I hate it when I read 2-3 nice, motivational human interests stories in a row and then, instead of getting eased back into the normal, depressing web of worldwide events, I get slammed back into the the middle like the first fast ball a pitcher throws in a world series game. Well, that is what just happened. So, out of the kindness of my heart, I am offering you fair warning....This story is going to blow your mind. (And not in a good way.)
I just read about how everyone's favorite wartime mercenary contractors, Blackwater, or Xe as they preferred to be called since their reputation as Blackwater became eroded beyond repair, has settled with the US government for a measly $42 million dollars. This fine is to cover 288 "export violations" it committed between 2003-2009.
A couple things to note here:
1.) This has nothing to do with any civilian casualties Blackwater may have caused in Iraq and Afghanistan. (i.e. not including the incident involving Blackwater guards murdering 17 Iraqi civilians in September, 2007)
2.) Even after committing these 288 - let me spell that out for real effect - Two-Hundred and Eighty-Eight- offenses, the now ominously named Xe can still work for the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan, and anywhere else for that matter.
3.) None of the contractors deaths, injuries, or crimes have been, or will be recorded. There is still no oversight. There is still no accountability. And we are still hiring them!
I could rant and rave about this, but I will leave that to my fellow bloggers. What I want to know, is why in the hell we need to pay a mercenary army on top of, and more than, our real military?
One theory I found was best extrapolated by SFCMike in response to a CNN poster:
"The concept behind contractors, in theory, is to use them to free up the real military for more operationally significant tasks. If you use the existing military force to do contractor jobs, you dilute the forces available for action in the field."
Contractors primary responsibilities include:
"...bodyguarding diplomatic and other personnel, building security, convoy escorts, etc."
(Source: U.S., Blackwater reach settlement over export violations)
I thought that the whole reason our military was in these two countries on the other side of the world in the first place was to "build security." Every speech I hear politicians give regarding why we are at war is for our own, and the native people's "security". If our military needs mercenaries to do what I would consider to be a primary objective of our declared mission, we should definitely re-evaluate what "operationally significant tasks" our men and women are performing.
Furthermore, I wonder how many American diplomats need to be escorted through Iraq and Afghanistan. We should have an ambassador in each country, and perhaps a handful, or two other civilian folks, but enough to warrant a mercenary army? Of experienced retired soldiers from elite units in the US military? (Source: After Fallujah: The Truth About the Blackwater Mercenaries)
What about the more conspiracy-driven idea that you need mercenaries to do the dirty work our own military cannot do. This argument does hold some credence with me because of the fact that none of the operations or missions that Blackwater/Xe, or any contractor, perform are on the record. Furthermore, a quick internet search on Blackwater will reveal the hundreds, if not thousands of websites dedicated to debunking their "civilian" facade, and bringing their true profiteering actions to light.
Besides the fact that I feel like Blackwater is a extraordinarily deceptive tool the US government uses to hide the truth about many aspects of the wars, the thing that really ticks me off is the cost. Read the following scenario.
"Military experts leave the government payroll--but use their in-house contacts to win massive contracts for the same operations of logistics, training, and special operations they were already performing. They become millionaires while continuing their former military assignments "in the private sector"--and conduct these operations far outside the usual budgetary and political scrutiny." (Source: After Fallujah: The Truth About the Blackwater Mercenaries) <--Source link very interesting and worth a click!
It sounds too plausible, and realistic, not to be true. One look at our national debt, and I am a believer.
Many sources agree that the surge to as many as 100,000 contractors on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan during the height of the war represented the "greatest privatization of warfare in modern history." (Source: Blackwater: Shadow Army - Privatized Paramilitary)*. We should all be worried about what this means, both to our national budget, and to our standing in the world. If the trend continues, we could see these mercenaries assisting our city police forces. I don't know about you, but I would prefer that the law enforcement in my area has to answer to the constitution.
*Watch the video. At the end, it shows Blackwater SUV's in New Orleans after Katrina, and discusses the opening of new Blackwater headquarters in the US, including one in CHICAGO. My final statement is not as far fetched as you might think.
