Archive for June 4th, 2007

Club Med meets Mad Max

What Bush’s vision of “God-given freedom and democracy” in Iraq actually looks like. Be sure to read the last piece on Blackwater and note its opportunities in the US of A — what you don’t know CAN hurt you.
Jude

Iraq’s Mercenaries - With A Licence To Kill
‘These private contractors can get away with murder… They aren’t subject to any laws at all’
Johann Hari, The Independent/UK
Monday, June 4, 2007

Iraq is rapidly vanishing into the mists of uncollectable, unknowable news, with information travelling only as far as an Iraqi scream can be heard. But sometimes, if you peer closely, you can glimpse reality. Last week, Shia militiamen seized four “security contractors” working for the Canadian company Gardaworld. Buried in the story of this small horror is the bigger tale of a vast shift in how Western wars will be fought in the 21st century if the American right has its way - and one of the great lost scandals of this war.

These men are not “security contractors”, nor are they “civilian operatives”, nor “reconstruction workers”. There are now more of them in Iraq than there are professional soldiers: Britain alone has 21,000 in the country, raking in $1.6bn a year.

As he scurried out the door in 2004, Paul Bremer - the first US viceroy to Iraq - issued Order 17, which exempted all mercenaries operating in the country from having to obey the law. He in effect gave these men a licence to kill - and they are using it, every day.

Yas Ali Mohammed Yassiri was a peaceful 19-year-old Iraqi trying to get on with an ordinary life in a deeply unordinary Baghdad when he boarded a taxi on his street in the Masbah neighbourhood. The mercenaries guarding the US embassy spokesman in Baghdad drove around the corner, so Ali’s taxi slowed down - but the convoy opened fire anyway, to clear their path. Ali was hit in the throat and died immediately. Although the US embassy now admits the convoy “opened fire prematurely”, the mercenaries were merely sent home; they are free, happy men.

This is not a one-off freak. It is virtually an everyday occurrence. Colonel Thomas Hammed, who was placed in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi military by Bush, explains, “They [the mercenaries] made enemies everywhere. I would ride around with Iraqis in beat-up Iraqi trucks, they were running me off the road. We were threatened and intimidated.”

In April 2004, mercenaries working for a private militia named Blackwater were guarding US occupation headquarters in Najaf when a protest by Shia Iraqi civilians began to stir outside. According to the Washington Post and eyewitnesses, Blackwater opened fire on the protesters, unleashing so many rounds so rapidly they had to pause every 15 minutes to allow their gun barrels to cool down. A video of this attack made it on to the Web, where a mercenary can be seen describing the Iraqis they are gunning down as “fuckin’ niggers”.

The distinguished reporter Jeremy Scahill claims in his new book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, that mercenary troops in Iraq are even using “experimental ammunition” that US forces are forbidden from firing. These bullets, made of “blended metal”, are designed to shatter on impact, creating “untreatable wounds”. One mercenary recently bragged about the ammo’s impact when he shot an Iraqi with it: “It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower-left section of his stomach… everything was torn apart.”

Last year, Representative Dennis Kucinich asked Pentagon officials at a Senate hearing if the US Department of Defence would prosecute a private contractor who murdered Iraqi civilians. After being told repeatedly, “Sir, I can’t answer that question,” Kucinich said: “Wow. Think about what that means. These private contractors can get away with murder… They aren’t subject to any laws at all.”

How did this happen? How did Iraq become flooded with private militia making a killing? The story begins back in the early 1990s, when Dick Cheney was secretary of state for defence. He believed Pentagon “bureaucracy” was mere Big Government and had to be smashed into a thousand corporate pieces to be made “efficient”. Cheney’s proposals continued at a slow pace during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who brought mercenaries into the Balkans - then went into over-drive when he was Vice President.

The US right has a slew of reasons to privatise the US military so rapidly. The most obvious is simple corruption. It funnels money to companies in which they have a huge stake, and who in turn donate a fortune to the Republican Party. This is justified in public by a market fundamentalist conviction that governments can never run anything properly, so their functions must always be sold off.

But this is a secondary motive. The main limit on an aggressive US foreign policy today is the limited number of US citizens who are prepared to kill and die for it. Mercenaries solve the problem: just buy troops in. The public is far less likely to protest against a war if the victims are hardened Colombians in it for the cash, rather than their cousin from Wisconsin who signed up out of patriotism. In mercenary wars, all citizens are asked to give is money, not blood. The Cheney model of mercenary warfare being tried out in Iraq is, in fact, a way of making possible his vision of a 21st century in which wars for resources will be “necessary” on a “regular basis”.

We have been here before. In his Discourses, Niccolo Machiavelli describes how, in its dying days, the Roman Empire was no longer able to inspire a large citizen-militia, and increasingly bought armies of willing foreigners. The result was dissolution, decadence and imperial collapse. What would the world look like if Cheney’s vision of privatised armies prevailed in this century? There would be far more wars, far less checked by the rules of war built up after the nightmare of the 1940s: in other words, more Iraqs.

History also points towards a longer-term danger. Where governments depend on private armies, they become increasingly their servants, physically incapable of standing up to them. In the 14th century, corporations determined the fate of the Hundred Years War, and in lulls in the fighting would burn down towns that refused to pay for their protection. The French sovereign was powerless to stop them, because his own forces were too feeble.

Little more than a century ago, the East India Company ignored the explicit orders of the British government and attacked Portuguese garrisons in India, solely to boost its own profit margins. The Empire relied on private militias, until they slipped off the leash. Phillip Bobbit, a former advisor to presidents Nixon and Reagan, warns in his book The Shield of Achilles that as we dissolve back into private armies, we are setting ourselves up for a repeat of this corporate dominance over government.

Dick Cheney effectively believes in rule by corporations, rather than rule by the state, so for him, this is a comforting vision. For the rest of us, the seizure of British mercenaries in Baghdad provides us with a glimpse of a future where we are stumbling unwittingly on to corporate battlefield with no end. The Iraqis are living - and dying - in this dystopia today. ++

Fear and luxury lure foreign legions
In the week five British expatriate workers were seized in Baghdad, a look at a shadowy world where risk and reward can be equally high
Steven Morris and Audrey Gillan, The Guardian
Saturday June 2, 2007

They are members of a hidden army who inhabit a curious in-between world. Tough, heavily armed private security guards who love the adrenalin buzz rub along with high-flying businesspeople and contractors. Blue collar workers trying to make a quick buck or do their bit for the cause are thrown together with poorly paid cooks, cleaners and laundry workers from across the globe.

This is the world of a foreign legion working, living, surviving, in what has become the most dangerous country in the world.

There are almost as many of them as there are American soldiers. But there is no safety in numbers here. The kidnap of four private security guards and a finance expert in Baghdad by what is suspected to have been a rogue faction of the Mahdi army this week shows just how hazardous Iraq is becoming for foreign workers. The SAS is waiting to intervene, but nothing has been heard from the kidnappers since the hostages were taken by men dressed in police uniform from the city’s finance ministry.

New statistics released by the United States labour department reveal that in the first three months of this year, 146 contract workers were killed in Iraq. More than 900 have been killed since March 2003. But still they go, neither soldiers nor citizens, putting their lives on the line, hiding in secure compounds when not dodging bullets and trying to avoid deadly roadblocks and explosive devices as they go about their business.

A few may be there through feelings of duty or to try to make a difference, and some because their bosses have told them to be. But for most the lure of cash outweighs fear of injury and death. For Mike, a finance expert from south-east England who works in the London office of a multinational company, the offer of six weeks in Baghdad had two attractions: great money and adventure.

He said: “I don’t want to say what I earned. Let’s say it was better than my last bonus and I’m having a pool and tennis court built on the back of it.”

Mike’s time in Iraq earlier this year was spent largely in the secure international zone. Most meetings were held within the protected enclave. “I found it quite suffocating, really. I was living in a villa with a bunch of other guys.”

He added: “I went on training courses before I went out, but I was unprepared. Being in the city was the most scary. There was this awful feeling that one false move, and that could be it.”

Mark Whyte is one of those whose business it is to protect people like Mike. He is operations director of the British firm Pilgrims Group, which provides security for the media and the oil and gas sector, and has been working in and out of Baghdad since March 2003, employing 60 ex-SAS soldiers from Britain and New Zealand and 200 Iraqis.

“The typical wage for an expat special forces guy is £400 a day. An expat infantry soldier on an escort convoy, based in the Green Zone and working outside of it, maybe earns £175 a day,” he explains. “But we have passed the high water mark of requirement for people. Maximum demand was 2005-2006 but the need for numbers has tailed off since because the big reconstruction projects have stopped, or never started in the first place. There has been a switch, with American companies employing a lot of third-country nationals because they are cheaper.”

