As reported in Jeremy Scahill’s Blackwater (Nation Books), one of the largest providers of private security assets to the U.S. military is more than a business: It’s a well-armed and well-funded cog in the military-industrial complex led by a self-styled Christian warrior with deep ties to the right’s theo-con fringe. In short, the sort of thing to keep any right-minded,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (34)Page 1 of 1 pages“One out of 60 U.S. military personnel serving in the Gulf War theater of operations were contractors; in the Iraq War by late 2006 that ratio was by some counts almost one to one.”
Really? One to one, REALLY? I would love to see real figures of how many US soldiers are in Iraq and how many contractors are there.
Posted by wolf on May 22, 2007 at 12:43 PM “Wolf” - Given the secrecy and lack of oversight under which most contractors in Iraq work, a true number is impossible to get. However, the Washington Post’s Renae Merle reported in December that around 100,000 contractors were in Iraq, at a time when there were roughly 140,000 US troops there. This was a dramatic increase from the Gulf War, when only about 9200 contractors were in the theater of operation. So as you can tell, it may not be exactly a one-to-one ratio (though some estimates are higher) but still a stunningly large number.
Posted by wintermute on May 23, 2007 at 6:21 AM wintermute - thanks for the update. I find it incredible that there may be 100,000 contractors on the ground in Iraq. I have posted in a link that seems to be congruent with your assertion above. I am amazed that this is (apparently) not well known public information. Thanks again!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311. .html
Posted by wolf on May 23, 2007 at 8:41 AM You gotta hand it to Bush & Co., they’re f’n geniuses at avoiding limits on their actions. If as alleged almost half of the personnel in Iraq are mercenaries rather than sworn troops (reflecting off the exchange between wintermute and wolf above), then that’s 1000s of operatives who basically don’t have to concern themselves at all with congressional oversight, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or even what little independent journalism still remains that might have a prayer of scrutinizing them.
Well, they’ve obviously always wanted a free hand, unencumbered by pesky checks and balances; this is another facet.
Posted by Kuya on May 27, 2007 at 10:19 PM The latest figures I’ve seen indicate that there are 150,000 US military personel in Iraq, and at least 126,000 contractors of which approximately 48,000 are PMC’s or private military contractors.
These are stunning numbers and it should also be noted that the official discussions of withdrawal from Iraq, when they have occured at all, never mention the PMC’s.
This story is among the very most important of the many important stories that need our attention right now.
For some powerful background on the miserable politcal scene in the US I suggest that those with access to a high speed internet connection google up Adam Curtis, the British documentarian, and you can watch his “The Power of Nightmares” and “The Century of the Self”. These two multi-part works give the viewer an excellent sketch of the difficulties facing our modern day “democracy” as we suffer through a maze of manipulation woven by the mass media tentacles of the miltary industrial congressional complex (Eisenhower’s original designation).
The two documentaries, despite their critical acclaim, have yet to reach wider distribution in the US for the obvious reason that they are considered anathema to the American corporate elite.
Check them out by all means.
Posted by koolwill on May 28, 2007 at 6:41 PM I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise to read the above article. The Shrub has no concept of Duty Honor and Country, nor does he have any intention of being bound by such an old scrap of paper as the Constitution.
His promise to pprotect and defend the Constitution can be equated to a small child promising not to get in trouble again; meaningless 30 minutes later.
Hopefully, enough Americans have realized that Faux News is a toady to the neocon movement. Just as they have realized that Duhbya is the most clueless President in modern times.
But will any of them look beyond sound bites and campaign slogans in the next election?
Posted by farmer on May 29, 2007 at 1:56 PM These “independent contractor”numbers are surprisingly high.
“But will any of them look beyond sound bites and campaign slogans in the next election?”
The above comment by farmer is something we need to keep in mind for ALL news reports. People have a tendency to look for reasons for all events after the fact. Along with this tendency are a few others to keep in mind…
• Too quick an acceptance of what fits our own biases.
• Ignoring whatever does not fit with the story we’ve accepted.
