Wednesday, August 29, 2007
More on Mercenaries; and Moron Conspiracies
Gee, publish one item indicating the possibility that the powers-that-be are comin' to getcha, and you wouldn't believe who comes out of the woodwork. Prior to publishing my piece on Blackwater's Air Force and some other things that scare me, I had gotten maybe 1500 or so hits during the entire life of this blog, many of which were me, chacking how many hits I've had. I'm now pushing 10,000.
Most of them seem to have come here via the website of Jeff Rense, who is apparently fond of accusing the Jews of training chupacabras to implant radio sensors in the brains of neocons so that they won't leak the truth about Roswell, which is the site of ancient Atlantis. Or something like that. So let this be a lesson to you newbie bloggers: if you want to be read, publish a conspiracy theory.
I've received a few comments on the Blackwater story, most of which either accuse Blackwater of pushing the zionist agenda or the christianist agenda. One favorite ties Allah with the god of ancient Atlantis, which is just so amazingly far out there (read the Timaeus and the Critias some time: Socrates made up the city of Atlantis for the sake of argument) that I had to read it a few times to trace the mental leaps. I've seen what happens when you engage cranks (if you don't know what that is or how to spot one, check out the denialism blog and their Denialists' Deck of Cards for a humorous look at the phenomenon) so I'll avoid that here.
But there was a comment worth responding to at length, from a "Canadian Looking Dispassionately At The American Experience":
Well yes, of course my piece is biased. It's my opinion, which is subject to change. Whether my bias is "excessive" or not is another story. I've spent nearly two years of my life in Iraq, and I have encountered many an employee of Blackwater and the other security firms who have security contracts here. (Technically speaking I'm a mercenary, even though I'm not even authorized to carry a weapon.)
Have I found that they are disunited, unambitious, lacking discipline, unfaithful, etc.? That's really an individual thing. They often, as my Canadian interlocutor asserts with a bit too many capital letters, "in many cases DO IN FACT do their JOBS with professionalism and tact." I'll admit, they do tend to be patriotic Americans, but that can take many forms. One form is the one that many on the Right take, which asserts that patriotism means following the President no matter what. They accuse those who protest the current state of American society of anti-Americanism. Many Blackwater contractors share this opinion. Actually, it's been my experience that this opinion is the default one among many sectors in Iraq, as this post indicates. I don't doubt that these people are patriots, but I'm really disturbed by the prospect of them flying around our country in military aircraft designed for close ground support.
I'm disturbed by the prospect of anyone doing that, though.
For most of the Blackwater types I've met, this definitely describes them: "they LIKE being professional soldiers and like the lifestyle." Sure they do--that's why they took a high-paying job to come over here. I do take issue with the "they're all former SEALs and Green Berets line, though: a good rule of thumb is that when someone claims to have been in Special Forces and starts telling stories about it, they're lying. The actual SOF guys I've known have tended to not brag much at all. The Blackwater guys I've known can't shut up about how awesome they are. A close friend who once worked for Blackwater told me that they all claim to have had some sort of high speed career, but most of them turn out to have been garden-variety infantrymen who served, it should be noted, in the 80's and 90's, when there wasn't much combat to be had.
Returning to my point, Blackwater is the closest thing we have to a Foreign Legion, and that should worry anyone who is concerned about civil liberties, if for no other reason that foreign legions, if they must exist at all, ought to be limited in their scope to foreign countries. I think my commenter hits the nail on the head when he says that they "can be sent to do the "Dirty Jobs" no one else wants to do." That's what scares me about them. Sure, right now they're all fighting the fight that our elected officials have sent Americans to fight. No matter how much deceit went into getting us into this war, Congress did, in fact, declare this war, and the President is our Commander in Chief. But what happens when that mission changes? Will our legislative branch have any say whatsoever in any domestic missions a Blackwater would conduct during peacetime? There's no reason to suspect that they would. In that case, they would be an armed wing of whoever paid them, in this case the Executive Branch of the United States government. Need I remind my readers that there is no provision in the constitution for such a thing?