Pilgrims does not have a high turnover of staff, he says, and most are employed by personal referral. “We get 100 CVs a week from all over the world and almost all are unsuitable. We get our people through word of mouth.”

Reverberation

The abduction of the private security guards, working for Canadian company GardaWorld, has reverberated across the whole industry. “I think there is a reduction in the number of companies expressing an interest in going into Iraq. It costs between $10,000 and $15,000 a day for an eight-man security team.”

But not everyone doing the same job is on the same money. “They have got a rate for South Africans, a rate for Filipinos, a rate for Gurkhas and a rate for Colombians. Third-country nationals don’t get paid as much as expats.”

Some workers find it difficult to get home. In March, the International Organisation of Migration rescued five Sri Lankans who said they had been taken to Iraq to work as cleaners against their will. They told of 16-hour days, seven days a week, labouring away for as little as $100 a month. IOM rescued 17 other Sri Lankans in February.

“Although IOM has evacuated close to 7,000 migrants from Iraq over the past four years with financial support from the US government, recent developments indicate we are witnessing new patterns of exploitation emerging,” said spokesman Vincent Houver.

Of those who come of their own free will, many discover the price is too high. Gordon Dreher is one of the many blue collar workers who have been servicing coalition troops. The 43-year-old from Brick, New Jersey, spent two and half years as a field truck driver based in Nasiriyah, south-east of Baghdad, helping to supply US troops. He signed up to earn money but also to serve his country in the aftermath of September 11. On Monday, he will undergo an operation for an injured back, hurt while driving a fuel truck too quickly along Iraqi roads. “I got used to being shot at. I had an improvised explosive device go off a few feet from me,” he said.

Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Washington thinktank the Council on Foreign Relations, found Baghdad surreal. “Everyone was carrying weapons, even in the international zone. It was a weird combination of Club Med and Mad Max. There’s a big pool with tables around it. So people are in swimsuits but carrying submachine guns.” ++

A day in the life of a security guard in Iraq
‘Outside the gate, it’s the wild west. We are basically a taxi service with guns’
Thursday May 31, 2007
The Guardian

Four of the five British hostages kidnapped in Iraq worked for a private security firm. A former special forces soldier who returned from Baghdad earlier this week tells Audrey Gillan about his life as a ‘private security detail’ operating in one of the most dangerous cities in the world. He is 42 and lives in Surrey. He has asked to remain anonymous.

The day starts at different times when you work as private security detail (PSD) in Iraq, depending on what the operation is. Certainly, if we have to go out of the GZ [Green Zone] then we can’t leave before a certain time in the morning because there are curfews. We don’t tend to travel at night and we always wait for first light.

We will have our breakfast - our new chef does good pancakes with scrambled eggs and I’ll have some bacon and sausage if I can get it - and I’ll listen to a bit of BBC Radio 7, some Steptoe and Son or another comedy maybe. We live in a five-bedroom villa in Baghdad, it’s rented from a former Ba’ath party member and costs about $15,000 (£7,600) a month. It’s probably the most expensive real estate in the world. Our company has got two villas, and there are about 30 people living between them.

It all really starts the day before when you get the tasking and you can look at how to go about it. At the briefing, the team that protects an individual will get orders for that move and you will fully discuss it and make sure that everything you are going to do on that journey is covered.

We have a number of different agencies that supply information that we rely on and we work with local nationals and they have real-time experience of what’s going on over there. Listening to the news is very important.

We check the cars, make sure the fuel is full, that everything works, that your weapons are loaded, that your medical pack is in there and you check your electronic equipment - our radios, sat com and the devices we can send out a help signal from if we need it. In Iraq it varies what weapons people use from company to company, but probably the most used weapon is the AK-47.

We rely on this kit to actually work and we have people who will upkeep it. The cars that you use are your lifeblood. We use ordinary-looking cars so that we blend in.

Other people use higher-profile vehicles. When you are in a low-profile vehicle, you don’t shoot back. We have got a lot of vehicles so that if something is wrong you can swap. We travel in three cars but we are not an obvious convoy. We wear the same clothes as the locals. We do not look corporate. The point is to break up your outline, so that you blend in as much as possible.

We will then go and pick up our client. You can get up and have a normal morning and then move outside the gate and it’s the wild west. It could be 10 minutes later and you are dead. The work we do is a variety, really. We protect people involved in reconstruction projects all around Iraq.

They have to be able to get about but they are construction people building in a war zone and they have to be extremely well protected.

You have seven or eight people to protect one person, just to move them from A to B. It’s very simple, you are basically a taxi service with guns. But there’s a lot of work that goes into making it as safe as possible. We work two months on and one month off. It’s stressful. Obviously with what’s occurring, with the militias, the checkpoints, that the police are generally part of the militias.

On occasions you will see IEDs [improvised explosive devices] on the side of the road, ready to go off, you’ll see tyres with wires sticking out. They are aiming for the high-profile vehicle. In a low-profile vehicle they don’t really impact on us because we are not so visible and open to attack. You can identify a high-profile vehicle from 100 yards and they are much more likely to catch these kind of things.

You are on the lookout for people who want to harm you. What you are searching for is things that are out of the norm and that you can avoid. Your job is to get someone from A to B, not to go out and fight people. It’s not a gung-ho, take-on anyone type business. It might come to that if you get into a contact.

If it gets too dangerous you need to know that it is too difficult and we should turn back. Our most important aim is to get the client there alive and if you need to avoid or go back and think again, then we need to do that. I have had lots of different situations really - being shot at and ambushed and stuff. We have our rules of engagement, you are not allowed to shoot people willy nilly. What you think about is avoiding danger. In the very last instance you will defend yourself with everything that you’ve got. Most of the American PSDs are set up to fight from the get-go but we’re not like that.

The job could be just round the corner or miles away. You could have to go somewhere and it takes three days to get there. It’s very much a moveable feast sometimes, what you plan on doing and what you end up doing. Certainly you have adrenalin going, you don’t take things for granted and you have to remain very focused.

The people who come to this job are trained to operate in this place. I was an officer in the military and I’ve been working in Baghdad for a couple of years. You can trust the other PSDs you work with. They are a particular type of person and everything is on peer approval. People who don’t fit in or make the right noises will be out of a job. The people out in Iraq now are properly trained and all ex-forces. In the old days they would employ nightclub bouncers who just wanted to get out there and shoot stuff.

I work eight months of the year and I am paid about £90,000 a year, tax free, which probably equates to about £150,000. The wages are higher in the industry than they were pre-Iraq.

I like it because your life becomes focused on very small things, you go away and do your work and come back and enjoy yourself. It is very easy to plan your future because you know what you will be up to.

Essentially, it’s a very regimented type of existence. Soldiers are a particular type of animal and we are trained to go to war and so close protection work is an extension of that and that’s why we do it in spite of the risk.

I don’t think anyone goes out there with the idea that they are going to get slotted [killed] though it is a possibility. If you look at it, it probably won’t happen - statistically most people aren’t going to die working Iraq. There’s not that many ex-pats that have been killed.

If I was kidnapped I am not sure I would let them take me alive. I would think I would have to end it. I wouldn’t want to end up in an orange jumpsuit. You need to figure out what you would do. You look at the bodies that have turned up of American soldiers, they have been drilled and hammered.

You have to figure, what if you were rescued after that, you wouldn’t want to be around with chunks missing.

Everybody over there is over 21 - it’s big boys’ games.

I will probably bin it fairly soon. I think the writing is on the wall for Baghdad. I think it is about to go ballistic. The Baghdad security plan is not going to work. Other people will no doubt stay because they want the money but I think there comes a time when you need to ask, is this sustainable? There are people working in Baghdad for very little money but to them it is a fortune. The South Africans who are there think they are earning film stars’ wages because it goes a long way in their country.

I don’t look at Baghdad as being particularly well-paid. I don’t think it’s a cash jamboree but I am constantly balancing probabilities. You would be an idiot not to balance with what’s tenable. It’s almost hell on earth out there. I feel bad for the Iraqis.

