crimes committed in Iraq. But the Bush Justice Department would have to press charges, and that hasn't happened. US contractors in Iraq reportedly have their own motto: "What happens here today stays here today."

While much of the media attention stemming from the September 16 killings focuses on the current crisis, this is hardly a new situation. In just the past nine months, Blackwater forces have been at the center of several other fatal shootings that sparked protests from the Iraqi government.

There was the Christmas Eve incident, and then, in May, Blackwater forces engaged in back-to-back deadly actions in a Baghdad neighborhood near the Iraqi Interior Ministry. In one incident, Blackwater forces fired on an Iraqi vehicle they said had veered too close to their convoy, killing a civilian driver. As with the September 16 shooting, witnesses say it was unprovoked. In the ensuing chaos, the Blackwater operatives reportedly refused to give their names or details of the incident to Iraqi officials, sparking a tense standoff between Blackwater and Iraqi forces, both of which were armed with assault rifles. It might have become even bloodier if a US military convoy hadn't arrived on the scene and intervened.

A day before that incident, in almost the same neighborhood, Blackwater operatives found themselves in a gun battle lasting nearly an hour that drew in US military and Iraqi forces, in which at least four Iraqis are said to have died. US sources said the Blackwater forces "did their job," keeping the officials alive.

Iraqi officials allege that there have been at least six deadly incidents involving Blackwater in the past year alone, which in addition to the September 16 death toll have caused ten Iraqi deaths. An Iraqi official says they show Blackwater "has a criminal record." Among these are a February 4 shooting allegedly resulting in the death of Hana al-Ameedi, an Iraqi journalist, near the Foreign Ministry; a February 7 shooting in which three guards were allegedly killed outside Iraqi state television offices; a September 9 shooting during which five Iraqis were killed near a government building in Baghdad; and a September 12 shooting that wounded five people in eastern Baghdad.

US and Iraqi officials reportedly discussed Blackwater's impunity months before the September shooting. "We tried several times to contact the US government through administrative and diplomatic channels to complain about the repeated involvement by Blackwater guards in several incidents that led to the killing of many Iraqis," said deputy Interior Minister Hussein Kamal.

However, US Embassy spokesperson Mirembe Nantongo said, "We have no official documentation on file from our Iraqi partners requesting clarification of any incident." That statement is contradicted by another US official. Matthew Degn, who served as a liaison to the Iraqi Interior Ministry until August, told the Washington Post that Iraqi officials sent a flurry of memos to Blackwater and US officials well before the September 16 shootings and were rebuffed in their requests for action. "We had numerous discussions over [Iraqi government] frustrations with Blackwater, but every time [Iraqi officials] contacted the [US] government, it went nowhere."

Iraq's anger would be understandable even if the only incident involving Blackwater was the Nisour shootings -- more so if you take into account the past year of the company's actions. But this is a four-year pattern that goes beyond Blackwater. The system of "private security" being paid billions in US taxpayer dollars has not only continued despite rampant abuses; it has flourished. Blackwater and its ilk operate in a demand-based industry, and with US forces stretched thin, there has been plenty of demand. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are as many as 180 mercenary firms in Iraq, with tens of thousands of employees. Without the occupation and continued funding for the war, these companies would not be in Iraq.

Even though this scandal is about a system, not about one company or "a few bad apples," Blackwater does stand out. While it has no shortage of US and British competitors in Iraq, no other private force's actions have had more of an impact on events in Iraq than those of the North Carolina-based company. Blackwater's primary purpose in Iraq, at which it has been very effective, is to keep the most hated US occupation officials alive by any means necessary. This has encouraged conduct that places American lives at an infinitely higher premium than those of Iraqi civilians, even in cases where the only Iraqi crime is driving too close to a VIP convoy protected by Blackwater guards.