Those "dirty jobs" are dirty not just because no one wants to do them, but also because they are in many cases illegal and the military can't do them. I'm one of those people who likes the fact that there are defined limits to the scope of what the military of a Constitutional Republic can do. That's why I find the Blackwater phenomenon dangerous, and that is why I think my short discussion of NSPD-51 is germane.
And for the record, I suspect that many Blackwater Paramilitary Troops would go AWOL rather than provide close air support to the suppression of, say, an anti-WTO demonstration. But do we really want to trust the individual consciences of these people to protect us should they ever be given that order?
Most of them seem to have come here via the website of Jeff Rense, who is apparently fond of accusing the Jews of training chupacabras to implant radio sensors in the brains of neocons so that they won't leak the truth about Roswell, which is the site of ancient Atlantis. Or something like that. So let this be a lesson to you newbie bloggers: if you want to be read, publish a conspiracy theory.
I've received a few comments on the Blackwater story, most of which either accuse Blackwater of pushing the zionist agenda or the christianist agenda. One favorite ties Allah with the god of ancient Atlantis, which is just so amazingly far out there (read the Timaeus and the Critias some time: Socrates made up the city of Atlantis for the sake of argument) that I had to read it a few times to trace the mental leaps. I've seen what happens when you engage cranks (if you don't know what that is or how to spot one, check out the denialism blog and their Denialists' Deck of Cards for a humorous look at the phenomenon) so I'll avoid that here.
But there was a comment worth responding to at length, from a "Canadian Looking Dispassionately At The American Experience":
The problem with this article is it shows EXCESSIVE bias towards paramilitary groups which is what Blackwater is. Bias is good becuase it is an opinion, but excessive bias is fanaticism in its own right.
The author should also know that they are NOT generally disunited, unambitious and lacking discipline, unfaithful, unvaliant before friends, nor are they cowardly before enemies since the majority of Blackwater Associates have already been in service as Navy Seals, Army Rangers, Ex-Delta Forces, British SAS, etc. They're neither stupid nor untrained and in many cases DO IN FACT do their JOBS with professionalism and tact!
It does help to focus one's mind that 100 Grand A year + bonus is yours if you just DO YOUR DAMN JOB but many join Blackwater because they LIKE being professional soldiers and like the lifestyle. So you don't always have to rail against Blackwater since they do provide a useful service in uncivil times and being paid much more than regular forces can be sent to do the "Dirty Jobs" no one else wants to do!
Well yes, of course my piece is biased. It's my opinion, which is subject to change. Whether my bias is "excessive" or not is another story. I've spent nearly two years of my life in Iraq, and I have encountered many an employee of Blackwater and the other security firms who have security contracts here. (Technically speaking I'm a mercenary, even though I'm not even authorized to carry a weapon.)
Have I found that they are disunited, unambitious, lacking discipline, unfaithful, etc.? That's really an individual thing. They often, as my Canadian interlocutor asserts with a bit too many capital letters, "in many cases DO IN FACT do their JOBS with professionalism and tact." I'll admit, they do tend to be patriotic Americans, but that can take many forms. One form is the one that many on the Right take, which asserts that patriotism means following the President no matter what. They accuse those who protest the current state of American society of anti-Americanism. Many Blackwater contractors share this opinion. Actually, it's been my experience that this opinion is the default one among many sectors in Iraq, as this post indicates. I don't doubt that these people are patriots, but I'm really disturbed by the prospect of them flying around our country in military aircraft designed for close ground support.
I'm disturbed by the prospect of anyone doing that, though.
For most of the Blackwater types I've met, this definitely describes them: "they LIKE being professional soldiers and like the lifestyle." Sure they do--that's why they took a high-paying job to come over here. I do take issue with the "they're all former SEALs and Green Berets line, though: a good rule of thumb is that when someone claims to have been in Special Forces and starts telling stories about it, they're lying. The actual SOF guys I've known have tended to not brag much at all. The Blackwater guys I've known can't shut up about how awesome they are. A close friend who once worked for Blackwater told me that they all claim to have had some sort of high speed career, but most of them turn out to have been garden-variety infantrymen who served, it should be noted, in the 80's and 90's, when there wasn't much combat to be had.