When our task has ended we drop off the client and go back to the villa. Inside the villa life is weird, it’s very military. There’s a huge screen TV with loads of DVDs and there’s a gym upstairs. You manufacture a lot of adrenalin when you are outside and you have got to get rid of it or you get stressed. We have a meal and watch a film - you can get all the new releases on dodgy DVD. Then we might have an O [orders] group where we will get our brief for the next day. Then it’s bed and back out into Baghdad in the morning. ++

Jeremy Scahill Goes Inside Blackwater, the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
Tue, 03/20/2007

    Someone who is deeply linked to the Christian right, and to the current Administration, has turned around and started what has become the world’s most powerful private mercenary army. These guys are like neo-Crusaders. To have them on the government payroll to the tune of $750 million, operating in a Muslim country, should be frightening to everyone who understands that.

    ~ Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army

Why is the United States of America using mercenaries to fight its wars in the Middle East? How did Blackwater and other “private security” firms rise to a position of seeming respectability and wealth? Exactly what is the value of these entities to Bush and the neoconservatives who have shaped his administration? Jeremy Scahill answers these questions and more in this dialogue with BuzzFlash about his new book, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.
* * *

BuzzFlash: Your new book details the privatization and outsourcing of many military functions to corporate entities. Why have we done that?

Jeremy Scahill: In many ways, Blackwater represents the life’s work of the neoconservative core that has guided the Bush Administration since it first took power in 2000. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. One of the major initiatives that he carried out as Defense Secretary was to hire a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company he would go on to head, to study ways to privatize the military bureaucracy — radically privatize it. He and Donald Rumsfeld worked together through the 1990s with groups like Project For the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute, pressing ahead with this privatization agenda while they themselves were not in government.

Once they took power again, Donald Rumsfeld, in one of his first major addresses, on September 10, 2001, stood before the gaggle of former corporate CEOs and executives that would make up the core of the civilian leadership of the Pentagon. He said, “I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.” What Rumsfeld meant was that he intended to enact nothing short of a revolution in military affairs.

That revolution brought increased use of special forces, increased privatization, and unprecedented use of private soldiers and other contractors in the waging of America’s wars.

The day after he announced that initiative, of course, the 9/11 attacks happened. That gave the Administration a blank slate on which to paint its radical overhaul of how the United States wages its wars. Now, six years later, we have upwards of 100,000 private contractors in Iraq. They are subjected to no effective laws. There’s almost no oversight. They operate with almost no transparency.

What’s the difference between having covert operators in clandestine operations, and overt operators over which there’s no oversight or transparency, or effective legal mechanisms to control what they’re doing?

It really boils down to an absolute subversion of the nation-state and what little semblance of democracy we have in this country. The American people are against the war. But the Administration no longer needs to turn to the army of the country to fight its wars. It can now hire mercenaries from all over the world. So we really are seeing a subversion of democratic processes, a subversion of the electoral system in this country, and a waging of aggressive, offensive wars using private soldiers.

BuzzFlash: I believe you state that 48,000 of these contractors are soldiers.

Jeremy Scahill: According to the Government Accountability Office, 48,000 employees of private mercenary firms are operating in Iraq alone. Those are the ones that are being tracked, and the tracking is very loose. I believe the number is much higher. Some people have estimated that as many as 70,000 private armed forces are operating in Iraq, not including the Iraqi militias. Blackwater has been paid $750 million by the State Department alone since the summer of 2004 to guard senior U.S. officials in Iraq, and, to a lesser extent, in Afghanistan. They are really the Praetorian Guard of the occupation in Iraq. This is an incredible revolution in the waging of U.S. wars.

BuzzFlash: Robert Greenwald, in his film about profiteering in Iraq, also addressed the issue of mercenaries. You and he both have pointed out that some of these men are paid up to $1,000 a day, and that many of the G.I.s resent them. They’re doing a similar job, but without any of the legal constraints the G.I.s have, and they’re making large amounts of money. To what extent is this neocon vision of a privatized military one that also involves profiteering and rewards to their supporters?

Jeremy Scahill: Well, Blackwater really captures everything that you just said there. We’re talking about a company that was founded by a man named Erik Prince, who comes from a family that was one of the top bank rollers of, not only the “Republican revolution” of the 1990s that brought Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America to power, but also the rise of what we now know as the religious right or the Christian conservative movement. Erik Prince’s family helped James Dobson found Focus on the Family. Erik Prince’s family gave the seed money for Gary Bauer to found the Family Research Council. Erik Prince himself is a major bank roller of President Bush, his allies, and the Christian conservative movement in this country.

Someone who is deeply linked to the Christian right, and to the current Administration, has turned around and started what has become the world’s most powerful private mercenary army. These guys are like neo-Crusaders. To have them on the government payroll to the tune of $750 million, operating in a Muslim country, should be frightening to everyone who understands that.

The fact of the matter is that this Administration has hired what is effectively a Christian army to operate in Muslim countries. This is very frightening to anyone who cares about civil liberties and the future of democracy and democratic processes. The fact is that these contractors provide the Bush Administration with an extraordinary level of political expediency. Their deaths don’t get counted. Their crimes don’t get reported or prosecuted. They’re effectively a shadow army operating at the behest of an Administration waging a rogue war.

BuzzFlash: One of the issues you touch upon is that these mercenaries are not subject to any court of law. If I recall, a few allegedly committed atrocities in Iraq, and they’re simply sent home.

Jeremy Scahill: First of all, the law that technically governs contractors and mercenaries in Iraq is provided under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000. Basically what that said is that the FBI and the U.S. attorneys in the United States are responsible for prosecuting contractor crimes committed in Iraq or Afghanistan. With 100,000 contractors running around Iraq, what prosecutor from Virginia is going to fly over to Iraq, investigate a murder, interview Iraqi witnesses, then capture this person, bring them back to the United States, and prosecute them? It’s one of the most ridiculous, fanciful concepts that I’ve seen in this war.

The mercenary industry loves the current state of affairs is because it’s totally unenforced. On paper, yes, there’s a law that governs contractors in Iraq. In reality, only one contractor has been indicted for any crime or violation in Iraq. Either we have 100,000 saints running around as contractors in Iraq, or something is very rotten. I happen to think that something is very rotten.

BuzzFlash: I think it’s important to point out that this is not something that most Americans put at the top of their dance card as a concern. They may say, well, it’s over in Iraq and that’s a mess anyway. But, sure enough, after Hurricane Katrina, we saw Blackwater in New Orleans.

Jeremy Scahill: When Hurricane Katrina hit, Blackwater started a domestic operations division of its company, and it began seeking greater contracting opportunities domestically inside of the United States. At one point, the federal government was paying Blackwater about $240,000 a day for Hurricane Katrina. The company was billing the government $950 per day, per Blackwater man deployed in the hurricane zone. They had about 600 guys stretched from Texas all the way through the Gulf region.

Now Blackwater’s been in negotiations with several state governments in the United States. Blackwater met recently with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger about doing disaster response in California. They’re opening up a new private military base in San Diego. Another one is in Mount Carroll, Illinois. They have applied for operating licenses in every coastal U.S. state. This is the expansion of a privatized army.

Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, speaks boldly about Blackwater being the FedEx of the national security apparatus. They’re manufacturing surveillance blimps and trying to market them to the Department of Homeland Security to use to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border. Meanwhile, Blackwater and its executives continue to pour money into these Christian conservative causes, conservative politicians’ campaign coffers. This is really the embodiment of everything that President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address, when he talked about the dangers of unchecked power of the private sector, and the rise of the military-industrial complex.

BuzzFlash: Let’s get back to the issue that privatization comes at a high cost to the taxpayer. It’s not as though someone else is paying for Blackwater. We are. This Administration has been giving inflated contractual reimbursement to companies like Blackwater at the expense of our military. As we learn in Robert Greenwald’s “Iraq for Sale,” a lot of GIs say they resent Blackwater and don’t see why these guys are getting paid $1,000 a day.

Jeremy Scahill: One of the things that has happened as a result of these mercenary forces is that there’s been a real drain to the special operations community. Special operations commanders have spoken quite openly about this, saying that they’re in a real crisis right now for numbers. U.S. taxpayers are spending tens of millions of dollars, in some cases, to train U.S. Navy SEALs, or Delta Force, or Army Rangers, or Green Berets. The taxpayers shoulder the financial burden of training these elite forces, and then Blackwater and other companies come around and hire them away. Then they repackage them to the federal government and say it’s much cheaper to pay our guys because you don’t have any of the overhead of deploying them. We’ll absorb the cost of that. But they never take into account that they’re essentially taking money out of the public sphere that was spent on these soldiers in the active duty military. They’re taking all of that training that U.S. taxpayers have paid for, taking it away from the military, and repackaging it as a privatized entity.

