Blackwater Founder Wants to Provide “Turn Key” Mercenary AF for Afghanistan(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Blackwater Founder Wants to Provide “Turn Key” Mercenary AF for Afghanistan
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13193/blackwater-founder-thinks-his-private-air-force-can-help-afghanistan
8 comments
A lot probably. The US population seems to be totally unaware of what their military is really doing.
The whole thing is obfuscated in a web of foreign governments, three-letter agencies, contractors and tech giants, endless acronyms and euphemisms (e.g. 'disposition matrix', 'extraordinary rendition', 'enhanced interrogation techniques', 'collateral damage'), and as others in this thread have said, a lot of it is about creating distance from culpability. Barack Obama was a remarkably adept and slick PR guy, possessing the perfect confluence of personal attributes to make Americans not care about whatever their government was doing. But now Trump is letting the cat out of the bag! It's a dangerous course of events but maybe has more opportunity for creating lasting change if people unite against him.
Can I suggest this news network?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_News
They have a Youtube channel with all their videos up. The name pre-dates the "real" vs. "fake news" thing. It's a rare example of American journalists speaking candidly about the US war & arms industry. They have other content too, along the lines of Democracy Now but with less focus on social justice issues, but I know that the CEO / editor Paul Jay believes that US war profiteering is presently the main existential threat to humankind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAEF0iToJ5Y&t=747s
The whole thing is obfuscated in a web of foreign governments, three-letter agencies, contractors and tech giants, endless acronyms and euphemisms (e.g. 'disposition matrix', 'extraordinary rendition', 'enhanced interrogation techniques', 'collateral damage'), and as others in this thread have said, a lot of it is about creating distance from culpability. Barack Obama was a remarkably adept and slick PR guy, possessing the perfect confluence of personal attributes to make Americans not care about whatever their government was doing. But now Trump is letting the cat out of the bag! It's a dangerous course of events but maybe has more opportunity for creating lasting change if people unite against him.
Can I suggest this news network?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_News
They have a Youtube channel with all their videos up. The name pre-dates the "real" vs. "fake news" thing. It's a rare example of American journalists speaking candidly about the US war & arms industry. They have other content too, along the lines of Democracy Now but with less focus on social justice issues, but I know that the CEO / editor Paul Jay believes that US war profiteering is presently the main existential threat to humankind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAEF0iToJ5Y&t=747s
For those who don't read the article, AF in this context is Air Force and not As Fuck
I wonder how frequently people on HN go straight to the comments? (I did think AF was 'as fuck')
I always do.
Only after reading a) some good discussion, b) seeing no comments at all I will potentially visit the original site.
It just shows we have learned nothing from Iran-Contra.
The decision of the International Court of Justice in June 1986 condemning the United States for the “unlawful use of force” and illegal economic warfare was dismissed as an irrelevant pronouncement by a “hostile forum” (New York Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
War profiteering is a rent-seeking activity. It's public fraud. And its adherents are aristocratic. They believe they're better than others, murder is completely ethical and available for a price, which is its only inhibitor. Thing is, when this class get out of control, their fellow little primates, who happen to be the vast majority, can go ape shit and build things like guillotines. Yes, there were so many victims that needed execution the streets ran with blood for days. They'd obviously let them accumulate unchecked for far too long. Oh well.
The decision of the International Court of Justice in June 1986 condemning the United States for the “unlawful use of force” and illegal economic warfare was dismissed as an irrelevant pronouncement by a “hostile forum” (New York Times). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
War profiteering is a rent-seeking activity. It's public fraud. And its adherents are aristocratic. They believe they're better than others, murder is completely ethical and available for a price, which is its only inhibitor. Thing is, when this class get out of control, their fellow little primates, who happen to be the vast majority, can go ape shit and build things like guillotines. Yes, there were so many victims that needed execution the streets ran with blood for days. They'd obviously let them accumulate unchecked for far too long. Oh well.
Good. Maybe if more people start to see the military as just another business they will start to change the way we think about how we use our military. It will be less, "Brave soldiers putting their life on the line for us" and more "People whose job sometimes requires they kill people for the highest bidder."
I wish that people didn't take these knee-jerk, edgy, contrarian responses.
There are significant implications to what you suggest beyond just the mere possibility of the potential benefit you claim.
I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war.
How do we ensure they don't go rogue?
There are significant implications to what you suggest beyond just the mere possibility of the potential benefit you claim.
I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war.
How do we ensure they don't go rogue?
>I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war
Why? Do you feel you have any real say in what our public entity does with its equipment and infrastructure to wage war? Those capabilities are already in the hands of the highest bidder.
