Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNo matter who wins the White House, the security firm is shooting for lucrative work.
From California to Iraq, business has never been better for the controversial private security firm Blackwater Worldwide. Company President Gary Jackson recently boasted that Blackwater has "had two successive quarters of unprecedented growth." Owner Erik Prince recently spun his company as the "FedEx" of the U.S. national security apparatus, describing Blackwater as a "robust temp agency."
Such rhetoric may seem brazen, given Blackwater's deadly record in Iraq and troubled reputation at home, but here is the cold, hard fact: Blackwater knows its future is bright no matter who next takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The company's most infamous moment came last September, when Blackwater operatives were alleged to have gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square. A U.S. military investigation labeled the shootings a "criminal event," and a federal grand jury in Washington is hearing evidence in the case.
The father of one of the dead, a 9-year-old boy shot in the head, testified before the grand jury in late May. He has rejected offers of monetary compensation from the U.S. government and Blackwater; he demands a public admission of guilt by the company. "This is important for me, morally, for my family and my tribe," said Mohammed Hafidh Abdul-Razzaq. Other survivors have been offering testimony to the United Nations, and some have filed a lawsuit in federal court in this country.
At the end of the day, perhaps criminal charges will be brought against a handful of Blackwater operatives as a token gesture. But this will not bring substantive change to the unaccountable private war industry. Indeed, the killing of Iraqi civilians and other scandals do not seem to hurt Blackwater's business at all. Quite the opposite.
In April, over the objections of the U.S.-installed Iraqi government, which has demanded Blackwater's expulsion, the Bush administration quietly renewed the company's lucrative Iraq contract for yet another year. To date, the company has pulled in over $1 billion from its Iraq and Afghanistan "security" contracts alone.
Blackwater is also winning at home. The company recently fought back widespread local opposition to its plans for a new warfare training center in San Diego. When residents and local officials tried to block it, Blackwater sued the city. A federal judge, appointed by President Bush's father, ordered San Diego to stand down. Now the company is entrenched, guns a blazin', in San Diego and is well positioned to cash in on the increasingly privatized border-patrol industry.
Blackwater's California expansion is just one of several ventures that reveal how Blackwater is growing. Among the others:
* Prince's private spy agency, Total Intelligence Solutions, is now open for business. Run by three veteran CIA operatives, the company offers "CIA-type services" to governments and Fortune 1000 companies.
* Blackwater was asked by the Pentagon to bid for a share of a whopping $15-billion contract to "fight terrorists with drug-trade ties" in countries such as Colombia, Bolivia, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Analysts say it could be the company's "biggest job" ever.
* Blackwater is wrapping up work on its own armored vehicle, the Grizzly, as well as its Polar Airship 400, a surveillance blimp Blackwater wants to market for use in monitoring the U.S.-Mexico border.
But is Blackwater counting its chickens before they hatch? Some may see it as a foregone conclusion that if Barack Obama wins in November, Blackwater's days on the federal payroll would be numbered. Obama has labeled it "unaccountable" and a danger to U.S. troops in Iraq. (By comparison, John McCain's top strategist, Charlie Black, has worked for Blackwater.)
But it is far more complicated than that. Obama may want to draw down U.S. troops in Iraq, for instance, but "diplomatic security" is where Blackwater's bread is lathered with golden butter. Obama has pledged to increase diplomatic activity in Iraq and to keep in place the Green Zone and the monstrous U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Despite his criticism, Obama may have no choice but to use these private forces. His top advisors have painfully acknowledged Obama "cannot rule [it] out."
Consider the numbers: At present, Blackwater has about two-thirds as many operatives in Baghdad as the U.S. State Department has diplomatic security agents in the entire world, including Iraq. Although Obama has said he wants diplomatic security to be done by U.S. government employees, accountable under U.S. law, the State Department estimates that it could take years to recruit, vet and train a force to take over Blackwater's work.
In addition, Obama's rhetoric on Latin America strikes familiar "drug war" chords, which bodes well for Blackwater, and he plans to send 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan, where the company is already firmly entrenched.
Blackwater's work in Iraq began with one $27-million no-bid contract to guard the U.S. administrator for the country, L. Paul Bremer III, in 2003. In five years it has metastasized into a central component of the U.S. presence in Iraq and is spreading fast into the most sensitive areas of the national security apparatus.
There is no question that a McCain White House would be preferred by Blackwater and its allies. The question is: Would a Democratic victory really be bad for business?
Jeremy Scahill is the author of "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army."