That is essentially a bilking of the U.S. taxpayer. The whole model of these privatized armies really is a rip-off of the American taxpayer. It’s ridiculous when the industry lobbyists say they’re a cheaper alternative to the bloated military. They’re taking advantage of what they called the bloated military.

BuzzFlash: And we pay the individual soldier, aside from the profit the company makes, as much as ten times what we would pay the G.I. who’s in the military rather than in a mercenary force.

Jeremy Scahill: We understand that upwards of 770 contractors have been killed in Iraq. That’s just what’s been documented by the U.S. Department of Labor, since federal insurance is required for contractors to operate in Iraq and other war zones. The actual number is likely much higher. The fact is that these contractors are limited in the amount of armor they want to give their personnel, the kind of protections they want to give their personnel, only by how much they’re willing to spend on it. The military is limited by budget, by lack of supplies, by lack of political will on the part of the White House, and to a lesser extent, Congress, to get the armor over to the soldiers. So many contractors are dying in Iraq because of not being in armored vehicles, or being in helicopters with inadequate tracking devices or defense mechanisms. It really is a scandal. We’ve had families of U.S. soldiers sending armor over to them in Iraq, and these mercenaries have all the money in the world to spend on this stuff, yet they still cut corners in the interest of profits. That’s why their guys are getting killed.

BuzzFlash: Okay, let’s step back from our own perspective, and try to get into the mind of a Rumsfeld or a Cheney. Mercenary forces allow the Bush Administration, in this case, to wage wars without having to defy public opinion, because they just send in the mercenaries. But we have in Iraq a mixed bag. The military is still the predominant force, with the mercenaries as the secondary force, although a significant one. But this almost defies common sense. What is going through the mind of a Cheney or a Rumsfeld that makes this seem sensible?

Jeremy Scahill: I can’t pretend to get into the minds of either of those men. But what I will say is I think both of them, throughout their careers, have really pushed for running the government like a corporation. At one point, Donald Rumsfeld said that because governments can’t die, you have to find other incentives to sort of keep competition alive.

This Administration brought in an incredible number of people from corporate America to run the Pentagon. You have the neoconservative ideologues, on the one hand, and then you have the weapons manufacturers on the other hand. That made up the core of the Pentagon leadership. They’re obsessed with running government like a venture capital firm.

And that has a number of benefits to it. It really removes the Congressional oversight factor from the equation when you’re operating with an increased presence of the private sector. Also, you keep corporations alive and profitable. You’re able to keep the businesses of your friends and your political supporters alive. We’ve seen an absolute revolving door between the weapons manufacturers, the war servicing companies, the mercenary companies, and the Republican Party and the Republican leadership, and this Administration.

This is part and parcel of running the government like a corporation, where the citizens are essentially subjects of this privatized government. The military is perhaps the most prominent example of that right now, but we also see it in our schools, prisons, state and local governments, and in law enforcement agencies. The fact is, in the United States right now, there are more private security operators than there are actual police officers. That’s an extraordinary development in the history of privatization.

BuzzFlash: It’s radical to the point of almost being anarchistic. They’re way out there in terms of their ideology, basically almost hoping that the government is not only run by a corporation, but almost is a corporation. Then what we have is not a democracy, but a corporate-ocracy, perhaps one can call it.

Jeremy Scahill: Let’s look at something that has gotten a really low amount of media coverage and attention, but it was an extraordinary development in the Iraq occupation. When the Bush Administration failed to build a coalition of willing nations, these contractors went into countries, many of whose home governments opposed the Iraq war or refused to send troops. The contractors aggressively recruited people from their special forces community, from their military, and then deployed them to Iraq as part of this private force, in some case, in contravention of their local laws. Blackwater and other mercenary companies brought over 750 Chilean mercenaries to operate in Iraq. Some of them had trained and served under the brutal regime of Augusto Pinochet, which I document in my book.

In Honduras, another American mercenary company recruited soldiers that had actually been withdrawn from Iraq by the Honduran government after John Negroponte was named Ambassador to Iraq. This company then rehires them — those exact soldiers — and sends them back to Iraq. That is a total subversion of the nation-state. It’s flushing the constitutions and governments of these countries down the toilet. And many of these Latin American countries have suffered before under the hegemonic policies of the United States, where you had death squads, neo-liberal economic policies, military juntas. These are already victimized states, and then the United States further stomps on their rights by subverting their local democratic processes and sending their soldiers to Iraq in contravention of the will of their people and government.

BuzzFlash: Who do these forces report to? Who do they get assignments from? What are they supposed to do, beyond guarding Paul Bremer and other VIPs?

Jeremy Scahill: Blackwater is a little bit different than some of the other mercenary companies because Blackwater is really viewed within the industry as the elite. They have about 2300 men actively deployed around the world and another 20,000 troops on standby that they can call on at a moment’s notice to deploy wherever. The vast majority of Blackwater’s contracts in Iraq are not with the Pentagon. They’re actually with the U.S. State Department. Blackwater is guarding not just the U.S. ambassador, and the various U.S. occupation outposts around the country, but also ninety Congressional delegations that have gone in and out of Iraq, including Nancy Pelosi. So the United States has outsourced the protection of its most important officials.

Blackwater has been paid over $750 million just to do those services for the State Department. But you have contractors working at every level of the occupation, guarding food convoys, guarding Iraqi officials, protecting people from corporations. It’s like the Wild West over there. And there are numerous reports of extraordinary violence being committed on the part of contractors. Yet there are no prosecutions. It is really a devastating blow to democratic processes, and an ominous development in world history.

BuzzFlash: One of the most infamous incidents that brought the issue of Blackwater and the mercenaries searingly into the public consciousness was the killing of the men who were pulled from their vehicle and hung from a bridge. Some of the families, if I understand correctly, are currently suing Blackwater, and they appeared before Congress. What happened in that incident?

Jeremy Scahill: A convoy of two Blackwater contractors in a Jeep, leading three empty flatbed trucks being driven by Iraqis, followed by another Jeep with two other Blackwater troops in it, entered an intersection in the city of Fallujah. Their mission was to go to the other side of Fallujah, pick up some kitchen equipment, and bring it back to a base on the other side. At the time, Fallujah was considered a no-go zone for the U.S. military. Anyone from the U.S. government that would have traveled there would have been in heavily armored vehicles with all sorts of backup. These guys were driving in almost completely unarmored Jeeps. They had a reinforced bumper that they had sort of jerry-rigged before they left on the trip.

They drive into the center of Fallujah. They hit some kind of a roadblock. Insurgents ambush them, shoot up their vehicles. The bullets pierce through the Jeeps like salt through ice. The men in the rear vehicle are killed first. The men in the lead vehicle turn around to either go back and try to help them, or to flee the scene. But the insurgents target them as well. Within moments, their bodies are on fire and being torn apart by a mob. Some of their corpses are tied to the back of vehicles and dragged through the streets, and then two of the men’s bodies were hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River. Iraqis are dancing in the streets. Some people are holding up signs that say Fallujah is the graveyard of the Americans.

It really, in many ways, was the Mogadishu moment of the Iraq war. Except in this case, unlike the Clinton Administration, which pulled out of Somalia in the early 1990s after US troops were killed there and dragged through the streets, the Bush Administration determined to absolutely crush the resistance in Iraq. And this was over the deaths of four private contractors, not active duty soldiers. The U.S. laid siege to Fallujah a few days later, killing hundreds of Iraqis, forcing thousands and thousands from their homes. It was the first of what would be several sieges of Fallujah. And the killing of those Blackwater men and the subsequent revenge attack by the United States really was what gave tremendous spark to the Iraqi resistance that haunts the occupation to this day. It was absolutely a turning point.

BuzzFlash: Why are some of the families suing Blackwater?

Jeremy Scahill: I’ve gotten to know these families very well over the past couple of years, and have gotten very deeply into their story. They all viewed their loved ones as patriotic soldiers. They didn’t view them as contractors. Just because they were working with Blackwater instead of being in the Navy SEALs didn’t really matter. They were still serving their country. These families thought that their loved ones were working for a patriotic American company. They attempted to get answers from the company about what exactly happened — how did they end up in Fallujah? I thought my son was going to be guarding Paul Bremer. What’s this about kitchen equipment?

As they asked those questions, they say they were stonewalled by the company. At one point, they were flown to Blackwater for a memorial service for their loved ones, and one of the mothers asked to see an incident report of what happened. She claims that a Blackwater representative said, “That’s classified information. You’ll have to sue us to get it.” She then stood up and said, “Well, then we’re going to sue you.”