• Applying old stories as a pattern for the new.
• Believing we (or the reporter) know more than we actually do.
We can see some of this in those who ordered the invasion of Iraq. Also in some of those who now insist we leave Iraq.
We went in with way too few troops. Employed the Reserves and National Guard immediately rather than as “reserves.”
Since the end of the Cold War each administration cut our military (SOP). Rumsfeld’s major experiment of a small, highly tech oriented force worked reasonably well for an assault, but ignored centuries of military doctrine as to what is needed to occupy and pacify a large territory.
The use of all these independents is one of necessity if any rebuilding is to take place — they have become the reserves. What is not being heard is what size and kind of military do we need in order to be able to defend the country against an on-going war declared against us.
Whatever that is determined to be, it will not be popular, but we’d better get realistic about it.
Posted by whattheheck on May 30, 2007 at 7:38 AM I agree on the need to get realistic about “solving” the Iraq problem. The trouble is, we are hampered by a leadership that is totally unrealistic in their thinking about Iraq.
First, a bluff campaign was tried. This allowed Iraq to get rid of most of its secret materials, if they actually had any, which is debatable now. We all know about the poison gas. I am speaking of the nuclear arsenal.
Then a series of lies about the need to invade Iraq.
Then a civilian, with no war planning experiance at all was allowed to override the best war planners in the Army.
The list goes on, almost without end.
The “surge” which was supposed to secure Iraq has only increased the number of military and civilian deaths in Iraq. Civilians are going to die in any real war. This is a given. One that is difficult for too many Americans to accept. Military deaths are also a given. But when there is no real plan for dealing with a situation, other than send more troops, it is all but criminal.
Our country attempted to install a modified copy of our system of government in Iraq. People who had lived all their life under one dictator or another were suddenly told that they were free and that democracy was in effect.
Had we had people on the ground with some kind of realistic plan, maybe, just maybe, things would have been different.
Instead we had folks with no clue as what to do. Led by a President who had no clue.
Those who do not know/remember history are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by farmer on May 30, 2007 at 8:58 AM Farmer,
We’re certainly in agreement on much of the current Iraq situation. The “surge” is one of the dumbest military ideas and ranks close to the one of allowing Rumsfeld a free hand way too long. When Plan A wasn’t working there was no Plan B to fall back on.
Several retired Generals pointed out before the invasion (That is why some of them are retired — for pointing out...) that we needed more troops for such an undertaking. Gen. Zinni, who had already retired as head of CENTCOM prior to 9/11 supervised ten years of planning and determined 500,000 were needed for a full invasion and occupation.
Colin Powell told Bush to be sure he had enough troops for the post combat phase. Actually he said, “If you break it, you’ve bought it.”
Now, for better or for worse, we are there and have a tiger by the tail.
Former Senator Bob Kerry had an interesting article at the Opinion Journal Tuesday, 5-22-07 entitled, “The Left’s Iraq Muddle”.http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107
I think perhaps one of the biggest Bush administration’s failings has been to convince the American public (and the free world) that this war is for real. Except for those over there and their families, we have made no sacrifices or even been inconvenienced by the war. Quite the opposite — we were immediately urged not to change our routine, “Or they will have won.”
We should do whatever it takes to become independent of Middle East oil — even if that means rationing gasoline. We should stop all illegal border crossings — even if that means shooting. We should begin civil defense instruction and drills, not just for first responders, but all of us.I believe Kerry is correct, but doubt many people will accept his view as long as making money is more important than genuine homeland security.
Posted by whattheheck on May 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM I agree with some of Sen Kerrys’ opinions.
BUT...Japan and Germany were nations that went to war against us. Now we are faced with an irregular force, without uniforms and no real national sponsor. Granted Syria, Iran and even Pakistan turn a blind eye at best and offer support at worst.