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
38 Comments so far
Show AllVote for Cynthia McKinney!
There is a left, go out and support Green candidates or Nader. Freakin do something folks. How are we going to build any alternatives if we cry like helpless babies on the internet all day?
kent shaw June 16th, 2008 2:33 pm
The Muslim extremists would have done it for free. He was one of the best friends they had with the stupid mistakes he made.
There is no left left. The political spectrum ranges from far right to center right. The Democrats are the center right.
Oh, yeah... If we shut down Blackwater, all will be well, right? Sorry, Jeff, but by posing such a limited, reformist approach, you are effectively legitimizing the rotten imperialist system that spawned Blackwater.
How is it that all of these famous authors can be so ignorant (how convenient!) about logic and politics, and get published so often? Simply stated, there is NO sensible solution out there except international communism. Is PissantNobody the only person in the CD-land who dares say it out loud? What has happened to the Left, anyway?
Black Water Mercs have small ahem syndrome. They need big guns to compensate. It makes them both sad and extremely dangerous.
The first time one of those heroes/brownshirts tries to pervert my life w/ false authority and weaponry, he faces a new challenge.
The Sniper, from the Civil War on they've been effective, like the German who hollowed out the horse's carcass on Flanders Field and shot through an eye socket.
Blackwater may help hurt Iraqi's, but Americans are crafty and armed to the teeth. I live in hills full where everyone shoots; the WOMEN have 30-30 lever-action carbines.
Blackwater? Punks.
citizenblog June 16th, 2008 3:35 pm
There is nothing I can add to this post. It pretty much says it all.
Blackwater and any other private service like it is anti-American, disgraceful and should be shut down. Period.
The military doesn't need their help, its simply another way to loot the public treasury.
God, the scum that are in charge now....Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, Reid.....I'll take Obama or McCain over this bunch. How could either one be worse?
"The question is: Would a Democratic victory really be bad for business?"
How could Demok victory be bad for business? The Demoks are themselves plugged-in matrix vegetables, fully dependent on business to operate the society.
The good thing is that if Obama gets elected Blackwater can continue work as usual. What's good for Blackwater is good for America. As a matter of fact my cousin's neighbor has a brother-in-law, who has a sister, that knows a mercenary at Blackwater. He makes over $600 a day! That's five times more than a teacher.
A teacher makes $120 a day and can get put in jail for pushing a child, which of course, is a crime. A Blackwater mercenary not only makes the big bucks but can actually kill as many innocent, unarmed, children and civilians as he feels like, and nothing can be done to him legally, because of course that is not a crime. See, what's good for Blackwater is good for America. Just ask my cousin's neighbor.
The Seattle International Film Festival showed "Sleep Dealer", a movie about Mexican workers using technology to work in America - labor without their bodies. The nemesis was a security company that had it's own reality show where they used armed flying drones to kill "aqua-terrorists" on live TV. All Blackwater needs is it's own show and I'm sure they'll find bodies, er, content, to fill it.
.
http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us-concentration_camp-location...
Where do you live?
44 States listed…
http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us_concentration_camps.htm
.
What about John McCain? What have you heard from McCain on the subject of Blackwater? Isn't his silence even more deafening because everyone gives the old Manchurian Candidate a pass. The media hasn't touched the subject with him. Do you really think that McCain will be better than Obama? McCain is totally unreasonable. Once he makes up his mind nothing changes it. He favors brainwashing troops on the government propaganda so that they will not crack if captured. You should be looking at the possibility that McSame might win. The prospect is terrifying. I think Obama is someone who will listen to the people.
How many times does the American public have to tell the US political establishment that WE DON'T WANT WAR?!!!
-- In 1940, millions of Americans voted for Franklin Roosevelt because they believed him when he said he wanted to keep the United States out of foreign wars.
-- In 1964, millions of Americans voted for Lyndon Johnson because they believed him when he said he didn't want to "send American boys half-way around the world to fight the battles of Asian boys."
-- In 1968, millions of Americans voted for Richard Nixon because they believed him when he said he had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War. Note: Were Richard Nixon to miraculously (and let's hope not) rise from the dead, he still couldn't tell you what his "secret plan" was -- because it never existed!
-- In the 2006 Congressional elections, millions of American voted Democratic because they wanted the Democrats to end the war in Iraq. Because of this strong antiwar sentiment, the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress. … QUESTION: Then what did they do? Did they end the War? … ANSWER: They continued to enable Bush and the Republicans in all they've done for the past 7 years, domestically as well as internationally.