These families started to get to know each other. In January of 2005, after investigating it and getting a very high-powered law firm to take the case, they filed a wrongful death case against the company alleging that Blackwater cut corners, didn’t provide their loved ones with their contractually guaranteed weapons, adequate personnel, or armored vehicles. The case is being heavily monitored by the war industry. In fact, KBR has filed an amicus brief on behalf of Blackwater in the case. This could be like the tobacco litigation of several years ago, where it just sends shockwaves through the war profiteer community.

BuzzFlash: Where is the case right now?

Jeremy Scahill: Blackwater took it all the way to the Supreme Court, to John Roberts. In late February, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It’s interesting, because Blackwater has had high-powered lawyers throughout the process. Blackwater’s original lawyer on this case was Fred Fielding, who is now Bush’s White House Counsel. And their current lawyer, as of today, is Kenneth Starr, the Whitewater prosecutor. The fact that Blackwater was shot down by the Supreme Court means it is very likely that the case of these four families versus Blackwater is going to proceed in the North Carolina state court, where a jury could find Blackwater liable for the deaths of those four men.

BuzzFlash: Erik Prince appears to be sort of an elusive person. You’ve mentioned, and it’s well documented, that he’s an ardent Republican. He’s a right-wing Christian, in the vein of Nino Scalia. But he doesn’t like publicity a lot — is that correct?

Jeremy Scahill: To my knowledge, the only places where Erik Prince pops up to actually speak is at conferences where he’s surrounded by mercenaries and military brass.

BuzzFlash: But he doesn’t grant interviews to the Washington Post?

Jeremy Scahill: No.

BuzzFlash: Is he a multi-millionaire?

Jeremy Scahill: That is my understanding. His father had an auto parts manufacturing business in Michigan. When his dad passed away, the family sold the business for approximately $1.5 billion. Erik Prince basically took his portion of that money and went on to start Blackwater in 1996.

BuzzFlash: Does he personally have a military background?

Jeremy Scahill: Erik Prince was a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy SEALs, and he’s believed to be the wealthiest person ever to join the Navy SEALs. I think he left reservist duty about a year ago. He had served in Haiti, Bosnia, the Mediterranean. I don’t think he wanted to leave the Navy SEALs, but when his father died and his wife got cancer, it just became untenable for him to live the life of a Navy SEAL. He began meeting with other people from the special forces community with this vision of anticipating the enormous profits to be made from government outsourcing of military training.

BuzzFlash: If we look at one of the duties of Blackwater, which is to guard government officials — is there any logical reason why that could not be done by the U.S. military?

Jeremy Scahill: The primary reason the Bush Administration relied so heavily on private contractors is because it’s occupying Iraq — it’s occupying Afghanistan — these are unpopular wars. There’s a real recruitment crisis in the U.S. military.

The unfortunate thing is, oftentimes the debate gets framed as what’s wrong with using private forces as a way of bolstering the active duty military. The real question that needs to be asked in this country is why is the United States in Iraq to the tune of 150,000 active-duty soldiers, and another 100,000 contractors, and then a smattering of a few tens of thousands of foreign troops? This is not a war that’s supported by the American people. It’s not a war that’s supported by the people of the world. Rather than questioning these aggressive, offensive wars of empire, we get wrapped up in these debates about is it right or wrong to use private forces. I think it really ends up clouding the issue. The issue is that this Administration uses mercenaries so that it can wage offensive wars around the world. And we’re seeing it on the increase, not the decrease.

BuzzFlash: In essence, no one really supports the Iraq war but the Bush Administration

Jeremy Scahill: There are reports as the British pull their troops out, they’re going to be replaced by mercenaries. So it’s only on the increase. And I think we’re going to see a real turn toward Africa with these mercenaries. They’re trying to attach themselves onto the multi-billion-dollar peacekeeping budget at the U.N. I think Latin America has a lot to fear from mercenaries.

This has really been a very sophisticated rebranding campaign aimed at radically changing the image of mercenaries and calling them private security companies. These mercenaries are operating in countries that don’t want them.

BuzzFlash: A key feature which underlies the entire Executive Branch under Bush and Cheney is that the mercenary forces allow them to have no accountability for military action. There is obviously a military code of conduct, but there is not really a mercenary code of conduct.

Jeremy Scahill: Yes, there is. The trade association for the mercenaries is called the International Peace Operations Association. The logo is a sleeping cartoon lion that looks like it could be from, you know, Lion King II, or something. They have a code of conduct that all their members are required to sign. It looks very good on paper. It’s totally unenforceable. It has no legal standing whatsoever. The mercenaries have all sorts of things that look fantastic on paper. We’re accountable. We could be prosecuted. It’s bad for our business if we act like rogue operators. But in reality, not a single one of them has ended up being prosecuted, and that’s a huge problem.

BuzzFlash: Where did the name Blackwater come from? It’s very ominous.

Jeremy Scahill: There’s actually a lot of debate and speculation about that. Blackwater is located in North Carolina on the Great Dismal Swamp, so it may just refer to the black waters of the swamp.

BuzzFlash: The fact that it has kind of nefarious connotations doesn’t hurt. Kind of sends a shiver down your spine if you’re at the wrong end of the gun of a Blackwater mercenary.

Jeremy Scahill: Right, exactly.

BuzzFlash: Jeremy, thanks so much. A great book.

Jeremy Scahill: I really enjoyed the interview. ++

BuzzFlash Interview conducted by Mark Karlin.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Add comment June 4th, 2007

BWII — how goes the civil war?

Before we get started on an update of BushWarII, here’s breaking news — looks like Democrat William Jefferson [the money in the freezer guy] will end up spending his last years in jail – he’s been convicted of bribery and racketeering on a massive scale, or so says CNN. The Pub’s will be gleeful about that — they’ll spin that as ALL of Congress having corruption problems to deflect the heat off of them. Yes, the system is corrupted — but there IS one party more likely to have broken it, so say the numbers … and there it is there.

Another “don’t miss” is a military judge dismissing charges against a Gitmo detainee — this is a real blow to the Bushies and their “master plan.” And, lighter fare but also of interest, Dubby has been “devalued” — a photo op with the Little Prince used to cost $25,000 … he’s “on sale” now for 5 grand.

My regular Sunday lineup of pundit TV includes This Week [with Stephanopoulos] and at the end of each offering, they run the name, age and hometown of our fallen soldiers. Six months ago it was 3-6 or so … it began to grow in early spring to 5-10.

It’s continued to expand until we find ourselves at 25 or more each Sunday morning. 25 or more lives, families and communities who have sacrificed to the ravenous God of War. Sixteen soldiers have died in the last three days — and for NOTHING. I won’t shilly-shally around with the particulars. The quality of their own sacrifice can be defined by those who knew them … but the overall sacrifice of lives on this funeral pyre of a political boondoggle is for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. General Ricardo Sanchez tells us, below, that the most we can hope for is stalemate. Is that worth ONE LIFE???

The numbers of young soldiers dying has skyrocketed, and Bush continues to amp up the numbers to replace the fallen, despite public disapproval — I read stats today that indicate that, while the polls support a number of different strategies in terms of drawdown, only 3% of the population approves FURTHER troops being sent to this theatre of violence.

Here are reads — how badly we’re doing — the grim pronouncement by Ricardo Sanchez, now retired — an op/ed on how we’re failing the troops — a poignant entry from McClatchy’s Iraqi bloggers — and Juan Cole, with his Informed Comment. The last piece is an interesting tussle with the court system over Bush’s extensive use of mercenaries … the Blackwater boyz. Most people have No Idea they’re there.

How it goes with Bush’s war, below. Remember — if you want MSM that reflects reality, use the RSS to grab McClatchy. They’re even being punished for their candor.

Jude

Report: U.S. Drive in Baghdad Falters
Monday June 4, 2007
KIM GAMEL, Associated Press

BAGHDAD (AP) - U.S.-led forces have control of fewer than one-third of Baghdad’s neighborhoods despite thousands of extra troops nearly four months into a security crackdown, a newspaper reported Monday - an assessment that came as the U.S. casualty toll soared.

But military officials said they have warned all along that the fight would not be easy.
Iraqi police also said at least six people were killed and 14 were wounded in three separate bombings Monday in Baghdad.

The New York Times said an American assessment of the security plan through late May found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

Troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance” in the remaining 311 neighborhoods, according to the report, which cited a one-page assessment along with summaries from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.

U.S. and Iraqi military officials played down the report.

“We have stated all along that this was going to be harder before it gets easier,” military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said. “It’s going to be a tough fight over the summer and the plan is just in its beginning stages.”