Returning to my point, Blackwater is the closest thing we have to a Foreign Legion, and that should worry anyone who is concerned about civil liberties, if for no other reason that foreign legions, if they must exist at all, ought to be limited in their scope to foreign countries. I think my commenter hits the nail on the head when he says that they "can be sent to do the "Dirty Jobs" no one else wants to do." That's what scares me about them. Sure, right now they're all fighting the fight that our elected officials have sent Americans to fight. No matter how much deceit went into getting us into this war, Congress did, in fact, declare this war, and the President is our Commander in Chief. But what happens when that mission changes? Will our legislative branch have any say whatsoever in any domestic missions a Blackwater would conduct during peacetime? There's no reason to suspect that they would. In that case, they would be an armed wing of whoever paid them, in this case the Executive Branch of the United States government. Need I remind my readers that there is no provision in the constitution for such a thing?
Those "dirty jobs" are dirty not just because no one wants to do them, but also because they are in many cases illegal and the military can't do them. I'm one of those people who likes the fact that there are defined limits to the scope of what the military of a Constitutional Republic can do. That's why I find the Blackwater phenomenon dangerous, and that is why I think my short discussion of NSPD-51 is germane.
And for the record, I suspect that many Blackwater Paramilitary Troops would go AWOL rather than provide close air support to the suppression of, say, an anti-WTO demonstration. But do we really want to trust the individual consciences of these people to protect us should they ever be given that order?
Labels: conspiracies, mercenaries, military, politics, reason
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
http://www.forret.com/tools/trackback.asp?title=More on Mercenaries; and Moron Conspiracies&blog_name=Decline and Fall&url=http://www.declineandfall.net/2007/08/more-on-mercenaries-and-moron.html
What you said about Rense.com made me laugh. Some of the links on his site really are far out man. Whoa. But he doesn't claim to agree with every link. And I would rather have a bit too much information to sift through than not enough. Over time your brain learns to quickly dig the perls from the pig pit.
I found your original article very interesting. As a Brit I am interested in how both the US and UK are finding people to fight their war. In Britain there are a lot of people who are in the Territorial Army. These are people who are part-timers, some are ex-service personnel but many are not, and some would not pass the entrance criteria for mainstream military forces but are able to join via this method. They are suddenly pulled away from jobs, etc.
In the US it seems to be private companies who are providing the back up, and yet are not as accountable as the main military are.
There have been a lot of problems with "friendly fire" killing our soldiers, and, as far as I am aware, though I could be wrong on this, it tends to have been US planes that have killed our people.
This always suggested that the US military are incompent, yet somehow I haven't wanted to believe that. The systems perhaps? Possible, but the idea that Blackwater, private mercenaries, are using their own planes in Iraq, answers some questions, especially as the US has stated quite clearly it will NOT give any details of the logs, or anything else that led up to the recent "friendly fire" killing. No wonder our dead servicemen's families are so upset!
Rightly, or wrongly, Blackwater has now become a force too strong to be reckoned with. It has used US taxpayers money to create a monster, a monster that bullies (if the families of Blackwater members who died are correct in their interactions with this company) and will be the biggest danger to all, unless we open our eyes to what is happening around the world.
I have considered there to be a conspiracy background to this, but I am prepared to review this position if evidence comes to the contrary. Perhaps the only conspiracy is the one Blackwater are playing on the US government who are being extremely naive in their dealings with this company. I don't know so I can only speculate.
I would appreciate a response to this. Thank you.
In the US it seems to be private companies who are providing the back up, and yet are not as accountable as the main military are.
There have been a lot of problems with "friendly fire" killing our soldiers, and, as far as I am aware, though I could be wrong on this, it tends to have been US planes that have killed our people.
This always suggested that the US military are incompent, yet somehow I haven't wanted to believe that. The systems perhaps? Possible, but the idea that Blackwater, private mercenaries, are using their own planes in Iraq, answers some questions, especially as the US has stated quite clearly it will NOT give any details of the logs, or anything else that led up to the recent "friendly fire" killing. No wonder our dead servicemen's families are so upset!
Rightly, or wrongly, Blackwater has now become a force too strong to be reckoned with. It has used US taxpayers money to create a monster, a monster that bullies (if the families of Blackwater members who died are correct in their interactions with this company) and will be the biggest danger to all, unless we open our eyes to what is happening around the world.