The fact is, whether it's the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, the last thing the political establishment wants is for either a presidential election or a Congressional election to be a referendum on war. And if such an election *does* become a de facto referendum on war, then what the general public wants is most certainly NOT what the general public gets. (re. the above examples.)
The point being -- if the general population were given the chance to vote on war versus peace they would, almost invariably, prefer peace.
This thwarting of the general public's desire for peace most certainly applies to the Barack Obama candidacy. Obama began the primaries trying to create the impression that he was an antiwar candidate. As such, millions of Americans supported him because they wanted an end to the war in Iraq.
However, once it looked like the nomination would be his, Obama quickly retreated to a position of I'll-defer-to-the-generals-in-the-field … a position indistinguishable from that of Bush and McCain.
Obama has been bought and paid for with corporate money. In fact, he had more corporate money behind him during the primaries than either McCain or Hillary. And there's more on the way.
Do you think imperialism-supporting, war-loving, market-greedy, policeman-of-the-world-believing Corporate America … just *gave* Obama all that dough … and don't *want* something in return?!
Sixty to seventy percent of the American public are against the Iraq War (depending how the poll question is asked). And just as many are against invading Iran. Who represents this antiwar sentiment? Certainly not Barack Obama. Obama, along with the rest of the Senate, weeks ago, gave Bush the ok to invade Iran The Senate's message to Bush was quite clear: if you want to invade Iran, we won't stop you.
As for the Iraqi War -- is the Democratic Party the antiwar party? Does the Democratic Party represent the 60% to 70% of the American public that wants an end to the Iraqi War?
Hardly. The Democratic Party is morally bankrupt. The Democratic Party is criminally complicit in a war that's killed over 1 million Iraqis; many of them civilians, many of them children, many of them the sick and the elderly. See the following article, "Iraq Death Toll 'Above Highest Estimates'" http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/02/9363/
The Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress based on strong antiwar sentiment on the part of the general public. And what did they do once they took power in the Congress? … They *continued* to enable George Bush in his undemocratic, un-Constitutional, criminal ways.
And what have we heard from Baracdk Obama about Blackwater? ... The silence is deafening.
To oblige is to accept. To defer is to approve. To remain silent is to support.
Blackwater is simply put, the vessel in which the Corporatist Fascist Dogma Capitalists will use when BushCheney declare Martial Law after ANOTHER "Terrorist Attack" that they conviently blame on IRAN after hearing a "RUMOR" from the Irealis.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I read somewhere that old WW2 interment camps are being refurbished at the moment, notably one in Alaska. Now who might these camps house ya think?
Watch you back CDer's
CC
The ever rising price of oil should be able to pay and privatize the entire military operation. At that point half of the official troops can be withdrawn, and the corporate protection rackets can be run by the security companies. The current negotiated agreement with Iraq would see all responsibility for atrocities fall into a justice black hole, with neither US nor Iraqi law holding any force responsible.
The US government can then say it has withdrawn troops, and it can let the Iraqi population starve or be murdered without accountability, and the corporations can feed on the oil reserves. Everybody with oil, money, or power will be happy. Troops can then be redeployed to boost the flailing Afghanistan operations according to the President Obama plan for world domination, or used in operations in Iran, after a suitable periods of heavy bombardment and sanctions, as a copybook of the Iraq campaign. There should be no doubt that the path of destruction and blood for oil will continue, carried on by the number one Vampire nation. This path is unquestioned by all its leading benefactors. Participation in media commentary or any level of US government is impossible without complete acquiescence, therefore Mr Obama is just a Mr Bush with a better vocabulary.
Bill,
Here is what Scahill is claiming but I cannot find any public statements:
"I interviewed senior foreign policy advisors to Barack Obama and said to them, "What are you guys going to do about the contractors?" And what I found out is that Barack Obama's people are saying that they will not rule out the use of private security contractors like Blackwater in Iraq, and that Barack Obama will not sign on to legislation seeking to ban them or to force them out of Iraq. And the reason is actually kind of complicated. Barack Obama has been, actually, a leader on the issue of contractor reform in the Senate: he introduced legislation to try to regulate and oversee them months before the Nisour Square massacre happened in Baghdad in September of 2007. But his people realized that because they have an Iraq plan that requires keeping 40,000 to 80,000 US troops in Iraq and a massive diplomatic force, they're going to need these forces. So they don't want to be nailed on this later. So they were quite honest about their intent to use it."