It appeared to be the first comprehensive analysis of the progress of the operation that began Feb. 14. Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is due to report in September on whether the current troop increase is working amid a fierce debate in Washington over whether President Bush should begin withdrawing American forces.

Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a military spokesman for Baghdad, also stressed that some of the extra American units ordered to Baghdad as part of a so-called surge of forces had yet to start operations.

“No one expects all 457 to be under control at this time,” he said in an e-mail.

The Bush administration, which has ordered some 30,000 extra American troops to Baghdad and surrounding areas as part of the security crackdown, has warned that the buildup will result in more U.S. casualties as more American soldiers come into contact with enemy forces and concentrate on the streets of Baghdad and remote outposts.

The U.S. military announced Sunday that 14 American soldiers had been killed over a three-day period in a deadly start for June and raising to at least 3,493 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. May was the third bloodiest month since the war began, with 127 troop deaths reported.

The newly reported deaths included four who died in a single roadside bombing Sunday northwest of Baghdad and another who was struck by a suicide bomber while on a foot patrol southwest of the capital on Friday.

Two other soldiers were killed and five were wounded along with an Iraqi interpreter in two separate roadside bombings on Sunday, the military said, while seven others soldiers were killed in a series of attacks across Iraq on Saturday.

A car bomb also exploded outside a U.S. base near the volatile city of Baqouba, leaving a number of troops gasping for air and suffering from eye irritations, the military said. It did not confirm a report in the Los Angeles Times that the car was carrying chlorine canisters and said the soldiers who were sickened had been treated and returned to duty.

Following initial optimism over the operation to quell sectarian violence, unrelenting bombings staged by suspected Sunni insurgents have killed hundreds of Iraqis. U.S. commanders have cited a drop in the numbers of execution-style killings usually blamed on Shiite militias but those numbers also have seen a recent spike.

The deadliest bombing on Monday struck a minibus carrying unemployed Iraqis looking for work in the predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Zafaraniyah in southeastern Baghdad, killing three people and wounding eight. At least 16 other people were killed or found dead in attacks elsewhere, including a pregnant woman who died in a mortar barrage targeting a U.S. base in Fallujah.

U.S. military leaders in charge of the Baghdad drive, now nearing the end of its fourth month, have repeatedly complained that both the Iraqi army and police units that were sent to Baghdad for the operation are often at only 60 percent full strength, if that.

“Everybody’s got to be performing at the same level,” Garver said. “So we want to see our Iraqi counterparts performing at full capacity as soon as possible so there’s all the development of Iraqi security forces going on as well.”

He acknowledged some challenges with the Iraqi troops, including concerns that some were biased in their loyalties to one side or another, apparently referring to the sectarian bent of predominantly Shiite forces.

Iraqi military spokesman Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said Baghdad has 184 neighborhoods and “we are controlling more than 50 percent of them.” The U.S. and Iraqi military frequently differ over details and designations of neighborhoods.

“Our forces are deployed in all of Baghdad and are doing well with their operations in calming the restive areas. We are moving ahead and achieving the goals of the security plan,” he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the 1st Cavalry Division which runs the security operation in Baghdad, expressed particular disappointment with Iraqi police performance during a recent visit to his troops in the capital’s Karradah neighborhood.

“The (Iraqi) Army is coming along pretty well, but the police really still need some work,” the soft-spoken and understated Fil said at the Cobra Joint Security Station along a bend in the Tigris River. “You’ll have to be very careful with them.”

The police are deeply infiltrated by Shiite militiamen who use their membership in the force more for sectarian purposes against Sunni Muslims than in conducting police operations on behalf of the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Associated Press writers Steven R. Hurst and Sinan Salaheddin contributed to this report.

US can forget about winning in Iraq: top retired general
Raw Story
Sunday June 3, 2007

The man who commanded US-led coalition forces during the first year of the Iraq war says the United States can forget about winning the war.

“I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will — not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat,” retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.

Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration has fallen short in Iraq.

“I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time,” Sanchez told AFP after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.

“We’ve got to do whatever we can to help the next generation of leaders do better than we have done over the past five years, better than what this cohort of political and military leaders have done,” adding that he was “referring to our national political leadership in its entirety” - not just President George W. Bush.

Sanchez called the situation in Iraq bleak, which he blamed on “the abysmal performance in the early stages and the transition of sovereignty.”

He included himself among those who erred in Iraq’s crucial first year after the toppling of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Sanchez took command in the summer of 2003 and oversaw the occupation force amid an insurgency that has sparked a low-grade civil war in Iraq.

He was in the middle of some of the most momentous events of the war, among them the dissolution of the Iraqi army and barring millions of Baath Party members from government jobs: two actions seen as triggering the rebellion among Sunni Muslims, who fell from power with Saddam.

Sanchez is also most closely identified with the Abu Ghraib scandal, which occurred on his watch.

Though he was cleared of wrongdoing by an Army probe, Abu Ghraib’s images of naked prisoners humiliated by a rogue torture squad cost Sanchez an almost certain fourth star in the Senate, which approves general officer promotions.

Sanchez, 56, declined to talk about Abu Ghraib or other key events of the war, or say who was to blame for what went wrong.

“That’s something I am still struggling with and it’s not about blame because there’s nobody out there that is intentionally trying to screw things up for our country,” he said.
“They were all working to do the best damn job they can to get things right.”

Despite those good intentions, Americans will be forced to “answer the question what is victory, and at this point I’m not sure America really knows what victory is,” said Sanchez, who is thinking of writing a tell-all book about his year in Baghdad.

The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, reacted on Sunday to Sanchez’s comments by insisting: “It’s just way premature to be talking in terms of victory or defeat.”

“What we’re trying to do here is stabilize the security situation, particularly in Baghdad, to allow a political process some time and space to work,” he said on Fox News.

He said time was needed for Bush’s “surge” strategy, launched in January, of ploughing thousands more troops into Iraq “to make a difference on the streets and then time for this political process to unfold.”

Sanchez said a large troop commitment would be needed for years to come but conceded it is “very questionable” whether Americans would support it.

Still, he said, “the coalition cannot afford to precipitously withdraw and leave the Iraqis to their own devices.”

Andrew Krepinevich, a former aide to three defense secretaries who heads the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, shared that assessment.

“What you are looking at are three factions who are profoundly mistrustful of one another,” he said. “Iraq is a country where those on top have brutally repressed those on the bottom, and that is the way they look at seizing power and maintaining power.”

Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, a ground commander in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, said he’s trying to remain optimistic but thinks domestic support for the war will evaporate within 36 months.

“I personally don’t think it’s over yet,” said McCaffrey, who recently toured Iraq. He said he thinks General David Petraeus, the coalition commander in Iraq, and Crocker can stave off a wider civil war.

“The question is, can the ambassador and Petraeus open reconciliation talks among Iraqis, and (Secretary of State) Condi Rice keep the regional powers from meddling any more in Iraq? The jury’s out,” he said.

All They Have Is Each Other…
Sheila Samples, Smirking Chimp
Jun 4 2007

    “The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

    ~Dante

Okay. Let’s talk about troops. Everybody’s doing it. We’re bombarded round-the-clock with “support the troops…fund the troops…bring the troops home…surge the troops…use the troops for Commander Guy photo opps…” Congress is embroiled in a ghoulish “troop” food fight that has gone on far too long. Democrats say Republicans demoralize and dishonor the troops by sending them into an unwinnable war built on lies. Republicans counter that, by suggesting the war is lost, Democrats demoralize and dishonor the troops by calling them “losers.”

Losers? Oh, yes. Big time. The men and women who wear this nation’s uniform are losers every day, in every way. They are not only demoralized and dishonored, but are dehumanized by a diabolical den of dimwits whose eyes never waver from the 2008 prize, and who view “troops” as a faceless mass of political capital to be spent toward winning that prize. Their deserter commander-in-chief and his chickenhawk minions are very careful to call military personnel “troops,” lest they assume human form and enter the slumbering masses’ consciousness — a vacuous pit otherwise known as the “dead zone.”

Killing the Troops

On Armed Forces Day, May 19, eight soldiers were blown to bits by roadside bombs in Iraq — a total of 15 for the weekend, which brought the casualty toll since the March 2003 invasion to 3,419. As the troops lay dead and dying, body parts scattered amidst the explosive ruin in a foreign land, their president took to the airwaves to somberly discuss…how to make life easier for illegal immigrants here at home. Less than a week later, as Bush and the press were bobbing and weaving in the Rose Garden, the number of dead troops rose to 3,432, a day later to 3,444 and, finally, on May 26 — two days before Memorial day — to 3,455.