With an oil patch President and Vice President, no real effort will be made on alternative fuels. Remember when they had to restore funding (that had just been cut) so Shrub could have a photo-op, showing his support of alternative fuels? Wonder if those funds have since been re-cut? Cut so that his tax cuts for the fat cats could be paid for.My big gripe was the revelation that WH insiders were telling each other that Iraq was a quagmire, all the while proclaiming that all was well and we just had to have patience. They knew they had a big problem and chose to hope it would solve itself.
And then, they have the nerve to say that the Democrat’s are not supporting the troops. Even after Walter Reed, they accuse the Democrat’s.
It would really harm military morale to cut and run. The military needs to feel some sort of victory...besides an empty declaration of Mission Accomplished.
The only way I see that coming close to happening is to pull all the troops back into Baghdad and totally clamp down. Then, after 3 months of no car bombings, then they could feel that they had accomplished a mission. Trying to ‘pacify’ a whole country, while refraining from civilian’s being killed/wounded is all but impossible
Posted by farmer on May 30, 2007 at 5:07 PM A relevant story…
Private Guards Weak Link in Security
Forbes online: 15.29.07, 7:13 PM ET
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/29/ap3767693.html
..............................................................................
And even if it is entirely late in the day for this reminder, there were many, many of us who thought and said way back in 2003 that they were entering a quagmire. This was predicted because we thought Bush and Co. were being unrealistic. In fact, they have engaged in what amounts to magical thinking, such as 1) prediction that their loftily phrased goals would be enough to captivate the locals’ imaginations despite the disconnection of those goals from facts on the ground: Bush/Rumsfeld imagined that virtually all Iraqis would be so relieved at the ouster of Saddam Hussein that their antipathy for rivals in other ethnic factions would be trivial and that they’d quickly unite behind a US-fostered new government, 2) unrealistic confidence derived from their vision of the US as a special, almost ahistorical case among the nations of the world: Bush/Rumsfeld imagined that because of the mystique of being “the only superpower” and “leaders of the free world”, they could count on broad international support for two separate and entirely different wars. They also counted in part upon the sympathy the world had for the US following 9/11. They thought the currency we had from having halted the spread of militaristic nationalism in WWII and militaristic socialism after that, added to their supposed superpowerful invincibility, would carry world opinion and more importantly, convince enough governments to send appreciable troops and cash, and 3) unchecked hubris regarding the prowess of US armed forces: Bush/Rumsfeld totally underestimated the enemy. They undershot the number of troops that would be required to not only beat the enemies to a standstill in BOTH Afghanistan AND Iraq BUT (more to the point) what it would need to then OCCUPY those two lands, by far the tougher job, and in places that were filled to the brim with armed, experienced fighters who would predictably hate the living guts of the occupiers. They imagined supernaturally effective fighters who could carry on to victory even without proper kit, without sufficient training or even enough ammo, and as we’ve learned too vividly already, without enough boots on the ground to properly support each other and hold onto areas they’d driven the enemy out of. Their mindset was revealed in part by mission handles like “Shock and Awe”. Absurd.
The wish by some to quickly and unilaterally bail out is understandable even if it would be poor strategy. People want to get the fuck out, and wish they could turn the clock back to before the time when they’d been told Iraqi WMDs could be deployed in under an hour. We can say it’s irrational, but it is still easy to understand as a reaction to a seemingly insoluble situation, one that is costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives but one that few are convinced will ever vindicate the magical ideas noted above.
No wonder people want to turn the clock back.
Posted by Kuya on May 31, 2007 at 3:02 AM Farmer, Kuya,
We’re in agreement on a lot of issues —
• Iraq has been badly mishandled for all your reasons and then some.
• oil plays too influential a role in US foreign policy (We should get truly serious about becoming energy independent and quit playing political games.)
• the treatment of veterans is disgusting and shameful. Not only the Walter reed mess, but returning vets are getting short changed on their promised educational benefits. The WH thinks a 3.5% wage increase for troops is too costly, but pays 10 times as much for mercenaries.To me it matters little which party we consider, there is plenty of blame to go around. While they jockey for the next presidential election and joust over illegal immigration there is a long list of important issues being neglected.
I expect we will hear a lot of talk about unfair trade practices between the US and China with absolutely NO significant changes — too many big buck contributors are making out as it is.