>How do we ensure they don't go rogue?
The public entity is already rogue.
Why? Do you feel you have any real say in what our public entity does with its equipment and infrastructure to wage war? Those capabilities are already in the hands of the highest bidder.
>How do we ensure they don't go rogue?
The public entity is already rogue.
That's a poor argument for taking warfare out of the hands of democratically elected governments, no matter how aloof you may feel them to be, and putting it in the hands of unaccountable private corporations, who by definition have no mechanism of popular recourse.
How effective was the democratic process in preventing the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the destruction of Libya, the arming of rebels in Syria, the "inadvertent" loss of humvees and tanks to ISIS, and so on? Is there less terror around the world than when we started the war on terror?
We have 30x the number of bases than the rest of the nations of the world combined!
Our military budget is larger than the next 19 countries, many of whom are allies. Is this also a result of the US population's wishes and hitting the target goals? Perhaps if your paycheck had a list of where your taxes are going, like they do in France, you'd see just how much discretionary spending goes towards the military, and the taxpayers would send a message to Congress that enough is enough.
And the public army faces no market competition, so the Pentagon can't account for $8.7 trillion with a T dollars - yet our politicians always say that our army is always running out of funds and we need to increase our funding to support the national defense.
We have 30x the number of bases than the rest of the nations of the world combined!
Our military budget is larger than the next 19 countries, many of whom are allies. Is this also a result of the US population's wishes and hitting the target goals? Perhaps if your paycheck had a list of where your taxes are going, like they do in France, you'd see just how much discretionary spending goes towards the military, and the taxpayers would send a message to Congress that enough is enough.
And the public army faces no market competition, so the Pentagon can't account for $8.7 trillion with a T dollars - yet our politicians always say that our army is always running out of funds and we need to increase our funding to support the national defense.
I think a lot of the US population wanted this outcome. If so, then the democratic process seems to be functioning.
All of this is an argument for greater accountability and democratic control of our military. It is not an argument for a radical experiment with the free market and military force.
We've tried that, with diminishing returns. Prove to me that more of the same will suddenly give us more accountability.
Politicians always say "we just didn't have enough money, give us more". However the definition of (institutional) insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a better result.
I am not talking about replacing the military with the free market. I am talking about shrinking it. Yes using democratic means. But good luck with that!
More people should read Smedley Butler.
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Politicians always say "we just didn't have enough money, give us more". However the definition of (institutional) insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a better result.
I am not talking about replacing the military with the free market. I am talking about shrinking it. Yes using democratic means. But good luck with that!
More people should read Smedley Butler.
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
I know about Smedley Butler. I've also read Noam Chomsky, and I share his position that a democratic institution, for all of its many faults, is always preferable to a tyrannical, autocratic or authoritarian one.
To read Noam Chomsky, one wonders if that's his position, as he defends communist autocratic regimes far more than capitalist democracies like the USA. Part of his shtick is to criticize his home country the most. But compare his treatment of eg US in Vietnam vs Cambodian genocide. Or the amount of criticism he levels at the USA's activities abroad vs the same amount of the KGB.
In the Israel-Palestine situation he criticizes Democratic Israel far more than, say the Kingdom of Jordan. He criticizes Likud more than the PLO, and writes about the USA's imperialism in supporting a democratic state in the Middle East, while ignoring that during the 50s and 60s the KGB trained the PLO as part of explicit support to undermine Western-backed countries.
I correspond with Chomsky from time to time, and I think he is set in his ways. But I hardly think he would say our democracy has a good track record. You're thinking of Michio Kaku :)
In the Israel-Palestine situation he criticizes Democratic Israel far more than, say the Kingdom of Jordan. He criticizes Likud more than the PLO, and writes about the USA's imperialism in supporting a democratic state in the Middle East, while ignoring that during the 50s and 60s the KGB trained the PLO as part of explicit support to undermine Western-backed countries.
I correspond with Chomsky from time to time, and I think he is set in his ways. But I hardly think he would say our democracy has a good track record. You're thinking of Michio Kaku :)
You're mixing topics up in order to muddy the discussion. There's a conversation about power, amplification, human rights, etc at play in both Chomsky's positions and valid criticisms of his positions.
But that doesn't address what we're discussing, it distracts from it.
But that doesn't address what we're discussing, it distracts from it.
>It is not an argument for a radical experiment with the free market and military force.
Historically the concept of private fighting forces is not in any way radical.
Historically the concept of private fighting forces is not in any way radical.
