"But the problem with Blackwater's activities is not that they "undermine" the U.S. military's "efforts" and "mission" in Iraq. The efforts and the mission shouldn't exist."

Yes, but... The problem of Blackwater's activities remain nonetheless. What if the U.S. is one day involved in a "legitimate" war? Will "private mercenaries" be okay then? Of course not.

The bigger issue with private mercenaries is that they and their activities will grow. Privatising "war" is a GOP "goody" -- that is to say that the GOP wants to eliminate most of the government, replacing it with private entities.

We should not not talk about Blackwater just because the War on Iraq is unjust.

"One of the most unusual aspects of the current Blackwater scandal is that it places recent killings of Iraqi civilians front-and-center even though the killers were Americans."

But it hasn't, if one follows the main stream media! No one is covering it anymore! No television/cable news shows cover this! Does the N.Y.Times? WaPo? Where is the coverage? It's gone.

"Terrible as Blackwater has been and continues to be, that profiteering corporation should not be made a lightning rod for opposition to the war. New legislation that demands accountability from private security forces can't make a war that's wrong any more right."

But is should be made as one of the worst examples of what is wrong with, not only this war, but with how the current administration/pentagon wants to wage war! If no one does anything, whqata about the next war? And the next? And the next? And the next?

But there is hope. For eventually, even the capitulating televison/cable news can't cover this up forever:

OCCUPATION IS A VIOLENT ACT!

"The current Blackwater scandal should help us to understand the dynamics that routinely set in when occupiers — whether privatized mercenaries or uniformed soldiers — rely on massive violence against the population they claim to be helping."

I keep wondering why there has not been a single subpoena issued or indictment filed or trial conducted regarding the mass murders in NYC and DC about six years ago.

Every time I hear that it could not have been a Reichstag fire now I wonder how many trusted mercenaries it would take to pull off such big crimes?

This message is written in a sort of obscure way because certain references to the crimes that Rudy Guliani is running for President of seem to trigger some filters here in the Common Dreams comment section.

In the case of the location just outside Baghdad police HQ where 17 innocent Iraqis were killed and 28 more wounded, the Iraqis there were going about their own business driving to the hospital, traveling in a bus, etc. Some war zone! If the Democrats are making such a big, organized deal about Blackwater, why aren't they folding in the fact that Jeb Bush's brother-in-law, their wives are sisters, is the Corporate Operational Officer and attorney of the parent company, The Prince Group?

How many Blackwater mercenaries are necessary to protect one State Department personnel (read spy)? Assuming there are 1000 Blackwaters, and 10 of them are required to protect one personnel, that leaves 100 State Department personnel moving around in Baghdad. Why moving around, and why so many? These are supposed to be part of a diplomatic corps always stationed in the embassy, not wondering around in a war zone, unless they're just protected spies.

You would think in a country that's a war zone, diplomatic corps would be cut to the bare minimum. By the same token, if we have 100 in Baghdad, we should have about 1000 State Department personnel, say, in Amman, Jordan. Do we? Not a chance.

Blackwater is just one more murderous corporation robbing tax-paying Americans and their future tax-paying children and grandchildren. War proftiteering is considered to be tantamount to treason, but the pirates themselves control the navy that might stop them, if you'll permit the metaphor. The "War on Terror" is , at the level of its deepest motivations, about redistributing the wealth in the opposite direction that Marx advocated.

"We'll stand down when Iraqis stand up,". Well, PM Maliki is standing up to Blackwater, so why doesn't Mr. Bush support him?

Being pro-peace is considered unacceptable in mainstream American political discourse. It is considered unserious if it is considered at all. Never ever question America's right to wage perpetual war and America's unspoken right to kill foreign citizens whose lives don't matter in the first place.

The dems Solomon mentioned in this article, those who criticize blackwater for making America's job more difficult in Iraq, are obviously interested in appealing to a voter base who still hold on to some sort of mythology that America is always a power for good in the world (see Ira Chernus' recent articles in the commondreams archives for detailed analysis of this phenomenon). I guess we can't be too harsh on them for this, and it is good that Blackwater is being put under so much scrutiny. I imagine without the investigative reporting of someone like Jeremy Schahill this house commitee never would have been formed. So we should laud this move by the congress, but we need to keep pushing until it becomes politically acceptable (convenient for reelection) to openly criticize the american occupation at large.

them boys that
fight with guns
aint gon' be the ones
that talk to jesus
on that hill
so sweet that
they gon'
wish they
hadnt been born

Have any of you read T. Christian Miller's "Blood Money"? Do it. Read it. It's worth your time. He's done the time and the research. I'm surprised it's taken this much time for Blackwater and cowboy cronies to make it to the news.