"What Obama is saying is that he's going to keep in place the Green Zone, the US embassy, and the Baghdad airport, three of the largest sites for the use of private contractors, and he's actually calling for an increase in funding of the State Department division that employs them. But what's disturbing about Obama's Iraq plan, as well as Hillary Clinton's, is that both of them have plans that would keep 40,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq. It's based on the Iraq Study Group, the Baker-Hamilton report, and the 2007 defense supplemental that was portrayed as the Democrats' withdrawal plan. That's not a plan to end the occupation; it's a plan to continue it through the use of residual forces. I actually believe, and former senior military officials' who've reviewed Barack Obama's plan have said this too, that he's misleading voters with his rhetoric of ending the war. He's not going to end the war, end the occupation; he's going to withdraw some combat brigades and then maintain a force that is going to be repackaged as a counterterrorism strike force and a protection force for US diplomats. The reality is you have 500 US soldiers in Iraq; you're going to have a major resistance against them."
http://tinyurl.com/5tgwvr
Someone should corner Obama and get him to be clear about what he intends to do and whether it is really possible to make Blackwater accountable for their actions.
"Obama has pledged to increase diplomatic activity in Iraq and keep in place the Green Zone and the monstrous US embassy in Baghdad. Despite his criticism, Obama may have no choice but to use these [mercenary contractor] private forces."
Pray tell to what electoral constituency, in what forum and context, did Barack Obama make these promises? It certainly is not a part of his stump speech.
Assuming the factual accuracy of Jeremy Scahill's claimed promises can be established from Obama's public statements, it remains patently false nonetheless that he has "no choice" but to continue using Blackwater as a substitute for Marines or regular US military forces to provide physical security for diplomats in Iraq or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
It is very much a choice. Obama (or any US president) could choose to hand over the Green Zone to the Iraqi government, or choose to scale back the size, makeup, or location of the US diplomatic mission in Baghdad, any time he chooses. Obama has lots of choices. Why pretend the President does not?
Questionable factual premise, totally false conclusion, in an otherwise excellent article.
Bill from Saginaw
Look closely at Blackwater. This is our future. This is where your tax money is being spent people. To subvert the very principles this country was founded upon. These are the people who will someday soon turn on their own citizens. Sorry, but I feel it is too late for this country. The only weapons to counter Blackwaters weapons were the truth and critical thinking. These too, have been systematically stricken from our country. I feel sorrow for our children, the worlds children.
citizenblog - "indeed California is harboring, a private terrorist army, namely Blackwater Worldwide"
cavedweller - "...has large training facilities in both coasts (North Carolina and California)..."
make that "and Illinois too." North, East, and West - maybe we just haven't heard about Texas - or could be it's next on their agenda - with all those "detention centers" being constructed in the middle.
just print more money, or send more rebate checks. NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS, GO HOME AND WATCH AMERICAN IDLE NOW. EVERYTHING IS OK. WAR IS PEACE. HAVE A NICE WAR.
The father of one of the dead, a 9-year-old boy shot in the head, testified before the grand jury in late May. He has rejected offers of monetary compensation from the U.S. government and Blackwater; he demands a public admission of guilt by the company. "This is important for me, morally, for my family and my tribe,"
ok, just give them a few hundred worthless american dollars (blood money) and make all their problems go away. Except they don't want money, they want answers. They want justice. Justice cannot be bought. O, wait. Maybe it can, just look at all those white collar criminals who get off scott free, when petty criminals get serious time for personal drug use. The collapse of this nefarious system can't happen fast enough. Dont be one of the ones herded quietly into AMERICAS NEW CONCENTRATION CAMPS. i know i wont...
But we are FREE !
Free to go shopping
Free to pay our mortgages
Free to pay our credit card bill(s)
Free to full up our cars and trucks
Free to vote for the candidate of our choice
Free to watch TV
Free to eat fast food until be can't get out of our cars without help
Free to remain blissfully ignorant
Because we live in the land of the FREE, and home of the Brave Blackwater Men
Maybe, just maybe, the people who take military involvement for granted should stop and think about the fact that, despite the US spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, there aren't enough people around to do the killing. Could that be a reflection of just how huge, reactionary and violent the US empire is? Did these immoral killers ever think about cutting down on the violence? Nope, if it's between a somewhat functioning democracy (we'd have to improve to reach that point) vs. the continuation of war for profit they pick the latter.
Not enough people to take over recourse rich regions of Bolivia? Well, maybe we should just not do it. Sure, it's immoral but who cares. We shouldn't because we don't have the fire power or people.
