Letters to the Editor
-
Gee whiz, wasn't it Blackwater that went house-to-house after Katrina?
Confiscating weapons from private citizens? Talk about the military-industrial complex... Blackwater is the poster child.
-
This was a great article, thankyou Salon
If this wasn't enough to scare people, I don't know what is. Americans have completely lost control of our government. Blackwater is a complete new military service, and is in the process of becoming the fourth branch of government. How did we overlook this? Is the Bush family entitled to create their own branch of government? The united states sounds more like a monarchy everyday. If Jeb is not running for president, it probably doesn't matter, his father will be running the country anyway. Maybe GHWB will let Jeb run Blackwater. Now that's real power!
-
WHAT IRAQ? CHECK THE BOTTOM LINE.
Guess why there's an Iraq war?
CHECK THE BOTTOM LINE of corporate welfare queens. And sellouts Bush/Cheney.
Shoveling taxpayers' $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
to Halliburton and other WAR PROFITEERS and assuring Big Oil's takeover of oil fields is
what Iraq war's about. And what Bush/Cheney's all about.
That's no "miscalculation", it is DELIBERATE.
Bush/Cheney? Motto: "we can get away with anything--because WE CAN! hahaha!". They don't have to get along or go along with anybody.
Chronic transfer of unlimited taxpayer dollars to the rich corporations is THE BOTTOM LINE for Bush/Cheney. Experimenting with corrupt military contractors is just another PROFIT GAME.
And later, the Bush/Cheney SELLOUTS will have a Rove publicity REMAKE to paint themselves as "heros".
-
Clarifications for Mr. Scahill
As President of the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) I’d like to just make a few quick comments about Jeremy Scahill’s latest article, which is largely a rehash of previous pieces he has published. IPOA is a trade association of more than 30 companies – including Blackwater - that provide critical services to stability and peace operations around the world.
First, as in his book and in past articles Mr. Scahill omits the fundamentally important fact that the overwhelming majority of contractors doing security and reconstruction in Iraq are Iraqis – the very people who should be doing security in reconstruction in their own country.
Second, while the U.S. military is designed to be the most capable organization in the world, it is not designed to be cost effective. It is estimated that the Pentagon is paying $15-25,000 per month per soldier in Iraq. Contractors, brought in to support the effort from a hundred different countries, bring remarkable cost effectiveness, capabilities and expertise. And yes, not surprisingly they cost far less than trained combat soldiers.
Nor should we become overly obsessed with Iraq as IPOA member companies also provide critical support services to stability and peace operations in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Somalia and other vital humanitarian missions where the West does have the political will to send their own militaries. In fact IPOA member companies have more personnel working in UN and African Union peace operations than all but a handful of countries. It is difficult to imagine how Mr. Scahill would hope to replace these personnel and capabilities if companies were banned from providing these services.
Third, despite what Mr. Scahill claims, many companies have been held to account or penalized contractually – that has been less of a problem (for some light reading pull out the Federal Acquisition Regulations sometime . . .). More complex under international law is the difficult issue of holding individual foreign contractors accountable – and again it is important to remember here that Iraqi contractors which make up the overwhelming majority of contractors are under Iraqi law (for better or worse).
IPOA strongly supports the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) and its expansion and enforcement. We have found the U.S. Department of Justice to be depressingly slow at enforcing the law on the books and we are constantly criticized on the accountability issue. As a result, our Association in the interesting position of being the most proactive NGO working to enhance contractor accountability.
Mr. Scahill, oddly, prefers to try civilians in military courts under UCMJ. That concept has been rejected by human rights organizations who object not just in the case of contractors, but for the detainees in Guantanamo. Thus I do have a fundamental disagreement with Mr. Scahill on this point.
Further, IPOA advises our member companies that when there is an allegation of illegal actions in the field they should remove the individual in question from the theatre so that they are no longer a problem, and then to fully cooperate with authorities to do a full investigation. While Mr. Scahill apparently has faith that the Iraqi legal system is far ahead of the curve in the reconstruction process, it is not yet widely recognized by the international community as being fair and impartial. Until their legal system has improved, foreign and U.S. contractors accused of felonies should be tried in U.S. Federal courts under MEJA (or numerous other laws that can be used, including international laws and even the Patriot Act). IPOA has been proactive at improving MEJA, endorsing its expansions and improvements, and holding a public roundtable with members of Congress to find the best ways to ensure effective accountability (Mr. Scahill did not attend).
Fourth, while Mr. Scahill revels in the use of the term ‘mercenary’ it really has no significant legal definition. It is simply a derogatory word, and I submit the best definition is my own – “a mercenary is a foreigner or business person we don’t like.” We should get beyond the name calling on this important issue.
Fifth, if one bothers to read Mr. Scahill’s book it becomes clear that his primary objection to Blackwater is the fact that it was founded by Republicans – the book would be little more than a ten page pamphlet if you remove his deep-seated horror at that shocking fact. As a Democrat who used to work for the Democratic Party let me say there are far better works available which actually provide reasonably balanced examinations of the use of the private contractors.
Sixth, contractors are not new. They serve in peace and stability operations because we – as humanitarians – want them there. They have been used in pretty much every recent conflict, including hundreds in support of the UN in Sierra Leone and some 80,000 in support of U.S. efforts in Vietnam. We need them: their skills and capabilities are irreplaceable. Problems that arise need to be addressed, accountability enhanced and IPOA has suggested how this can be done (see our web site at www.IPOAonline.org or our Journal of International Peace Operations at www.peaceops.com for more information and insights on this). Good oversight and accountability are good for good companies. But we can ignore the private sector’s value to peace and stability operations only at great humanitarian peril.
Finally, despite numerous citations in his book, and frequent mention in his articles and media appearances, Mr. Scahill has never bothered to interview me or anyone at IPOA. On the contrary, we made numerous efforts to meet and talk with him over the past year, all have been rebuffed or ignored. Even if he fundamentally disagrees with the use of the private sector in support of stability and peace operations, considering the focus of his book, wouldn’t a chat with the primary industry trade association have made at least a wee bit of sense?
Regards,
Doug Brooks
President
International Peace Operations Association (IPOA)
Email: DBrooks@IPOAonline.org
IPOA website: www.IPOAonline.org