That’s 36 American men and women, most under the age of 30, lost in one week. Lost forever. On Memorial Day, as Bush yet again disgraced the hallowed ground of Arlington National Cemetery with more babbling about how his will cannot be broken and the only way to honor the dead troops is to complete his “mish-shun,” eight American troops were slain in a Baghdad roadside explosion, another in an explosion near Tahir, two perished in a helicopter crash, and five British troops were kidnapped. It’s difficult to keep up, but the total now stands at 3,467. No, 3,471. No, 3,474. No, 3,480. No, 3,495.

God, I can’t keep up with the numbers. It’s impossible to do the math — to stay abreast of the burgeoning number of precious human beings who were lied into a death trap and who return to orphans, widows, and parents physically maimed, psychologically deranged or as neatly folded US Flags. There is no evidence that Bush knows, or cares, that 633 soldiers and marines have been brutally wiped off the face of the earth since he was given the Iraq Study Group report, then strutted off like a college kid on Christmas break to “decide” whether to pull the troops out of the trap or to keep using them as bait. We knew, and Congress knew, what his decision would be — and what it was — more troops.

Betraying the Troops

The surge has been quietly ongoing since then, in spite of angry shouts from the American people — shouts that fell on deaf ears not only in the Oval Office, but throughout the Congress. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid caved to Bush’s demands, while vowing to come back in September and “hold the president to account.” Reid announced with bowed head, “We will never, ever, ever, ever give in to this president.” Then he gave in.

Sad. There is no honor in a nation whose leaders are given the power to choose life or death for their fellow citizens held captive in an illegal, treasonous, bloody occupation — and choose death. What do you do after betraying those who elected you — trusted you — to stem the needless flow of American blood? Do you dash off to Greenland to check on the climate, or do you stand in the well of the Senate, eyes downcast, with your tail between your legs?

It doesn’t matter. They knew what they were doing — extending tours of duty from 12 months to 15 months, sending other troops back for second and third tours — weary, wounded and disheartened. They had the purse strings, the Constitutional power, and the mandate of the American people to bring Bush’s madness to a screeching halt — to save the lives of those citizens he daily condemns to death.

They chose, instead, to back down. They chose to allow Bush — as Texas commentator Jim Hightower said — to stick the troops in another country’s vicious civil war. “They’re under attack from every direction by every faction, every hour of every day,” Hightower wrote, “hit by car bombs, roadside bombs, chlorine bombs, IEDs, suicide bombs, rocket fire, mortar rounds, snipers, and assassins. There is no safety in Iraq.”

The legislators who voted to fund Bush’s folly until September were casting votes of betrayal. Nothing will change in September. A second surge, sans the initial fanfare, is underway that could double the number of troops in Iraq by December, bringing the total to more than 200,000. We can disregard December if we are to believe CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre, who reported on Memorial Day that “no major troop reductions are planned until at least January 2009.”

We can also disregard January 2009. Accordng to Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there is no plan to even plan withdrawal of troops. “We do have ongoing replacements of forces, and we do change the size of the force over time so that that system is available to either plus-up or draw down,” Pace told the Senate in early May, “but we have published no orders saying come up with a complete plan for total drawdown.” However, Pace did say they planned to maintain a series of military installations for a long period of time — maybe a few decades…

You’d think as a minimum, the top military brass and the troops’ commander-in-chief would know at any given moment exactly how many lives were lost in their war. However, the only thing Bush knows is that he “grieves ‘n mourns” for the heroes who “give their lives” for his mission. Numbers aren’t important. What’s important to Bush is that he “pre-shates” their sacrifice. And Pace, who monitors the number of gays wearing the hetro-military uniform, commented last week that we lost “nearly 3,000 Americans on 9-11,” and then warned we are “getting close” to losing that many troops in Iraq.

Actually, Pete, we are losing three or more American men and women every single day. It’s six months — 180 days — 540 dead troops until December. It’s 18 months — 545 days –1,635 dead troops until January 2009. How many days — how many dead troops — are there in a “few decades”? You do the math.

Supporting the Troops

George Bush and the corporate war profiteers have blanketed the landscape of the entire country with yellow ribbon. “Support the Troops” is non-sequitural double think — a psyops tool cleverly used by both Republicans and Democrats to desensitize and control the slobbering masses. It means you are anti-American if you scream in pain each time a soldier or marine is killed — innocent Iraqis are massacred. It means shut the hell up and support whatever deranged blather comes out of Bush’s mouth, even if we must sacrifice our sons and daughters on his killing fields.

So many of them died in vain.

In Feb. 2005, the Marines sent a “priority 1 urgent” request for more than 1,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. In spite of the MRAP’s proven ability to withstand blasts from IEDs and to save lives, it was 21 months (Nov. 2006) before this urgent plea was acted upon. After a few MRAPs trickled into the area and their life-saving value was recognized, both the Army and Marines requested as many as 18,000 to replace the totally inadequate humvees. Although Defense Secretary Robert Gates “talked the talk” that the MRAP is the Pentagon’s “highest priority” new gear buy, until the Pentagon “walks the walk,” Americans will continue to be slaughtered by the ever-present IEDs.

Supporting the troops is ensuring they have sufficient equipment and materiel in order to survive, and providing the proper care for the wounded and maimed when they return. This type of support is not a high priority with the Bush administration. In addition to forcing soldiers to dig through scrap piles for metal to reinforce vehicles, injured troops are billed for damaged or lost body armor, charged for food while in the hospital and routinely have their pension benefits cut. Because of Bush’s brand of support, troops are faced not only with having to deal with the traumatic reality of their injuries, but most of them face financial ruin as well.

Bush has relentlessly fought supporting the troops from the outset. He not only opposes, but “strongly opposes” any pay raise for his troops. He threatened to veto the 2008 defense authorization bill if it included a paltry 3.5-percent raise for the military, a $40 monthly increase for widows and survivors, or any attempt to curb prices for prescription drugs the troops are forced to buy under TRICARE. Current pay and benefits are “sufficient,” he said, echoing the refrain of Barbara Bush, his mother, as she looked out over the Katrina refugees penned up in the Houston Astrodome — “…so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this — this (she chuckled slightly) is working very well for them.”

And, on Mar. 18, 2003, the day before Bush’s bloody invasion of Iraq, the former first lady appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to shrug aside the death sentences he was imposing upon an entire generation of Americans. “Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?”

Bush is truly his mother’s son — shallow, unfeeling, incapable of compassion. In a recent meeting with five families of slain soldiers, one mother, Elaine Johnson, asked him why we were in Iraq. Bush could not answer that, nor could he explain what we were fighting for. But he did toss each of them a presidential coin and quipped, “Don’t go sell it on eBay.”

To Bush, body bags and deaths are simply an inconvenience and, with the help of the corporate media, he is very adept at hiding them from prying eyes. Bush is on a righteous mission — he is the President, the Decider, the Commander-in-chief and God has chosen him to lead this country to its destiny.

And the troops? They have learned when it comes to support, all they have is each other. All they have is each other.

McClatchy’s Iraqi Staffers Win Award — And Here Is Latest Chilling Entry from Their Blog
E&P Staff
June 02, 2007 4:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Staffers at the Baghdad bureau for McClatchy (formerly Knight Ridder) have won many awards for their war coverage in recent years but several received a special one this week. Six Iraqi women who have worked there won an International Women’s Media Foundation Courage in Journalism Award, the foundation announced Thursday.

“They are driven by the desire to report accurately the situation in Iraq, to tell others what is happening in a world that is dissolving around them,” the foundation said.

Shatha al Awsy, Zaineb Obeid, Huda Ahmed, Ban Adil Sarhan, Alaa Majeed and Sahar Issa have dodged gun battles and navigated car bombs, yet persist, the foundation said.

A McClatchy report calls them the “keystone” of its bureau, “particularly as it has become harder for Western journalists to travel in the country. Through their reporting and blogs, they’ve helped both Western correspondents and readers understand what it means to be an Iraqi after Saddam Hussein’s regime fell.” Few of the women have told anyone outside their immediate families what they do for a living. All have been threatened anyway.

For several weeks, E&P has been been featuring entries from the bureau’s blog Inside Iraq, which provides one of the most chilling running accounts of life in Baghdad. Here is the latest gripping post.

    Here they come. A couple of minutes earlier than usual, I haven’t got the car out of the garage yet.

    I stand outside, and stare. I used to be too embarrassed to do that at first, but not any more.

    The first Hummer vehicle turns the corner and comes towards me. There are usually four. As soon as they are close enough I look straight into the vehicle’s square windows – straight at the china-doll faces inside.