Just because it exists historically doesn't mean that it's not a radical idea. Although, if you want historical perspective on how terrible of an idea it is, Machiavelli didn't mince words.
I repeat, then, that of all kinds of troops, auxiliaries are the most dangerous; for the prince or republic that calls them to their assistance has no control or authority whatever over them, as that remains entirely with him who sends them. ... A prince or republic, then, should adopt any other course rather than bring auxiliaries into their state for its defence, especially when their reliance is wholly upon them; for any treaty or convention with the enemy, however hard the conditions, will be less hard to bear than the danger from auxiliaries. ... And in truth no more favourable opportunity could be presented to an ambitious prince or republic for seizing a city or province, than to be asked to send troops there to assist in its defence. And therefore any one whose ambition so far misleads him as to call in strangers to aid in his defence, or in an attack upon others, seeks to acquire that which he will not be able to hold, and which after acquiring will be easily taken from him.
I repeat, then, that of all kinds of troops, auxiliaries are the most dangerous; for the prince or republic that calls them to their assistance has no control or authority whatever over them, as that remains entirely with him who sends them. ... A prince or republic, then, should adopt any other course rather than bring auxiliaries into their state for its defence, especially when their reliance is wholly upon them; for any treaty or convention with the enemy, however hard the conditions, will be less hard to bear than the danger from auxiliaries. ... And in truth no more favourable opportunity could be presented to an ambitious prince or republic for seizing a city or province, than to be asked to send troops there to assist in its defence. And therefore any one whose ambition so far misleads him as to call in strangers to aid in his defence, or in an attack upon others, seeks to acquire that which he will not be able to hold, and which after acquiring will be easily taken from him.
And I think one of the reasons Britain lost control of the USA is the king hired a mercenary army.
How could the private corporation not be accountable to the nations in which it exists? They are building, selling, and training those personnel somewhere. They're still getting their money from the governments. The difference is the disillusionment of the people.
Who says these private corporations are tied to specific nations?
Am I being too obtuse by pointing out that a corporation, by definition, requires the legal framework of a nation to even exist? I'll point out again that these private forces need to have their training facilities somewhere, buy their weapons somewhere, etc.
Not obtuse, but I do think you are being naive.
We have private corporations today manufacturing our nuclear weapons and that has worked out fine without them "going rogue." Historically, private fighting forces are not unique or unusual in any way. So what exactly am I being naive about?
Do you really think the US armed forces go to war without the President's authorization to do so?
How is the requirement to obtain the President's authorization a refutation of the premise? Are we pretending that the last four wars this country fought (not to mention the countless police actions and funded regime change) had any point beyond making a handful of wealthy people even wealthier? Are we pretending that the American people at large benefited in any way from any of these actions?
Do you really think the war industry would just roll over while a pacifist won the US presidency? These people don't have the same boundaries as normal humans. The DoD has engaged in probably the most expensive propaganda campaign in history to legitimize their activities, and any anti-war candidate would have to survive this barrage of money against them. And I seriously doubt that using violence, even against a president, is out of the realm of possibility for them. Every US president knows that they will make serious enemies, at home and abroad, if they cancel arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia.
You don't get to be the President unless you're already aligned with who the monied interests want you to wage war against.
Considering the history of Blackwater it's a distinct possibility.
Dyncorp should be mentioned in the headline too. From what I've been able to gather Dyncorp is still a much larger company than Blackwater and their history of war crimes is more extensive too.
Definitely. Dyncorp has been implicated in horrible human rights abuses too, including child sex trafficking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies
Edit: A good documentary to check out about military contractors in Iraq is Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Controversies
Edit: A good documentary to check out about military contractors in Iraq is Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q8y-4nZP6o
I'd take a position between you two. I personally don't see the problem with a military force being operated as a private business. The state still has the monopoly on approving the use of force, and they are no more and no less protected from a force "going rogue", when you think about it.
I don't think the private, for-profit operation of a unit or facility of a military is inherently flawed in any distinct way. The onus is on the government to draft and enforce the contracts appropriately, and make sure they retain control over the force.
Ultimately, war is in the hands of the armed; not governments, not corporations. The governments and corporations which organize armed men are responsible for setting up the correct incentive structures to achieve the goals, with as few mistakes as possible.
I don't think the private, for-profit operation of a unit or facility of a military is inherently flawed in any distinct way. The onus is on the government to draft and enforce the contracts appropriately, and make sure they retain control over the force.
Ultimately, war is in the hands of the armed; not governments, not corporations. The governments and corporations which organize armed men are responsible for setting up the correct incentive structures to achieve the goals, with as few mistakes as possible.