This evening's ABC news broadcast carried a coincidental story that America's military is facing a severe shortage of chaplains to serve in Afghanistan and Iraq. They need hundreds more than they have.

I'd be in favor, I think, of big bonuses to recruit new chaplains, with the revenue for that to come from big reductions in private miliary contractors.

Eric Prince was on Charlie Rose last night. I only watched part of it, man what an arrogant prick Prince is. I guess that goes with the territory.
Interesting post frank1569.

Actually, it augurs well for change. Expansion, expansion. Apparently, they're moving into the drug protection racket, er, I mean, stopping the transportation of drugs.
Poor guys, they've really taken it on the chin lately. Nothing will improve their integrity like having a bunch of paid mercenaries hanging around the massive amounts of unaccounted for money and drugs that has fueled countless death squads(current and former military men).

Listening to a radio interview with Chalmers Johnson yesterday,Chalmers stated it was the military/industrial complex keeping a large proportion of Americans in employment and politicians of all colours strive to have military production plants in their state.If this is true,it does not augur well for any change in American foreign policy,or for the continuance and growth of Blackwater type companys.

"Rhetoric from a House committee early this month audibly yearned for a better war..."

Yearned for a better war? What the hell does that mean? War is war! No war is good!

Blackwater as scapegoat for the war reminds me of the early 1980s, when James Watt, who eminently deserved ejecting from his post as Secretary of the Interior, acted as a lightning rod for Reagan.

Yes, yes, "as though a relentless war of occupation based on lies could be redeemed by better management".

This is an issue of rhetoric, and it demands an effective rhetorical response. The obvious response would be for all of us to adopt, and to force others to adopt, a policy of referring to the occupation of Iraq as the "armed robbery" of Iraq. Don't call it "this infernal war" like Robert Byrd did, don't even call it a "failed mission". If you are having a conversation with someone, whenever they say "war" or "occupation" or "mission", you just say "conquest", say "rape", say "armed robbery".

No one will demand that we ought to be discussing a timetable for withdrawing from the armed robbery of Iraq, or that the rape of Iraq should be taken out of the hands of private contractors and given to the military.

BTW, its completely predictable that the Democrats would concentrate on scape-goating Blackwater for exactly the reasons listed in this article.

The Democrat modus-operandi is to try to create media headlines that seem critical against the Republicans while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing that changes policies they've supported all along. Thus, scapegoating Blackwater is perfect for the Democrats. They get some cheap political headlines and shots at the Republicans. Then they take advantage of this focus on Blackwater to take some little action that appears on the surface to be trying to address the problem. But of course since they refused to concentrate on the real problem to begin with, the little action they will take will do absolutely nothing to address the real problem.

Didn't we just see this same scenario play out with AG Gonzalez? The Democrats used him as a scapegoat, then allowed his resignation to effectively close all the issues. This way they don't have to address the inherent illegalities in that case that went all the way to the President and which should have led to impeachment.

Thus its no surprise at all to see the Democrats doing the same with Blackwater while avoiding the real issues concerning this war.

Its wrong to talk of Blackwater 'undermining' the US effort in Iraq as though they are two separate and distinct things.

I keep saying "Read Naomi Klein's book". :) But she goes into how Rumsfeld
a) was a corporate exec believing in outsourcing before becoming Sec of Defense
b) brought this same philosophy to the Pentagon

From that, its easy to see how it was always in the cards to outsource what had previously been military functions. It was always a part of Rumsfeld's idea of a 'new military'. And it was always in the cards to use this sort of decision to move public money into the hands of the executives of a private corporation.

Thus, to me it just sounds wrong to talk of Blackwater undermining the US effort in Iraq because Blackwater and the other mercenary outfits working in Iraq are simply a part of the US effort in Iraq.

And, guess whose tax money will be used to settle the lawsuits against the company, as reported elsewhere in today's CD?

It's pretty safe to say that Erik Prince belongs in prison. His war profiteering alone should put him behind bars.
Mr. Solomon is correct that Blackwater shouldn't be used to stop the war. The war wasn't started by Blackwater, nor does it continue because of Blackwater. Blackwater should simply be exposed for what it really is and charges should be brought against Mr. Prince. One he and men like him are behind bars, the world will be a much safer place.

Like all good patriotic American corporations, Blackwater will "withdraw" from Iraq, file for bankruptcy, and return within the month under their new name, Peacewater.