I have considered there to be a conspiracy background to this, but I am prepared to review this position if evidence comes to the contrary. Perhaps the only conspiracy is the one Blackwater are playing on the US government who are being extremely naive in their dealings with this company. I don't know so I can only speculate.
I would appreciate a response to this. Thank you.
About the friendly fire problems. You have to remember that some of these accidents could be caused by inexperienced ground forces calling in the wrong coordinates. If the UK is fielding ill trained forces, that might account for this. Of course, we at home may never know.
You might find the crank howto
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php
or unified theory of the crank
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/unified_theory_of_the_crank.php
more informative than the cards which are more about industry lobbying denialism.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php
or unified theory of the crank
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/unified_theory_of_the_crank.php
more informative than the cards which are more about industry lobbying denialism.
As a dispassionate Canadian who can generally look at American policy from an outsider's point of view, my earlier comments are NOT intended to supposit that I am an ardent supporter of Blackwater (Which I am NOT!).
I am merely outlining that Blackwater and NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations) like it, can provide a useful service in situations where it would be politically incorrect to send regular forces.
Blackwater's much higher pay rates ($100k a year+Bonus) along with it's supposed non-afilliation with regular forces allows its members to be put at much higher risk
when being assigned the "Dirty Jobs" which can be everything from escorting fuel tankers in Iraq to unofficially hunting Bin Laden in Pakistan (which I can assure you they are definitely being assigned THAT duty!).
In addition, Blackwater does in fact mostly recruit ex-military types that are ex-Special Forces and due to modern computerization and background detective work they do try to and are able to verify the previous
employment of its members.
Balckwater is also a place of getting in based upon "Who You Know" and Special Forces types can smell B.S. from a mile away and will generally hire only "One of their Own".
My original rant was not that I fully support Blackwater, but that they can be a useful for high risk, high payaoff activities that are not politically expedient for regular forces to perform.
I do object to earlier rants that have no creditable basis to say that fundamentalist Christian ideology is the primary basis for the decisions of the Bush regime. Although much of Bush's closest confidants are ardent hard-right Christians, there are enough checks and balances in the current system to mitigate any truly damaging consequences and I can tell from an outsider's point of view that the situations in Iraq/Afghanistan and elsewhere have been much more successfuly handled from a military point of view than compared to the debacle that was Vietnam.
The U.S. is doing MUCH LESS physical damage to either country's infrastructure that what what done to countries during WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Many fellow Canadians also believe that Iraq has morphed into a resource war being fought for control of oil stocks.
Although Iraq did in fact have at one point in time WMD's, they were in such poor condition and lacked sufficient technical support that they would have been ineffective against any
major country. I and many Canadians also believe that resource control was in fact the original Causus Beli for invading Iraq in addition to gaining a strategic base and stronghold against Iranian expansion, which in my belief is inevitable due to its young population and rapid modernization.
Iran should be considered the China of the Middle East and should be handled much like it's massive namesake.
America must speak softly and carry a big stick just in case some fanatics in Iraq & Iran start an event that could spiral out of control. I do not believe the general population of Iraq or Iran have any wish to fight against a superpower, but much like Canada, they despise being trod upon by an elephant that can't see where its stepping. In Canada, as the U.S.'s largest trading partner, we have some economic clout to mitigate some of the U.S. excesses and thus have no need for armed agression. Iraq & Iran however have no real way to challenge the actions of America and thus in anger and frustration lash out
inappropriately against not just U.S. interest but those of the Western world in General because we are seen as agents for a system they think is unfair and biased against them.
Commentary is Welcome!
Thx
The Dispassionate Canadian
I am merely outlining that Blackwater and NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations) like it, can provide a useful service in situations where it would be politically incorrect to send regular forces.
Blackwater's much higher pay rates ($100k a year+Bonus) along with it's supposed non-afilliation with regular forces allows its members to be put at much higher risk
when being assigned the "Dirty Jobs" which can be everything from escorting fuel tankers in Iraq to unofficially hunting Bin Laden in Pakistan (which I can assure you they are definitely being assigned THAT duty!).