I'm sort of stunned at all the people saying "the military is already rogue so it's fine". It feels alarmingly ahistorical - a military the public is unhappy with is bad, but the history of e.g. Rome ought to speak to how vastly much worse military privatization can become.
We even have more recent examples with the specific guy proposing this 'adventure.'
Truly depraved criminal actions by personnel in the employ of his merc company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre
Truly depraved criminal actions by personnel in the employ of his merc company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre
> I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war.
Historically, that's hardly unusual.
> How do we ensure they don't go rogue?
How do we ensure anyone and anything doesn't go rogue? What does "going rogue" even mean in this context? Are you imagining that they might behave worse than officially state backed forces? How is that even possible, given how horrible state backed forces routinely behave?
I'm not trying to be flippant, but I just don't get the distinction you're trying to make. This doesn't seem especially new, or different, or dangerous.
Historically, that's hardly unusual.
> How do we ensure they don't go rogue?
How do we ensure anyone and anything doesn't go rogue? What does "going rogue" even mean in this context? Are you imagining that they might behave worse than officially state backed forces? How is that even possible, given how horrible state backed forces routinely behave?
I'm not trying to be flippant, but I just don't get the distinction you're trying to make. This doesn't seem especially new, or different, or dangerous.
It's not new, Dyncorp has been around since 1946.
And the US-backed groups variously called paramilitaries, anti-communist insurgents, moderate rebels, etc. are essentially foreign-run PMCs by another name.
And the US-backed groups variously called paramilitaries, anti-communist insurgents, moderate rebels, etc. are essentially foreign-run PMCs by another name.
> I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war.
what if we take this to extreme, and have everyone be capable of waging war? That is, take the right to bear arms to the extreme where you cannot go to war with anyone, because it would be Mutually Assured Destruction.
what if we take this to extreme, and have everyone be capable of waging war? That is, take the right to bear arms to the extreme where you cannot go to war with anyone, because it would be Mutually Assured Destruction.
Are you aware of who Erik Prince and Stephen Feinberg are? You are essentially advocating for even more death and misery abroad in the short term, in the hope that the public's stance on the US military will change. It won't change anyway though, the opposite would happen -- allowing Blackwater and Dyncorp to do what they do (murder, human trafficking, torture, etc.) will accelerate chaos in the Middle East and globally, and you'll end up with even more Americans throwing themselves behind the war machine.
There is a difference between fighting for a country's interests and fighting for personal profit. The military is not "just another business".
I disagree that our military fights for our nation's best interests and not for personal profit.
Is there? In theory yes, but in practice does this happen? I really really want to say there should be but I don't know I could sell that story and completely believe it myself.
Economics plays a huge part in politics and a country's interest sure but military decisions are accountable to elected public officials. Businesses are accountable to share holders.
[deleted]
What happens when one of these private companies comes through your area and kills your loved ones? Who is to be held responsible?
At least with nation states there's some feeble international law.
At least with nation states there's some feeble international law.
Is international law what stops Russia from annexing Alaska?
Conversely, how well is international law working for the residents of eastern Ukraine?
Although I wish it were otherwise, when I look around the world, I see a system governed by force, not laws. Private military forces fit tidily into this system.
Conversely, how well is international law working for the residents of eastern Ukraine?
Although I wish it were otherwise, when I look around the world, I see a system governed by force, not laws. Private military forces fit tidily into this system.
There is to a point a framework of laws that at least provide some semblance of order and redress. Treaties, frameworks, alliances.
Now obviously force in the moment is what decides everything but the decisions that may lead to that moment or away from it are at least possible with the international framework of relations.
Now obviously force in the moment is what decides everything but the decisions that may lead to that moment or away from it are at least possible with the international framework of relations.
thinkfurther(1)
How do you envision the effects of that change in thinking? Doesn't seem like it could be anything positive to me.
I believe that hero worship of military personnel is what allows so many crimes against humanity to be overlooked. Getting rid of that seems like it might at least let us put torturers behind bars.
[deleted]
the whole point of mercenaries is meant to be distance and deniability.
if something 'goes wrong' who gets the blame?
if something 'goes wrong' who gets the blame?
Well, apparently nobody gets the blame. Or, more accurately, the court system overturns the convictions of mercenaries who slaughter dozens of civilians:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/murder-co...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/murder-co...
it should be the paying entities that takes the responsibility. The mercs themselves don't (and arguably shouldn't) take any liability when they are ordered to kill anyone.
this is an interesting application... was linked in the article safestrike.it
How embarrassing :( I wonder how many Americans are un/aware of this.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...