It isn't just the Iraqi government and the country's civilian population that are angered by Blackwater's conduct. Col. Thomas Hammes, the US military official who once oversaw the creation of a new Iraqi military, has described driving around Iraq with Iraqis and encountering Blackwater operatives. They "were running me off the road. We were threatened and intimidated," Hammes said. But, he added, "they were doing their job, exactly what they were paid to do in the way they were paid to do it, and they were making enemies on every single pass out of town." Hammes concluded they were "hurting our counterinsurgency effort."

Just as the world was learning of the September 16 Blackwater shooting in Baghdad, another scandal involving the company was breaking in the United States. Allegations surfaced that weapons brought into Iraq by Blackwater may have ended up in the hands of the Kurdish militant group the PKK, which is designated a "foreign terrorist organization" by the State Department. According to a September 18 letter sent by Representative Henry Waxman to State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard, a federal investigation into whether Blackwater "was illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq" was obstructed by Krongard, who, Waxman charged, is a partisan operative with close ties to the Bush Administration.

Waxman cited a July e-mail message from Krongard in which he ordered his staff to "stop IMMEDIATELY" cooperating with the federal prosecutor investigating Blackwater until Krongard himself could speak to him. Waxman said Krongard's actions caused "weeks of delay" and that by subsequently assigning a media relations staffer instead of an investigator to aid the prosecutor, Krongard had "impeded the investigation." Blackwater, for its part, denies that it was "in any way associated or complicit in unlawful arms activities" and is cooperating in the federal investigation. Waxman has announced that he will hold hearings on the issue in October.

In keeping with Krongard's stance, the State Department has responded to the widening Blackwater inquiry with stonewalling and evasion. Indeed, Blackwater's attorney told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which Waxman chairs, that State had directed the company "not to disclose any information" regarding its Iraq security contract without written authorization.

After Waxman protested, the department specified that this restriction applied only to classified information. Waxman, for his part, is looking for answers from the top gun: He sent Blackwater CEO Erik Prince a letter requesting his presence at a hearing. "One question that will be examined is whether the government's heavy reliance on private security contractors is serving U.S. interests in Iraq," Waxman informed Prince. "Another question will be whether the specific conduct of your company has advanced or impeded U.S. efforts."

Those are good questions. But it is unfortunate that it has taken four years of the most privatized war in US history for Congress to ask them. Last time Prince was invited to appear before Congress, he sent his lawyer instead. This time Waxman could choose to use the power of the subpoena. As has finally become clear to some in Congress, war contracting is not merely about squandered taxpayer dollars. It is about life and death. The stakes are far too high to let Prince and his cronies call (or fire) any more shots.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, blackwater, contractors

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! 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:
What's Really Scary about these guys
Posted by: EJW on Sep 28, 2007 1:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have taken over the mission of the US Marines to protect our diplomates over seas. They are now protecting our Generals and Congress People. They are a private army, accountable to ????? Big Oil, whatever not to the constitution. Do you really think they are protecting or threatening?

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

Caesar77
Posted by: Caesar77 on Sep 28, 2007 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's hench'men consider one American life worth more than several Iraqi's. I guess in their mind all non-Americans are a sub-speces of human. What in the world were the American people thinking, when they put this criminal in the Whitehouse. ?

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

» Where's the limit? Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Where's the limit? Posted by: Knowmad
Muddied waters of neo-colonialism
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 28, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the minds of Bush, Cheney, et.al. the Iraqi civilian casualties are an unfortunate part of war to protect U.S. interests; it's not unfortunate that innocent people were killed. It's unfortunate that Blackwater got caught and there's an insuing scandal from the massacre.

However, every great nation must face minor scandals when the empire chooses to colonize another nation that has resources the empire needs. Armed mercenaries play a small role in neo-colonization.

Honestly, Blackwater's murders are just a distraction from the bigger picture of empire building. Greenspan revealed the true purpose of the Iraq invasion: oil. Many of us knew it already, but to hear it from the former Fed Chair, the U.S.'s lead economist, ripped the mask off of the U.S. exposing our true identity as an empire.

