More details are emerging from the investigation into Blackwater's role in the deaths of over 20 civilians in Iraq on September 16. According to the New York Times, American investigators have learned that the incident began when a bomb went off near a meeting of U.S. officials. What followed was a chaotic, poorly managed evacuation, in which Blackwater employees fired upon anything in their path. That included a woman and her infant, who were among those killed.
As many commentators have noted, one disturbing thing about farming out security in a war is the lack of accountability that private companies face. Witness the follow-through on recent threats by the Iraqi government to kick Blackwater out of Iraq. Outsourcing war, while filling in troop gaps, has disturbing consequences.
On the surface, it would seem that the firms and the U.S. military would be working toward the same end: to secure the country. Yet, as we've seen with Halliburton, these private companies are not beyond overcharging and fraud. And, as Robert Gates pointed out earlier this week, we have big problem with losing highly trained soldiers to companies like Blackwater. Why? Money.
Yes, the war is a huge windfall to select group of private companies. When it comes to loyalty, our military is a direct representation of the United States government, yet private security firms work for the highest bidder. That may mean a Sunni sheik one day, and a resurgent Shia politician the next. By every Pentagon calculation, the longer the war drags on, the fewer troops we'll be able to rotate into the country. Therefore, we will become increasingly reliant on contractors like Blackwater in the coming year. That means, of course, that those companies stand to make a lot more money from a protracted war. What was that Doobie Brothers refrain? "Old black water, keep on rollin."
Hot Topics
2008 Contenders
Hot Issues
Resources
Old Black Water!
Most Recent Comments
Politics Video
HST protest
Native HST protest snarls Toronto trafficSmitherman to run for Toronto mayor
Smitherman to run for Toronto mayorRebagliati will run
Snowboarder Rebagliati slides into politicsSnowboarder slides into politics
Snowboarder Rebagliati slides into politicsMiller won't seek 3rd term as Toronto mayor
Miller won't seek 3rd term as Toronto mayor
President 2008 |
Democrats |
Republicans |
President Bush |
Iraq War |
News Bloggers |
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1.
....keep on rollin'....
Iraqi moon won't cha keep on shining on me....
vegastracon at 1:25AM on Sep 29th 2007
2. "Outsourcing war, while filling in troop gaps, has disturbing consequences."
The simple fact is we don't have the military we once had. We had something on the order of 500,000 peolpe in theater during the First Gulf War.
In 2003 we had to muster all our resources to field approx HALF the force we had in Iraq in 1991.
An argument could be made, with the fall of the Soviet Union, we no longer needed a huge "Cold War" military. Bill Clinton eviscerated our military to fund his 1990's domestic spending adgenda in the face of repeated terrorist attacks during his Presidency.
Now we have the less than ideal predicament of relying on contractors, who lure our military personnel away with higher pay, for security and logistics that were previously handed by the military.
There are very few companies capable of performing this kind of work so they largely name their price. Blackwater would not be doing business in Iraq if we still had our 1991 military capability.
Bill Clinton gave that capability away in the 1990's and now we must "cut and run" or pay up, simple as that.
Pete at 3:28PM on Sep 29th 2007
3. "Blackwater would not be doing business in Iraq if we still had our 1991 military capability." (Pete)
Hmmm. What did the Republicans do between 2001 and 2006 to regain the (supposed) military capabilities President Clinton gave away?
NOT A DAMN THING!
vegastracon at 8:55AM on Sep 30th 2007
4. Between 2001 and 2006 we were busy creating Homeland Security that Clinton could have done after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
This ranges to airport security, port security, inspecting shipping containers, nuclear and biological response teams in cities, etc........... all started from scratch after Clinton ignored terrorist attacks for 8 years.
We were busy reestablishing the FBI that was sending memos on Middle Eastern men who were taking flight lessons and not interseted in how to land the plane because they did't have the manpower, after Clintons cuts, to chase these people down.
We were busy shoring up our defenses that were swiss cheese after 8 years of Clinton cuts.
We were busy chasing down terrorists in Afghanistan that Clinton ignored for 8 years.
We were busy holding Saddam to the terms of the First Gulf War that Clinton ignored for 8 years.
All the while, in large measure, maintaining the domestic programs Clinton put in place in the 1990's that would be political suicide to cut but suck away any posibility of refunding the military back to 1991 capability.
"NOT A DAMN THING" could be the moniker of the Clinton era since we were attacked 5 times while Clinton was President and not once since 9/11 while Bush has been President: Clinton 5 Bush 1.
Pete at 11:42AM on Sep 30th 2007
5. Bush should've apologized to the Iraqis and terminated the State Department's contract with this band of mercenaries and hired thugs. But no, he just affirmed current US policy which is that:
a) Iraqi life isn't worth sh*t, and
b) The Iraqi Government has no real sovereignty (other than what Bush allows it).
jean claude at 3:11AM on Oct 1st 2007
6. Jean
1) Iraqi life isn't worth sh*t and
2) The Iraqi Government has no real sovereignty(other than what Bush allows it)
Other than far left talking points propaganda those comments have what basis in fact?????????
Pete at 12:02PM on Oct 1st 2007
7.
"Between 2001 and 2006 we were busy creating Homeland Security that Clinton could have done after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993." (Pete)
Pete, I believe that we've gone down this road before, yes? Regardless, let's take a trip back down memory lane.....
"It IS my contention in response to an attempt to kill thousands in the U.S. homeland Clinton could have formed and funded something like a Homeland Security in 1993." (Pete)
First, the idea of a U.S. Homeland Security Department did not present itself to President Clinton in 1993. President Bush was fortunate in that someone introduced the idea to him. (Vegas)
"Bush initially resisted the idea of a new department, which had been championed primarily by Democrats in the wake of the attacks." (Vegas)
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/homeland.security/
Those nuggets are located in -
Someone Told It Straight on Iraq
Posted Aug 19th 2007 6:54AM by Phil Bailey
Filed under: Iraq War, Military, Dick Cheney
So do we reopen that debate, or what?
vegastracon at 2:56PM on Oct 3rd 2007
8. Derek
Yes we did discuss this in the past however your
"between 2001 and 2006" opening was just to good to pass up.
I stumbled across this blog shortly before we had several long exchanges back in May or so.
I do regret the 'do you know any 3, 4, or 5 year olds?' comment. I went a little to far to make a point.
On the bright side, dispite our differences, it never degenerated into name calling.
Do you have any recommendations for other blogs with similar format? I have been looking with no luck so far.
If I don't run across you again in the blogisphere good luck to you, may you always have fair winds and following seas.
Repectfully,
Pete
Pete at 8:48PM on Oct 5th 2007
9.
Pete,
I am going to head over to Powerline. We have some old friends there.
Best Wishes,
Derek
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
vegastracon at 8:23AM on Oct 6th 2007
10. Pete, Derek, and Everyone Else,
I invite you to join us at AOL's new and improved bi-partisan blog Political Machine.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/
david knowles at 8:26AM on Oct 6th 2007