In addition, Blackwater does in fact mostly recruit ex-military types that are ex-Special Forces and due to modern computerization and background detective work they do try to and are able to verify the previous
employment of its members.
Balckwater is also a place of getting in based upon "Who You Know" and Special Forces types can smell B.S. from a mile away and will generally hire only "One of their Own".
My original rant was not that I fully support Blackwater, but that they can be a useful for high risk, high payaoff activities that are not politically expedient for regular forces to perform.
I do object to earlier rants that have no creditable basis to say that fundamentalist Christian ideology is the primary basis for the decisions of the Bush regime. Although much of Bush's closest confidants are ardent hard-right Christians, there are enough checks and balances in the current system to mitigate any truly damaging consequences and I can tell from an outsider's point of view that the situations in Iraq/Afghanistan and elsewhere have been much more successfuly handled from a military point of view than compared to the debacle that was Vietnam.
The U.S. is doing MUCH LESS physical damage to either country's infrastructure that what what done to countries during WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Many fellow Canadians also believe that Iraq has morphed into a resource war being fought for control of oil stocks.
Although Iraq did in fact have at one point in time WMD's, they were in such poor condition and lacked sufficient technical support that they would have been ineffective against any
major country. I and many Canadians also believe that resource control was in fact the original Causus Beli for invading Iraq in addition to gaining a strategic base and stronghold against Iranian expansion, which in my belief is inevitable due to its young population and rapid modernization.
Iran should be considered the China of the Middle East and should be handled much like it's massive namesake.
America must speak softly and carry a big stick just in case some fanatics in Iraq & Iran start an event that could spiral out of control. I do not believe the general population of Iraq or Iran have any wish to fight against a superpower, but much like Canada, they despise being trod upon by an elephant that can't see where its stepping. In Canada, as the U.S.'s largest trading partner, we have some economic clout to mitigate some of the U.S. excesses and thus have no need for armed agression. Iraq & Iran however have no real way to challenge the actions of America and thus in anger and frustration lash out
inappropriately against not just U.S. interest but those of the Western world in General because we are seen as agents for a system they think is unfair and biased against them.
Commentary is Welcome!
Thx
The Dispassionate Canadian
MarkH,
Thank you for pointing in the right direction. I read both serties a few months ago (whether they were complete at the time, I don't know) and picked the less approapriate of the two. My mistake.
Dispassionate Canadian,
I appreciate your clarification. I still submit that the Blackwater types are, in my experience, not as highly trained and experienced as Blackwater makes them out to be. It's a simple matter of economics: Blackwater gets contracts to hire a large number of people, they are paid based on the fulfillment of those contracts, so they hire from the widest pool available, which includes former infantrymen, SWAT members and the like. U.S. infantrymen are actually quite well trained, incidentally, but they're not SF. But boy do many of them like to make that claim.
Your analysis of Iran, "treat it like China," is, I think, the right one. Nixon did much more good by going to China on diplomatic pretenses than all of the sabre-rattling that had gone before put together.
Thank you for pointing in the right direction. I read both serties a few months ago (whether they were complete at the time, I don't know) and picked the less approapriate of the two. My mistake.
Dispassionate Canadian,
I appreciate your clarification. I still submit that the Blackwater types are, in my experience, not as highly trained and experienced as Blackwater makes them out to be. It's a simple matter of economics: Blackwater gets contracts to hire a large number of people, they are paid based on the fulfillment of those contracts, so they hire from the widest pool available, which includes former infantrymen, SWAT members and the like. U.S. infantrymen are actually quite well trained, incidentally, but they're not SF. But boy do many of them like to make that claim.
Your analysis of Iran, "treat it like China," is, I think, the right one. Nixon did much more good by going to China on diplomatic pretenses than all of the sabre-rattling that had gone before put together.
Brit,
I don't like to jump to conclusions about things like "the friendly-fire killings have been by Blackwater." No doubt some of them have been, but friendly fire has much more to do with the fog of war than any grand conspiracy or even general incompetence by our troops. I do recall there being an incident during the initial foray into Iraq wherein the units on the ground had no idea that the people they were firing on were their own soldiers. I've also talked to soldiers who have inadvertently gotten into firefights with security contractors. War is confusing, and bullets are equal-opportunity killers. But it does seem to me that the battlefield is less safe, or at least less sure, with these third parties running around it.