Greenspan said the war was about national security, but ultimately about oil, because if U.S. foreign oil supplies run dry, it would "catastrophic" to the U.S. economy. In other words, we've reached the point in U.S. corporate power and profits that, without Iraq's oil, U.S. corporations' profit margins would take a dump and subsequently, deprived of oil, the U.S. economy and the american worker would ultimately suffer from withdrawal. I doubt it, but the corporate profiteers would surely suffer, and we can't have that.

The Iraq war was a desparate measure taken by desparate rich and powerful people, and a few massacres here and there are just part of the price to pay for expanding the empire. Does that sum it up?

What about those of us who are complicit in the empirization of the U.S. and the neo-colonization of Iraq (and other future oil rich countries)? We voting americans are the last chance to stop illegal wars and neo-colonization. Liberals and progressives are even more responsible because we know what's happening.

The Republican presidential candidates are clearly pro-empire hardliners, except for, maybe, Ron Paul. But, Paul's libertarian political agenda still leaves corporate power unchecked. The Democratic field is equally pro-empire, but for the softer side of empire. Surprised? I'm not.

Clinton and Ambassador, Bill Richardson, were called to task by Amy Goodman (1998) of Democracy Now for the 5000 children who died every month under sanctions imposed by the First Clinton Dynasty. Clinton blames Saddam, but ten years of harsh sanctions can hurt as much or more than an illegal war, especially if the american people are unaware. Who can we turn to then?

Blackwater serves as a metaphor for the harsh fact that the american people could stop this but haven't. Are the waters too muddy to see?

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

» RE:Vote your conscience! Posted by: peacelf
Great article Jeremy
Posted by: Doubtom on Sep 28, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very comprehensive article for those who are hearing of the mercenary gang called Blackwater, for the first time. These gun-happy goons want to be known as "security contractors" but they're mercenaries in the truest sense of the word, i.e., they are armed civilians in a foreign country.
The idiots in charge, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and Rice decided that since they down-sized our military to the point where they no longer could perform their traditional duties, hiring a bunch of hopped up gun freaks would be a good idea, especially, if the taxpayers got to pay these clowns ten times the going rate for soldiering. Just one more example of the incompetence of this administration; they've committed our troops to an illegal war with insuffcient manpower requiring that they call Reserve forces and the National Guard to bolster the regular army. This situation also results in multiple tours of duty, with minimal recuperating times in between them. A great way to demolish the morale of the men and women involved in this fiasco. Adding to their morale gap is the fact that they do their jobs alongside these mercenaries who are getting paid ten times more in salaries.
Blackwater is under contract to the State Department, so Condi rice hurriedly stepped into the fray to calm the waters and to assure Maliki's "government" that we'll hold an investigation on this matter and that will be the end of that.
For those who thought that Iraq was a sovereign government and could decide who gets to operate in country, you have only to watch what happened after Maliki demanded that Blackwater leave the country immediately. Nothing! Taking Blackwater out of the country would mean that State Department officials would be without protection and that isn't going to happen. So much for the phony sovereignty of Iraq and its puppet leaders.
Maybe if a few of these high-powered officials got shot, fragged or got their precious limbs blown off for a change, it might help the rest of the American citizens to understand the real price of this illegal occupation.
Yes, Bush's cabal is guilty of war crimes and these crimes are being committed against our own troops as well.
Mercenaries have no place in America. If we can't fight a war without hiring outside help, we shouldn't be engaging in such a war. Stop Blackwater and other similar mercenary organizations!

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

The worst Americans
Posted by: apple pie on Sep 28, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blackwater represents the worst part of America's rapidly ethically and morally deteriorating military apparatus. It was their inital stupidity in Fallujah that created the bridge incident, and the following atrocity-ridden US military response that united Iraqis against the US invasion and occupation.

While clandestine CIA-funded and trained blitzkrieg groups and armies have been around at least since Truman, Blackwaters continued existence and protection by the US govt justifies and validates the bloated and diseased specter of American militarism, normalizing it in the normal context of American suburban wastelands, of retired soldiers, ex-defense contractors and desperate downwardly-mobile middle classers looking for a new career.