Not so fast Mr., there's a company who'll do just that for a fee. The best part is that the tax payers pay for it! AGAIN, we socialize the cost and privatize the benefit. The "moderates" in this country don't have enough guts or ideological disagreement to say much of anything, at best they'll just cut down the company's profits, not entirely eliminate them. It's perfect, the "moderates" will actually provide us more cover than do us harm.
Blackwater's foray into spying really scares me. It's dangerous enough that there is a private army run by a cabal of cristofascists that has large training facilities in both coasts (North Carolina and California), but the fact that the mercenaries have moved into building their own assault vehicles and surveillance aircraft is downright terrifying to anyone with even the most basic understanding of history.
Isn't this how AMWAY started???
I will wager that most of you have a BW employee in your greater urban neighborhood. I have one + an ICE agent who is BIG, young, ignorant, Christian Fundy,racist and armed to the teeth, living across the street. This in a small desert town of 60K.
IF you think taking back the country from the fascists will be done via the internet... I have some swamp land here in the desert you may be interseted in. I'll even through in a bridge to nowhere.
It is embarrassing and hypocritical that the United States is hiring, and indeed California is harboring, a private terrorist army, namely Blackwater Worldwide.
Despite the preposterous immunity given them within Iraq, they are still guilty of the actions of murder and other crimes, in order to instill fear: a.k.a. terrorism.
Blackwater Worldwide's behavior endangers actual US Servicemen and dignitaries. They may be "expert" at creating a microcosm of "safety" around statesmen, but their terrorist activities increase the general danger to all people, US, UN, and Iraqi alike.
It is repulsive that this private terrorist army is gaining permission to set up a military base in San Diego. Will they be permitted to violate California gun law through some kind of "immunity"? Will they be allowed to murder and rape, also with impunity, as they do elsewhere? This Blackwater organization should be tried for its crimes against humanity, but instead they are being harbored by our States. By allowing their presence, States are endorsing murder, rape, and terrorism, and that is shameful in a democracy.
But what makes mercenaries in general most dangerous to humanity and the planet is the fact that they fight for those who have wealth and power with our money. No one should be above the law, and we don't need loose cannons out there in the midst of a counterinsurgency. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, etc. were dead set against standing armies because they thought them subversive of democracy and civic virtue.
Mercenary armies--or exclusively "professional" armies--should not be considered as valid options for democratic republics.
A company that is putting soldiers in the field yet whose greatest incentive for profit is to have the war continue is so obviously a conflict of interest. Basic human nature tells us this is a terrible idea. They are fighting our wars (something that they are not very good at), lobbying for fighting other wars, and for "peacekeeping" missions in places we have not yet interceded. They were first-responders in Katrina, bringing guns and ammo, not supplies, for desperate people. They were deployed on the streets of New Orleans and around the Gulf Coast as a security force. This was in a situation where what was desperately needed was more humanitarian operations--food, rescue, emergency housing.
The scariest part is that they can kill with impunity, and it is quite certain they do. It is also difficult to tell where the government ends and Blackwater begins, as people travel back and forth from high-level government positions to high-level Blackwater positions.
There is no accurate record of how much money Blackwater is actually making in our military conflicts, but through the maze of contractors, sub-contractors, sub-sub, etc., it is very difficult to imagine they are saving the government money as they claim.
The lack of oversight is the most frightening. No one seems to know what they are really doing in Iraq or Afghanistan. If we are going to be outsourcing our wars, there needs to be oversight and accountability. More importantly, there needs to be a fast replacement of mercenaries with peace keeping soldiers.
The disturbing aspect of Blackwater's circumvention of democracy can be seen in their recruitment of ex Chilean Commandos to fight in Iraq. Over 90% of the Chilean population was against the war in Iraq and certainly don't support these previous thugs responsible for murdering innocent people. This is an underreported issue that should be a cause of alarm and concern for everyone.
It seems there is an agenda of channeling as much government largess as possible to its corporate patrons in the energy, defense and other strategic industries. A huge mistake was made when the administration opened the floodgates for Blackwater and other private security firms to steal our money on the false pretext that they were saving money and providing a superior service with no accountability for their actions. Blackwater incorporates subsidiaries outside of US jurisdiction and control to hide their dirty deeds. Private security companies like Blackwater do not fall under the jurisdiction of our military, or under civilian control. Blackwater personnel are in essence accountable only to Erik Prince, the founder and owner of the company. These developments call into serious question the future viability of democracy in America.