___
Update: 8/21
4 U.s. tropps killed in eastern Afghanistan
The head of a private security firm was killed in Kandahar province yesterday.
President Karzai has stated that he wants all such contractors "...to cease operating in Afghanistan within four months, posing a challenge to the U.S. and its allies who rely heavily on contractors to guard supply convoys, installations and development projects."
This is because, "Complaints have mounted that the firms are poorly regulated, reckless and effectively operate outside local law, and the order to disband them is part of the president's moves to assert his authority."
Well, what do you know.
___
Update: 9/4
NYT: Web of Blackwater companies revealed
According to a former Blackwater employee, "The network of companies — which includes several businesses located in offshore tax havens — allowed Blackwater to obscure its involvement in government work from contracting officials or the public, and to assure a low profile for any of its classified activities."
Though it ticks me off to read about how Blackwater manipulated the US government into granting it new contracts by setting up phony companies, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. In fact, I'm sure that Senator Levin's request to have the Justice Department investigate Blackwater will be ignored or denied. This is because powerful men in the CIA, men much higher up on the political food chain than US Senators on the Arrmed Services Committee, condone the mercenary warfare that is becoming the norm in the 21st century.
Mercenary warfare is a controversial topic. My husband and I were just discussing its positive and negative sides this morning. My main problem with Blackwater, and other military contractors, is that their activities are not recorded or regulated. My husband counters that in war, special mercenary forces such as Blackwater are acceptable. Afterall, it is war.
Mercenaries are not unique to Afghanistan and Iraq, either. I have read about US contractors fighting in South America, as well as pirates forming mercenary bands to fight on the East coast of Africa. Like it or not, I believe mercenaries are here to stay. An e-mail obtained by the Times from a former Blackwater, ex-CIA employee to a US government official states:
"'We have a rapidly growing, worldwide network of folks that can do everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations. . .These are all foreign nationals. . .so deniability is built in and should be a big plus,'" (Source: NYT: Web of Blackwater companies revealed).
It is unknown whether the US government ever took the employee up on his offer.
___
9/23
DoD: Civilian contractors in Kuwait didn't have proper clearances
"A new Defense Department report says many civilian contractors working in Kuwait didn't have proper clearances and could have jeopardized the safety of U.S. military personnel and undermined national security."
"The department's inspector general says the company's security office failed to track 21 of 379 employees who were in sensitive positions, such as ammunition supply, and that 11 employees did not have a valid security clearance."
The problem is, neither side is willing to take responsibility for the negligence. The DoD is claiming the company involved ignored compliance officer's warnings about these issues. I'm sure if the author could have interviewed a representative from the mercenary company, to get their side of the story, it would be quite different. But, of course: "CNN was unable to contact representatives of the contractor."
However, the DoD report does provide some information in the contractors defense: "'According to CSA's human resources information system analyst, the Army did not clearly define or designate all sensitive positions; therefore, CSA officials relied on their own department managers to determine which positions required a security clearance,' the report says."
Without anybody taking ownership of the mistakes, they are bound to occur again. That is my biggest gripe with contractors. There is no one regulating them. Not even their own executives seem to know what is going on.
___
10/ 3
8 private security firms banned in Afghanistan (CNN)
"Afghanistan has banned eight private security firms, including the company formerly known as Blackwater. . . Before Sunday's announcement, there were 52 registered private security companies in Afghanistan, half of them international, according to the interior ministry. Now there are 44 private security companies operating in the country."
I am glad President Karzai has stuck to his guns, and followed through with the ban on contractors. Unregulated mercenaries have no place representing Americans in a place where counter-insurgency tactics involve winning over the hearts and minds of the natives.
___
10/8
Senate report slams Afghan security contractors (AP, by Anne Flaherty, 10/7/2010)
The above article had me too fuming to just summarize. As I read it, I scribbled down a comment for nearly every paragraph. I have tried to organize my thoughts in both a relevant, and orderly manner. However, I realize the transitions in this post are a little sloppy. The alternative was re-writing Ms. Flaherty's work, which I think is both rude, and unnecessary. So please take the time to read the above link, then proceed to the below comments with the article in mind.