And they show up in your schools, at your barbecues, in line with you at the CostCo or Walmart, continuing to spin the web of delusion that Blackwater and the others are somehow profoundly American and intelligent and efficient when in fact they represent the worst of American greed, arrogance and bloodlust.

If you train a dog to kill, it kills. Until it is (mercifully) put down. Because life is not just about killing and shooting women and children and driving a truck to continue the slaughter and acting like a big man. Life is about something much more subtle and beautiful. The employees of Blackwater take that wonder away for nothing but filthy lucre.

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

What's next for Blackwater?
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Sep 28, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about declaring martial law in the US to keep our Idiot-in-Chief in power, and using Blackwater mercenaries to enforce the edict?

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

the worst is coming to you
Posted by: apple pie on Sep 28, 2007 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NPR is now reporting that Blackwater is applying for permits to work in states that 'need ' their help for 'disaster' relief...such as earthquakes in CA.

How many Americans did they shoot in New Orleans? Does any US govt. agency care to ask them or to hold them accountable? These are not rhetorical questions...

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

Blackwater now being investigated for weapons smuggling
Posted by: fanny666 on Sep 28, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blackwater now being investigated for weapons smuggling

ANYTHING to make money, I guess.

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

Fact
Posted by: Grozny_Guy on Sep 28, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, the 2004 Fallujah incident when the Blackwater contractors were killed was a only a pretext for the assault on the city. Read Bremer's memoir. Fallujah was a major center of resistance to U.S. rule in Iraq before the ambush, and Bremer, Bush, and Condi had already decided to attack the city before March 2004. The endlessly repeated footage of the contractors being hung from the bridge gave them the cover they needed to demolish Fallujah, but the ambush wasn't the reason. It's important because the official narrative is that the city got what it deserved, when the reality is that Fallujah was punished for defying the occupation.

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

» RE: Fact Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Fact Posted by: AlienSlave
The Maliki puppet regime
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Sep 28, 2007 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
likes to pretend it could expell Blackwater and the other mercenaries, but not without permission from the White House, which will never come.

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

Two Questions
Posted by: dayenta on Sep 28, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Is Dennis Kucinich the only voice of sanity left in Washington?
2. Why hasn't the MSM covered this issue more extensively?
These are not rhetorical, I really am curious.

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

» RE: Two Questions Posted by: Doubtom
Bought and paid for
Posted by: willymack on Sep 28, 2007 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's good enough for Congress and the Supreme Court, why not rent-a-soldier? It seems far too many of us will do just about anything for the right price, moral and ethical principles be damned.

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

Are you kidding file
Posted by: reinaldok on Sep 28, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It certainly should be obvious to all that nothing and I mean nothing will be done to stop Blackwater and their ilk. The spin doctors are already working on this. Just read today's news about the problems facing these guys. BTW Why do we, the taxpayers keep paying for their supposed services to "protect " or diplomats? Not one cent for them.

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

What about Dyncorp, Triple Canopy, Aegis and Erinys?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 28, 2007 9:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazingly enough, the New York Times also ran a decent article about this: The Deadly Game of Private Security 9/23/07.

However, I think it's pretty clear that Jeremey Scahill's book and reporting on this, along with the assistance of Amy Goodman at Democracy Now, were main factors behind raising the issue of Blackwater in the first place. That gave support for Henry Waxman's inquiry into security contractors in Iraq, and now the New York Times can't be seen ignoring the topic.

The New York Times did give an opportunity to Blackwater to respond to Mr. Scahill's "allegations" - a one-sided response, as the NYT didn't feel the need to interview Mr. Scahill. Typical.

As far as Waxman's inquiry, Chevron gal and George Schultz protege Condi Rice has stepped up to declare that corruption in Iraq and the behavior of security contractors are "U.S. State Secrets"

Here's an idea: let's have the US military hire back all the ex-military people who now work for private contractors and let's get a law passed to ban the U.S. government from ever contracting out government security jobs to private corporations. We can even include a military pay raise!