Establishing anti-American systems like spy networks, concentration camps, and para-military groups, on American soil and abroad, who can do most anything and get away with it has to stop immediately. I feel my American heritage is being obliterated and sold to the highest bidder.
Please stop what this company does. They are the biggest threat to our constitutional government and democracy world-wide. This is nothing less than the destruction of the rule of law, without which there is no hope for a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
It is so frightening and sickening that a limitless supply of taxpayers money is being leeched away through the treasury to people enriching themselves out of killing innocent people. The cynical disgust and corporate greed of this cabal is truly aimed at a citizen army. When will we be attacked from within by those we fund and train?
Cancer.
Blackwater is a cancer. It is ugly, useless, and it consumes parasitically. If you cut it out in one area it re-appears in another. While it eats up our money, our freedom, our integrity, and our youth, Erik Prince sits on his throne of corruption and laughs. King of Cancer.
Right, but the Marines, Rangers, etc. cannot openly proselytize while Blackwater Chickenpluckistanis cannot help but do so.
"But is Blackwater counting its chickens before they hatch?" hehehe, I couldn't have chosen a better simile.
That the regular forces cost less than Blackwater's "cost-plus" is exactly what the Pentagon doesn't want; no way to trickle down the economy on the faces of the people.
"We The People" have been too dumbed down (present company excluded, usually) to express cogent expectations. That was the plan.
Ken Nuti
Medford, MA
"Blackwater's work in Iraq began with one $27-million no-bid contract to guard the U.S. administrator for the country, L. Paul Bremer III, in 2003."
$27 MILLION DOLLARS. To guard ONE bureaucrat. Well. Thank goodness we got good value for the money. I bet the US military could have done it for $2.7 million. Obviously it pays to have friends in high places.
One must be mindful of Machiavelli's warning regarding mercenaries (paraphrasing here) that a state that uses them in lieu of citizen-soldiers is a doomed one. Another warning from history is Carthage, which relied upon mercenaries to its' doom versus the Roman Republic. That Blackwater is branching out into corporate spying with Total Intelligence Solutions has a scary British East India Company combined with the Pinkerton's element to it. Anybody faintly familiar with history knows we do not want a redux of these corporations in our midst.
"the State Department estimates that it could take years to recruit, vet and train a force to take over Blackwater's work."
They are called Marines. They are called Army Rangers. They are ready NOW. They don't need extra training and they cost much less than Blackwater.
"Blackwater was asked by the Pentagon to bid for a share of a whopping $15-billion contract to "fight terrorists with drug-trade ties" in countries such as Colombia, Bolivia, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Analysts say it could be the company's "biggest job" ever."
Fighting terrorists with drug-trade ties in those countries means that Blacwater operatives and CIA operatives will be fighting each other.
Corporate fascism is rampant in this country! It is undermining what little bit of Democracy may be left in this country! Soon there will be no turning back, the corporate media has already caved in, as have other huge multi-nationals corporations, who try to convince us that runaway unregulated capitalism is really just good old Democracy at work!!!
What really needs to happen with our government is a clean sweep of the money needed to be elected, both to the presidency and the congress. As long as corporations are footing the bill, their voices totally drown out "We The People."
Then, and only then will we have a chance to stop the madness, of which Blackwater is a symptom.
And you and I are paying for this. Lack of benefits and health care for our returning vets, but nothing but the best for the NeoCon's private army.
The notion that putting a Democrat in the White House next January will somehow automatically result in reduction of militarism and mercenary activity needs to be carefully considered in light of historic experience. An interesting recent book makes the case that in reality:
...all five Republican Presidents of the postwar period had a detente policy and that all but Reagan in his first term reduced military spending. All four Democratic Presidents prior to Bill Clinton raised military spending, each quite substantially, and all had serious confrontations with the Soviet Union.
...The Republican Party found it politically useful to balance its pro-detente policy with hard-line rhetoric toward the Soviet Union and defense, while the Democratic rhetoric emphasized arms control and global cooperation. The difference between rhetoric and real policy in both parties was a stabilizing factor in foreign policy, but the reunification of Germany left both parties with rhetoric alone.
The author, Jerry Hough shows how even the President most despised by liberals, Richard Nixon "favored the moderate and pro-detente foreign policy of Eisenhower" in 1960 elections. By comparison, the supposedly less bellicose John Kennedy favored a massive buildup of nuclear capability (to close the imaginary "missile gap"--which resulted in more than 32,000 nukes under inventory control by 1967), development of high-tech weapons systems, Special Forces deployment, and both large scale and James Bond style covert operations.