_
Would the US government condone hiring, and arming members of Mexican drug cartels to fight the the war at our southern border? I doubt it. Yet, we are employing, and arming any male Afghan willing to take a gun. According to Senate investigators, "contractors often don't vet local recruits and wind up hiring warlords and thugs."
Furthermore, a June inquiry discovered that "trucking contractors pay tens of millions of dollars a year to local warlords for convoy protection." In reality, we are the ones paying the enemy, via billion dollar defense packages that get dished out to contractors.
These practice go directly to the heart of why I think contract mercenaries should not be allowed in war zones. Although taxpayers are footing the bill, these hired guns are not under the direct supervision of the US military, or any government. I realize our military carries out some of these same practices, (arming men of questionable repute, and paying bribes), but someone in the chain of command is aware of who gets what, and where. The difference for contractors is that no one is keeping track.
In July, General Petraeus made the following statement:
"'As the security environment in Afghanistan improves, our need for private security contractors will diminish. But in the meantime, we will use legal, licensed and controlled (companies) to accomplish appropriate missions.'"
The problem is, these mercenaries are NOT "controlled", and the security situation is NOT improving due to their presence. There wouldn't be criminal investigations, like the one described in the article as paying warlords, "up to $4 million a week," if these companies were being actively supervised. A vast majority of the 26,000 "private security personnel" in Afghanistan are not given specific missions. As I stated in an above post, how many diplomats can possibly need escorting across the desert and mountains of Afghanistan? The usually-passive Karzai government would not be demanding the end of all contract work in his country if the welfare of the general populace was benefiting from their presence.
I was angry to learn that General Petraeus is ordering a special investigation into the "impact that contract spending has on military operations." I was not mad because of the topic, but rather the timing. It took nearly ten years of unsuccessful fighting, that cost us hundreds of young lives, and billions of dollars, for someone to finally question this tactic. If I were in charge, this research would have been conducted almost a decade ago.
Proponents of contractors site the need to put Afghans to work as a good reason to keep using hired guns. I do agree that young Afghan men need to find some form of employment if they have any hope of avoiding joining groups like the Taliban. However, giving them guns, and calling them "contractors" is just about the stupidest thing I have ever read about. Did our military and government personnel not watch Charlie Wilson's War? Call Tom Hanks, and he can tell you more about arming Afghans than most of our military can!
When President Karzai said that he wanted all contractors out of his country by the end of the year, we should have found a way to oblige. Even if it meant a scaled reduction, that met a critical point of 50% gone by January 1, it would have given the man some legitimacy. If we want people in Afghanistan to see Karzai as their leader, ready to guide them into the future, we need to view him, and treat him, as such first; not find excuses for why his orders cannot be followed.
___
10/24/
Karzai stands by ban on private security firms (CNN, 10/24/2010)
President Karzai is sticking to his guns regarding the disbanding of security firms in his country. The only exceptions are going to be for diplomats and embassies. I personally question why the related nations military can't provide the security for its diplomatic personnel, but am encouraged that much of the undocumented, uncontrolled actions of security firms, like Xe, will end for good in Afghanistan.
___
12/10
US blacklists Afghan security firm tied to Karzai (MSNBC, by Heidi Vogt, 12/9/2010)
According to the above linked article from MSNBC, the Afghan security firm known as Watan Group is no longer "tied" to the U.S. military. Facing charges of bribery, and misuse of weapons, the group has a month to dispute the ban, which it plans to do. If it holds, Watan will be the seventh firm this year to lose it's contract with the U.S. No one on the U.S. side can say for sure how much money we handed over to these organizations, and, in many cases, they then handed over to the Taliban in the form of bribes. And the contracting firms themselves are not willing to disclose their earnings. It makes me furious that it took ten years of fighting, a Congressional investigation, and Karzai's own demand to eradicate them, for our government to put the pieces together and stop feeding the enemy via these "security" companies.
___
No comments:
Post a Comment