But the crux of my issue with Blackwater has little to do with that. My problem is that they are able to do missions that American (or Coalition) Forces cannot do, because they are non-State actors. The Laws of War are much more nebulous regarding organizations such as these, and the Bush Administration has, I believe, taken advantage of that situation to send private contractors on missions that would be illegal for "official" representatives of America to conduct. But like it or not, they are still projections of American military power, and are definitely seen as such by Iraqi people. They are just beyond the law to some extent. As a believer in the rule of law, this situation horrifies me.
America, incidentally, does have the Reserves and National Guard, who are analogous to the Territorial Army in that they are part-timers. (They do have to meet all the requirements for regular service, but those requirements have of late been lowered.)The Reserves are organized into Brigades, Divisions, etc. just like reuglar forces, and they have been deployed to Iraq and Afganistan in the same way that active duty units have.
I'm not prepared to throw my lot in with the "Blackwater is going to turn America into a police state" crowd, simply because I expect any moves in that direction to be more subtle. But it remains a possibility, which is why I blogged about it in the first place. The price of Liberty," as one of America's original insurgents said, "is eternal vigilance."
I don't like to jump to conclusions about things like "the friendly-fire killings have been by Blackwater." No doubt some of them have been, but friendly fire has much more to do with the fog of war than any grand conspiracy or even general incompetence by our troops. I do recall there being an incident during the initial foray into Iraq wherein the units on the ground had no idea that the people they were firing on were their own soldiers. I've also talked to soldiers who have inadvertently gotten into firefights with security contractors. War is confusing, and bullets are equal-opportunity killers. But it does seem to me that the battlefield is less safe, or at least less sure, with these third parties running around it.
But the crux of my issue with Blackwater has little to do with that. My problem is that they are able to do missions that American (or Coalition) Forces cannot do, because they are non-State actors. The Laws of War are much more nebulous regarding organizations such as these, and the Bush Administration has, I believe, taken advantage of that situation to send private contractors on missions that would be illegal for "official" representatives of America to conduct. But like it or not, they are still projections of American military power, and are definitely seen as such by Iraqi people. They are just beyond the law to some extent. As a believer in the rule of law, this situation horrifies me.
America, incidentally, does have the Reserves and National Guard, who are analogous to the Territorial Army in that they are part-timers. (They do have to meet all the requirements for regular service, but those requirements have of late been lowered.)The Reserves are organized into Brigades, Divisions, etc. just like reuglar forces, and they have been deployed to Iraq and Afganistan in the same way that active duty units have.
I'm not prepared to throw my lot in with the "Blackwater is going to turn America into a police state" crowd, simply because I expect any moves in that direction to be more subtle. But it remains a possibility, which is why I blogged about it in the first place. The price of Liberty," as one of America's original insurgents said, "is eternal vigilance."
The scariest thing about some entity like Blackwater turning America into a police state is the fact that they hire foriegn soldiers of fortune. These Hessians could one day be marching down our streets and commanding American citizens at the point of a gun barrel. Just like they are doing in Iraq. And you see the results there. A lot of dead people.
Actually, the standards, and training for the Reserve and National Guard forces are the same as those of Regular Army/Air Force/Navy/Marine Corps. The usual cause of friendly fire is confusion, not poor trainng. Leaders ahve called fire on their own positions due to being overrun by enemy.
There is no law against a paramilitary force being run from America, as long as its primary mission is security. It is, however illegal to operate an armed nonmilitary aircraft in the US.It will be interesting to see how Blackwater gets around that. There are enough armed Americans to keep them from flying to close to the ground.
And, why are so many anti-American?
Post a Comment
There is no law against a paramilitary force being run from America, as long as its primary mission is security. It is, however illegal to operate an armed nonmilitary aircraft in the US.It will be interesting to see how Blackwater gets around that. There are enough armed Americans to keep them from flying to close to the ground.
And, why are so many anti-American?
Links to this post:
<< Home