Then the private contractors can go back to their old jobs of guarding corporate CEOs on their resource-extraction missions to war-torn Third World countries, shipping arms to corrupt dictators in order to provide 'plausible deniablilty' for various countries' foreign policy strategies, and the like.

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

Genii out of the Bottle
Posted by: madmac10 on Sep 28, 2007 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it incredibly interesting that the naked ape repeatedly plays out this drama (and repeatedly fails to learn its lesson) in this part of the world. Is it something in the blood-soaked soil of the Fertile Crescent that draws evil to the surface like puss from a boil?

How many great empires fell around the Tigris & Euphrates--precisely because of mercenary armies? Here we go again...

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

wars of aggression dilemnas
Posted by: observing on Sep 28, 2007 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The dilemna for the White House isand has been that the USA did not have much of a standing army, people are not enlisting enough to fill quotas, and there is no draft. "Privatizing" is one of the hallmarks of the neo-cons who hold sway.

Certainly it is handy to have a private army which can be ordered to do anything and does not have to deal with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Geneva Convention, and other attempts to pretend you can have a civilized war. Blackwater, et.al. do not have to do the indoctrination rah-rah, no veneer, no God, country, and apple pie. Anyone who has the BOQ from any part of the world is a possible hire. They can hire Al Qiada.

That has been compounded by the fact that GIs are doing enlistment in Iraq and then transferring to Blackwater, et.al. where they are paid better as warriors. Mercenaries then get seasoned soldiers which the army had trained. Cuts down on human resource costs.

In the end, empire is another tin pot dictator with better gadgets and a longer reach.

Any documentation private corporations keep has the privilege of the corporate veil and is not accessible through FOI requests, journalists, or Congress. All part of the downside of rapacious empire (or is that a redundency?). For many years, through many venues, the United States has been feeding its people a steady diet of 'greed is good' agression on all levels.

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

thekidde
Posted by: thekidde on Sep 28, 2007 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the rhetoric from the Bushies points up their goal of domination and occupation of Iraq. "Democracy in the Middle East" my ass. Order 17 and all of the other "orders" from Bremer are a joke on any sort of democracy. Bush cronies, foreign and domestic, are screwing up the world and the U.S. and the gutless Democrats and looney toons Republicans just keep going along like sheep. Impeach Bush and Cheney, take back America, from the streets if necessary, and show the world what America can truly stand for.

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

Killing the "Enemy" and Thier Families, the Real Mission
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 28, 2007 6:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People think it's about the military being too small, etc., or about the money Blackwater and friends are kicking back to the politicos. But, that is only a small part of it. The real reason for Blackwater (and many other contractors) is that they can do things American soldiers cannot do. In Blackwater's case, the USA learned from Vietnam (with the Phoenix Program), that to kill foreign troublemakers and their families (as a lesson for others) not to use uniformed soldiers. Uniformed soldiers are always perceived as direct agents of their country. Same thing with the special ops killers; though, they often hide behind a cloak of invisibility. Still, the best of all is the contractors. The military and the USA can then always maintain plausible deniability. So, while Blackwater Mercs obstensively have a "non-classified" mission of providing protection, we should all realize that their likely "classified" mission must involve something much deeper.

As the USA looses in Iraq, the use of "unconventional tactics" out of desperation as likely grown to include what we had a taste of at Abu Ghraib. To show the enemy that they are vulnerable, to torture, to murder, and that this includes their family and friends, this is why the contractors are needed. And, this, very, very likely, is what is going on.

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

» RE: From the ashes..... Posted by: ekipnrut
» RE: From the ashes..... Posted by: sofla100
Will Blackwater Be Kicked Out of Iraq After Recent Bloodbath?
Posted by: JustHarry on Sep 28, 2007 8:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most emphatically not! Blackwater has the tacit support of the Bush administration and that's all the authority they need.

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

blackwater: mercenaries without borders
Posted by: erasmus on Sep 30, 2007 1:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By Karel Vereycken

“While greed may be good, war is better”
Forbes.com, comment on DynCorp’s financial profits on the stock markets.