    At first they were too embarrassed to stare back. Then they started staring back – and then mostly ignored me.

    I became fascinated with them when they first made it a practice to pass by my door every morning as I drive out my garage – so that it became a matter of “who does it first”.

    Every time I look, I see young men – so young, some younger than my student daughter – with difficulty I see their faces, old disillusioned expressions on their surprisingly young faces; the baby fat still lingering in some.

    I can’t help remembering my son. He was the same age. I try to imagine what would have happened if they had met in a café, on ——— street, if there was no war on.

    How would they have looked at each other? Would they have become friends? Would they have had a drink and a smoke and thumped each others’ backs in laughter and camaraderie?

    So young – too young to send on an errand of war… of killing .. and dying.

    When they first came – years ago, they were full of feelings of pride – no doubt – for taking part in freeing a nation, for spreading the message of democracy to the barbarians. Why, then, were they not met with open arms and open hearts? Why were they looked at with shaded eyes filled with piercing hatred?

    Had they missed their mark? How do they feel now?

    Please tell me – if you can hear me - How do you feel now?

    My heart aches for young lives lost… I know …. I’ve been there. No matter the colour. No matter the tongue. They are so precious.

    Please tell me – if you can hear me - How do you feel now?

Gore on Bush Propaganda
US Bombs Shiite Sadr City
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
Sunday, June 03, 2007

It is no surprise that Al Gore is attacking Bush in his new book, of course. Nor is it a surprise that Gore accuses Bush of ignoring all reasonable evidence in both making the decision to invade Iraq and in deciding to do nothing about global warming.

What is important about what Gore is saying is his focus on how the pollution of America’s information environment by 1) corporate media consolidation (all television news is brought to Americans by five private corporations, the CEOs of which all vote Republican) and 2) government propaganda ( i.e. lies purveyed to Americans using the money and resources of Americans).

Polling shows that the percentage of Americans who view Iran as the number one threat to the United States has risen to 27 percent now. I think it was only 20 percent in December 2006. First of all, how in the world can a developing country with about a fourth of the population of the US, about a $2000 per capita income (in real terms, not local purchasing power), with no intercontinental ballistic missiles, with no weapons of mass destruction (and no proof positive it is trying to get them), with a small army and a small military budget– how is such a country a “threat” to the United States of America? Iranian leaders don’t like the US, and they talk dirty about the US, and they do attempt to thwart US interests. The same is true of Venezuela under Chavez. But Tehran is a minor player on the world stage, and trying to build it up to replace the Soviet Union is just the worst sort of fear-mongering, and it is being done on behalf of the US military industrial complex, which wants to do to Iran what it did to Iraq. It is propaganda, and significant numbers of Americans (a 7 percent increase would be like 21 million people!) are buying it.

Why have those poll numbers gone up? Because the Bush administration is trying to hang the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq on Iran (and even trying to hang the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan on Iran). The message of administration and military spokesmen is that Iran is deliberately killing US troops and is a major source of insurgency in Iraq. No convincing evidence has ever been presented for either allegation, nor is it reasonable to assume that Iran plays a significant role in funding hyper-Sunni, Shiite-killing death squads to deliberately destabilize its client governments in Baghdad (al-Maliki) and Kabul (Karzai). Yet the New York Times and even the Guardian put this b.s. on the front page, and of course it is all over CNN, Fox Cable News, MSNBC, etc. Are US journalists trapped in the the dictates of the military-industrial complex by virtue of working for these mega corporations? We know that Roger Ailes at Fox Cable News orders his employees how to spin the day’s news (he is a former high Republican Party official). Has any of the journalists counted up how many of the 127 US troops killed in Iraq in May was killed in Sunni Arab areas and how many in Shiite neighborhoods? Has any of them actually read the translated communiques on World News Connection of the Sunni Arab guerrillas and what they say about Iran and Shiites? Has any demanded air tight proof and non-anonymous sources before printing this garbage?

No.

It is this sort of thing that Gore is alarmed about. He is a man of enormous experience in public life, and he is saying that he sees a sea change for the worse in this regard. I concur.

The NYT on the fallout of the bridge bombing between Kirkuk and Irbil on Saturday, and increasing Arab/Kurdish and Turkish/Kurdish tensions.

McClatchy reports civil war violence in Iraq on Saturday. Police found 26 bodies in the streets of the capital, victims of sectarian death squads (most of them in Sunni Arab neighborhoods). 2 bodies were delivered to Diyala morgue (presumably in Baquba). Another 2 were found in the city of Khalis in the same province. Other major incidents:

‘ - 7 civilians were wounded when mortar shells hit Al Fadhil neighborhood [Baghdad]. . .

- A security source said that 5 civilians were killed in insurgencies in different towns of Diyala province yesterday afternoon.

- An Iraqi army soldier was killed in a car bomb explosion targeted a check point south Udhim town north of Baquba on Friday evening. . .

- A source in the 5th Iraqi army division said that an Iraqi army soldier was killed and 4 others wounded in an IED explosion targeted their patrol in Muqdadiyah town north of east Baquba city today afternoon. . .

- 6 civilians were injured when mortar shells hit Al Arasa neighborhood, one of the outskirts of Muqdadiyah town today afternoon. . .

- - 6 members of emergency brigade were injured when an IED exploded targeting their vehicle in Sari Kihya neighborhood downtown Kirkuk city on Friday evening, police said.

The US was engaged in a bombing campaign against the civilian neighborhood of Habibiya in Sadr City (Shiite East Baghdad) on Saturday evening. The strikes probably targeted Mahdi Army militiamen; however, you can’t bomb civilian neighborhoods without killing civilians.

Judge Halts Award Of Iraq Contract
Alec Klein and Steve Fainaru, Washington Post
Saturday, June 2, 2007

A federal judge yesterday ordered the military to temporarily refrain from awarding the largest security contract in Iraq. The order followed an unusual series of events set off when a U.S. Army veteran filed a protest against the government practice of hiring what he calls mercenaries, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The contract, worth about $475 million, calls for a private company to provide intelligence services to the U.S. Army and security for the Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction work in Iraq. The case, which is being heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, puts on trial one of the most controversial and least understood aspects of the Iraq war: the outsourcing of military security to an estimated 20,000 armed contractors who operate with little oversight.

Brian X. Scott, a 53-year-old Colorado man, filed the complaint in early April. He argues that the military’s use of private security contractors is “against America’s core values” and violates an 1893 law that prohibits the government from hiring quasi-military forces.

Scott’s challenge set off a domino effect, prompting the Government Accountability Office to dismiss protests brought by two major private security contractors the Army had removed as potential bidders — Erinys Iraq, a British firm, and Blackwater USA of North Carolina.

Michael Golden, the GAO’s managing associate general counsel for procurement law, said the agency dropped the matter because Scott’s court complaint may force the Army to revise the lucrative contract.

The GAO’s dismissal of the two protests on Thursday freed the Army to award the contract at any time. Erinys moved quickly yesterday to seek a temporary restraining order to prevent the Army from awarding the contract.

Erinys already provides security for some military personnel in Iraq under a separate contract. The company’s temporary restraining order is under seal. But sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said the firm claims that the government is about to award the contract, that Erinys would be irreparably harmed and that there is a strong factual basis for it to be reconsidered as a bidder. Erinys declined to comment.

Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for Blackwater, said the company does not intend to join Erinys’s efforts to obtain a restraining order. “We’re leaving it to the process, and we’re not going to take it any further,” she said.

In his court protest, Scott relied on the Anti-Pinkerton Act, which Congress passed more than a century ago to thwart businesses that had hired mercenaries to disrupt labor groups.

Scott said he served nearly 13 years on active duty in the U.S. Army and worked six years at the Interior Department on contracting issues. He now works full time trying to obtain government contracts and protesting the use of private security contractors. He has filed about a dozen protests against the use of the contractors in Iraq. All were filed with the GAO, and all were dismissed.

The Army has been narrowing the field of candidates for the Iraq security contract. One is Aegis Defence Services, a British security firm. Aegis won the initial Iraqi security contract in 2004. That contract, worth $293 million, was set to expire in May but has been extended as others have filed protests. Scott said he was indifferent that his court claim had complicated the Erinys and Blackwater protests. “They’re just trying to get a piece of the mercenary action,” he said.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. candace porno michellecandi apple star pornpornstar candi akacandice hbo michelle pornmichelle candice pornoporn candid gothporn clip candida royalefree candilist porn Map

Add comment June 4th, 2007


Calendar

June 2007
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category