The real scandal is the subcontracting of half the NSA and CIA over the past several years. Imagine an Eric Prince with a contract to data-mine without a warrant or supervision, with access to secret satellite recon and other Pentagon spy toys, and clearance to "stovepipe" their analysis straight to Dick and the Decider, and you've imagined reality as it now exists. Government-contracted intel mercenaries are way more dangerous than a bunch of hired shooters dumb enough to accept a job in Hellraq.

If it was not for the mercenaries - not just Blackwater - we would have had to re-initiate the draft.

If this had taken place, the general populace would be screaming for the illegal war(s) to end.

Greedy Blackwater now wants the Pentagon to okay giving them -- $15 BILLION of our tax money -- for them to expand their racist killing sprees around the globe. Killing is big business for American war profiteers. How sad.

Note how Solomon's point can be generalized.

Essentially, he's saying that criticism of Blackwater serves to divert attention from the fact that THE WAR ITSELF is the crime. The war itself cannot really be made "nicer," or managed in a "cleaner & better" fashion, even if the Blackwater hoodlums are excluded from it.

This same distinction applies perfectly to the slight differences between Republicans & Democrats. Democrats offer only a superficially "cleaner & nicer" way to run the American Empire. Just as the Iraq War doesn't really change by kicking Blackwater out, the American Empire doesn't really change by Democrats' winning elections. Under the surface, it's still the same crime, simply with a prettier face and sweeter talk.

The problem is US capitalism, & its relentless push to dominate the world. Both parties support this -- one with a blatantly in-your-face style, the other with a somewhat "friendlier" style. But it's the same criminal enterprise either way -- just as the Iraq War is the same, with or without Blackwater.

And the "Surge" has been so successful that, when Blackwater were briefly banned from working, the State Department staff they were protecting were told not to venture out of the Green Zone.

Still, not to worry - it's only a few bad apples!

[quote]the company is making it more difficult for the U.S. government to succeed in Iraq[/quote]

Terrible shame, that! And what's the U.S government's excuse for its remarkable lack of success elsewhere? Like within the U.S. itself, for example.

And this is the "greatest democracy on earth" model they want to export to other countries by force of arms. Not too surprising, I suppose, when one takes note of it's corporate sponsorship and sole beneficiaries who aren't exactly world-renowned for their own farsightedness.

Ted Rall made a very similar point recently-- see: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/10/4448/.

He characterized it as "scapegoating Blackwater", which some took to mean that Rall was excusing or exonerating Blackwater as such. I didn't read it that way; I believe that he was arguing, as Solomon does here, that there is a danger in the public being duped into believing that Blackwater is just that-- filthy bathwater that can be thrown out while the baby of imperialist US military intervention is saved.

The filthy bathwater is just that, but it's only a symptom of misfeasance, not a cause. Here, the "baby" is a pustulent and feculent demon which itself eminently deserves to be thrown out before it pollutes and poisons all the bathwater in the world.

Solomon makes his point so well as to arouse suspicion that providing a distraction by gunning down some Iraqi's was Prince's goal. If so, it seems to have worked. He didn't even have to face tough questioning before Congress.

jj

The outcome from kicking out Blackwater will be that the other mercenary companies hire their employees and the mess continues. BFD

What these guns-for-hire are accomplishing is the uniting of the Iraqis (those left alive) against the USA.
While we will suffer the consequences, it won't bother the mercs much.

Over a hundred years ago Jack London wrote in IRON HEEL:"Another great institution that had taken form and was working smoothly was the Mercenaries. This body of soldiers had been evolved out of the old regular army and was now a million strong, to say nothing of the colonial forces. The Mercenaries constituted a race apart. They dwelt in cities of their own which were practically self-governed, and they were granted many privileges. By them a large portion of the perplexing surplus was consumed. They were losing all touch and sympathy with the rest of the people, and, in fact, were developing their own class morality and consciousness."

When American Diplomats and Generals can't be protected by their own troops, it's time to get the hell out of the way. You should not be there in the first place. If the Bible justify's Blackwater et all's presence in the first place , Bless the Agnostics.

It seems to me that if the political right-wing is employing a private army to carry out their political agenda, then it logically follows that the left-wing should also employ a private army to off-set the advantage.

Blackwater is not what is wrong with the American "mission." It is what is wrong with America, period. Founded by the son of a Babbitt, who doesn't even think the government should keep the air clean, Blackwater is a racist killing machine, supported by its political friends in high places and paid for by the taxpayers. More efficient than the soldiers who cleared the West of redskins, Blackwater's mindset is the same: guns for hire, against subhumans. I don't suppose everyone will get it if I quote the Bible, but Blackwater is symbolic of the huge log in the American eye that prevents us from seeing ourselves and the American past (and present) clearly.