On October 9, 2004, barely weeks before George W. Bush’s reelection, a conference took place in Middlebury, Vermont under the auspices of the “Rohatyn Center for International Affairs” on the theme of the “Privatization of National Security” (1)

Felix “the fixer” Rohatyn, big shot of the synarchist Lazard Freres-Lehman Brothers banking nexus, a man who was at ITT when that company was backing Pinochet’s coup in Chile on September 11, 1973, shared the panel with a group of scholars, editors such as William Dobson, editor of Foreign Affairs, geopolitical whiz kids, such as Harvard’s Michael Ignatieff who thinks America should drop the republic and become “liberal imperial”, and a selection of high placed military that travel very often from the Pentagon to the very profitable business of PMC’s, an ambiguous name to polish the less brighter label of feudal mercenary companies.

Lieutenant General Ed Soyster, for example, appeared on the program as a “Special assistant to the secretary of the Army”. In reality, Soyster, former head of D.I.A. (the Defense Intelligence Agency in charge of counter-intelligence operations) between 1988 and 1991, happens to be the current vice-president of Military Professionals Resources Inc. (MPRI), one of the largest PMC’s of the world. (2)

Seven years earlier, on January 1997, the D.I.A. organized a closed-door symposium, "The Privatization of National Security Functions in Sub-Saharan Africa." According to Ken Silverstein, writing in The Nation of July 28, 1997, “On hand were M.P.R.I. and other U.S. private contractors, as well as Eeben Barlow, head of South Africa's notorious Executive Outcomes (EO), which in the past few years has provided mercenaries to the governments of Angola and Sierra Leone, and Timothy Spicer of Sandline International.” (3)

One month after the conference, Rohatyn gave his thoughts on the matter in a co-authored article published in the Financial Times, “The Profit Motive Goes to War.” Since a decade, writes Rohatyn, a silent revolution is taking place. “In the first Gulf war, the ratio of American troops on the ground to private contractors was 50:1. In the 2003 Iraq war, that ratio was 10:1, as it was for the Clinton administration's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. As these figures reflect, key military functions have been outsourced to private companies; both Democratic and Republican presidents alike have steadily privatized crucial aspects of US national security. For a rough sense of the magnitude of this shift, Halliburton's total contracts in Iraq to date are estimated at $11bn-13bn, more than twice what the first Gulf war cost the US."
"In the history of warfare," Rohatyn continued, "sub-contracting and the deployment of mercenaries are nothing new. The British built an empire with contracted soldiers, developing a citizens' army only in the latter half of the 19th century. But there are two major structural differences between the 19th century British and 21st century US empires. First, publicly quoted companies now conduct private military operations. Second, the market for this force is now genuinely global, which raises new accountability and normative concerns."

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

Bad For Democracy
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 30, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Bad For Democracy Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
Not only should they not
Posted by: Jeanne on Sep 30, 2007 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
be kicked out. They should be made to stay and fight Bush's War for oil, so that US military troops can be pulled from the region. Bush's army of mercenaries should cover the withdrawal of official US military forces. Then, those in whose interests this war was started will have their own privately funded (well , US Govt contract funded) army to accomplish their mission -- whatever it is. It's morally reprehensible, but I think this for-profit enterprise might more realistically assess the cost/benefit ratios and realize the bottomless pit does not serve their shareholders (any more than it serves the people of the US).

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

Blackwater
Posted by: frank69 on Oct 1, 2007 1:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blackwater just got a new and bigger contract from the Department of War, euphemistically known as DOD, for $92,000,000. KILL ,KILL, KILL!

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

America's SS
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Oct 2, 2007 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blackwater might as well rename themselves the SS. That stands for Schutzstaffel. Ruthless gang of Rambos. It's time to kick them out of Iraq.
"Security" missions? After four years? Aren't we all suspicious of these heavily-armed men by now??
There's a lot going on behind their facility in Moyock, North Carolina. They're not sending missionaries over there with bibles, but mercenaries with machine guns. And it seems they answer to no one. Well one day they'll get what they deserve. Reap what ye sow.

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

  • 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