OPINION & EDITORIAL
Blackwater security firm raises questions of sovereignty, authority
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Charles Lim:
- Blackwater security firm raises questions of sovereignty, authority (October 4, 2007)
- Compassionate care measure heartless (September 19, 2007)
- Breast feeding an unnatural target (September 5, 2007)
- Despite failings, Bush right on water bill veto (November 14, 2007)
- Fake press raises disturbing questions (October 31, 2007)
Related Stories:
- U.S. terrorism rampant in Middle East (October 18, 2007)
- Following U.N. resolutions is a dangerous route (September 19, 2002)
- U.S. cannot leave Iraq too soon (February 10, 2005)
- Social Security in need of overhaul (March 10, 2005)
- Social Security is a student issue, too (March 28, 2005)
by Charles Lim
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The more and more the world learns about Blackwater USA — a private military company and security firm — the more and more apparent it’s bizarrely incestuous relationship with the United State’s executive branch becomes. Most recently brought to light after the Sept. 16 shooting incident that left 14 Iraqi civilians wounded and 11 dead, Blackwater’s history as a private military company in Iraq is unfolding as one of an unregulated armed force let loose into a country currently hanging by fragile threads of civilization and order.
Many of you may remember Blackwater from the horrific ambush of four of its employees in April 2004, whose bodies were charred and mutilated by a mob in Fallujah. Clad in shades and plastic earpieces and armed to the teeth, Blackwater presented itself as a mysterious militia of paid volunteers protecting our diplomats on risky foreign relation missions inside Iraq.
The group seemed like a miracle solution at the time; handing off non-offensive combat work to private companies, freeing more enlisted troops to eradicate the insurgents and partially alleviate the problem of low recruitment numbers. Kinda like the movie "The Bodygaurd."
The biggest tipping point to what is wrong with all this came most publicly in 2006 when Bush was asked in a public forum — proudly, I may add, by a first-year college student — what code of justice the organization adheres to. Bush laughed it off with an "I don’t know."
Since Paul Bremer, the director of post-Iraq reconstruction, granted Blackwater and the American government immunity from Iraqi law; there is essentially no authority Blackwater answers to outside the terms of its contract with the American government.
The first question that should leap into your mind is "Has this immunity been abused?" Sadly, it seems that it has. There are numerous accounts detailing a lack of repercussions against the organization after severe criminal acts, even when committed against the highest levels of the American-backed Iraqi government.
On Christmas Eve in 2006, an intoxicated Blackwater employee murdered a security guard assigned to the Iraqi vice president. The Blackwater contractor was given means by the State Department to leave Iraq within 36 hours, and he faced no criminal charges by any court. The extent of the repercussions was a recommendation by the U.S. Embassy to apologize and pay the family of the deceased a quarter of a million dollars, which was afterwards deemed too high and eventually reduced to $15,000.
Explicit incidents like this sit among statistics that make it easy to believe such crimes are commonplace. The U.S. House of Representatives recently released a report detailing Blackwater's involvement in 1.4 shootings per week in Iraq, 84 percent of which had the private organization firing first, despite its contractual obligation to fire only in defense. I find it outrageous that this even has to be in the contract, as if it would otherwise be deemed outside common knowledge.
However, positive first steps have been taken in light of this hailstorm. Blackwater recently had its license to operate in Iraq revoked. But remember what I said about Blackwater maintaining close-knit ties to the administration? Well, despite the ongoing oversight committee hearings — which, by the way, have been admitted to being mainly about determining if Blackwater is a good deal to the American taxpayer rather than anything else — the organization has been awarded an indefinite contract for $92 million by the pentagon for operations in countries such as Afghanistan. Nice loophole eh?
Add to that the fact that the initial State Department’s report detailing the Sept. 16 incident, which failed to mention the Iraqi civilian casualties, was written by a current Blackwater employee, and you begin to wonder if Blackwater is truly above and beyond the law.
To be fair, there have been incidents where Blackwater has provided a service to the United States, such as when marines were entrapped outside the Coalition Provisional Authority headquarters and an all-volunteer Blackwater team assisted in the evacuation. Also, according to Blackwater, no United States diplomat has been killed while under the protection of one of their security teams. But, whether or not this outweighs the reckless concept of a private military force in Iraq, the question is, who answers to less authority than do enlisted troops?
Is the privatization of military really a feasible concept? Certainly not in this writer's opinion. When you inject a force not drawn from a nation’s regular army into a conflict that lacks a nation’s support, that acts in direct contradiction to the humanitarian efforts made by the diplomats it protects and does not answer the will of the nation it is stationed in — you are no longer fighting a war, you are playing with fire.
Charles Lim (celim@wisc.edu) is a junior with no declared major.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 7:27am):
Sun Tsu, in the Art of War, warns us to never use mercenaries to fight our battles.
The real shame is to the tax payer. We're paying these "soldiers" 5-6X more than the United States military soldiers. These Blackwater guys make $1200/day!
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 9:53am):
Too bad the liberals eviscerated the military and there aren't enough actual soldiers even to guard our own diplomats.
It's almost as bad as what they did to the spy agencies, that led to such poor and incomplete intelligence on our enemies plans and activities.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 3:24pm):
the architect of the "sleeker" military we have today was rumsfeld, you moron.
as for incomplete evidence of enemies' plans-hey, heard what osama bin laden's been up to lately? no? didn't think so!
don't make non-partisan issues partisan. god knows enough already are.
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 5:50pm):
didn't rumsfeld say "you go to war with the military you have"?
you don't think he would have liked to have 500,000 available troops to send to iraq, like lbj did during vietnam?
it was clinton that down-sized the military and then squandered the peace dividend
Anonymous (October 4, 2007 @ 10:36pm):
Some have called it the CIA's greatest covert operation of all time.
It involved deep penetration of a hostile regime by planting a network of agents at key crossroads of power, where they could steal secrets and steer policy by planting disinformation, cooking intelligence, provocation, and outright lies.
It involved sophisticated political sabotage operations, aimed at making regime leaders doubt their own judgment and question the support of their subordinates.
It involved the financing, training, and equipping of effective opposition forces, who could challenge the regime openly and through covert operations.
The scope was breathtaking, say insiders who had personal knowledge of the CIA effort. All the skills learned by the U.S. intelligence community during the fifty years of the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union were in play, from active measures aimed at planting disinformation through cutouts and an eager media, to maskirovka--strategic deception.
It was war--but an intelligence war, played behind the scenes, aimed at confusing, misleading, and ultimately defeating the enemy. Its goal was nothing less than to topple the regime in power, by discrediting its rulers.
Many Americans believe this was the CIA's goal during the 1990s, when the Agency had "boots on the ground" in northern Iraq, working with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein. Most patriotic Americans probably hope that the CIA today has such an operation to overthrow the mullahs in Tehran, or North Korean dictator Kim John Il.
But the target of this vast, sophisticated CIA operation was none of them.
It was America's 43rd President, George W. Bush.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