As far as the war itself:
“Japan and Germany were nations that went to war against us.”
To me a better comparison is the long running Cold War period. While there are similarities to WW2 and Viet Nam, each conflict is unique and we usually end up fighting the wrong war, at least for a while.
“Now we are faced with an irregular force, without uniforms and no real national sponsor.
I think the “real sponsor”, radical Islam, has been at war with us for around 25 to 30 years. Had they not successfully attacked us on 9/11, Bush would have treated them as a sort of nuisance just as previous administrations did.The closest comparison I can see is the WW2 Japanese Kamikaze pilots and mini-sub riding fanatics or the American Indians during the 1870s and 1880s out west. Totally dedicated against us (with some legitimate reasons) and saw it a duty and an honor to die killing us.
They can not be reasoned with, but can be utilized by some who are willing to make a show of rationality along with national representatives who may in fact be genuinely willing to talk peace. They, however, are considered as traitors and heretics by our real enemies.
This will be a very long continuing problem which is likely to get much worse since their leaders obviously understand us better than many of ours do theirs.
Eventually we will likely reinstate the draft, since we have over-used and exploited the volunteer military.
I can understand some of the rush to “do something” rather than wait for more verification. Whenever I look at the tape of the 9/11 attacks (I was taping when the first reports of a “small plane accidentally crashing” came on TV.) I remember how we didn’t know if the were more planes or attacks on other facilities by other means, we knew zip.
Much of the criticism of Bush & Company is due to a lack of clear communication and a lot of utterly stupid comments from the WH.
To stay in Iraq will be costly in lives and money — to leave will be costly in lives (the fighting will continue) and credibility — I see no good answers to this in the short term and the long term could go either way. A bit of historical research before may have brought more caution and less arrogance.
If we leave, the first goal of the Jihadists will be to subdue all the diverse factions, various sub groups — religious, warlords, political and secular. The entire area will be in even more turmoil than usual. It will become one large anti-western training camp and we will probably go back to fight again in a few years.
It will be very telling how Bush’s successor deals with this mess.
Think of being in that spot — many reports of possible threats, trying to determine which are real, constant distractions by individuals within and without pushing their “facts.” The media telling everything to the whole world including those who are out to get us.
Posted by whattheheck on May 31, 2007 at 10:29 AM That the next President will have one hell of a job in cleaning up Duhbyas’ messes is very clear.
And the Democrats have no claim to being right...and I am a Democrat. Really hard to be proud of that, in light of all that has happened.
We need to get out of Iraq, but it must be done with some sense of accomplishing something. Besides a photo-op announcement.
Now, three years too late, we are being told that the military commanders are trying to start talking to the insurgents.
Shrub has too much pride and too little sense of the real world to have done that when it could have avoided some of the death and maiming.
And sadly, most American politicians have no real understanding of different cultures around the world.
Hell, the Shrub had to have his daddy send folks to Austin, when he was supposed to Governor, just to tell him what he should have learned in college. And he promptly ignored all that didn’t fit with his “vision” of the world. As we have seen.
Posted by farmer on May 31, 2007 at 7:35 PM Framer,
In Illinois to vote in the primary you must first declare a party. For most of my life, since I am a fiscal conservative, I have taken the Republican one.
I never have considered myself to be of either party and often cross lines, but I have become increasingly cynical regarding our voting process, our claim to have a representative form of government and accepting that our candidates truly regard themselves as “public servants.”We seem to be rapidly evolving into the elitist governed country which Alexander Hamilton thought necessary. At times when I see who is voted in and what apparently influenced the vote, I have thought the masses not really capable of choosing intelligently but solely concerned about “What’s in it for me?”
Now I see the candidates and those in office making national decisions based mostly on, “What’s in it for me?”
I don’t trust the computerized voting/no paper trail process (fixing it has been ignored). I hear the media constantly saying things like, “Unless he modifies his comments on issue X, he will lose the Y segment of the voters.” I think we need candidates who really don’t want the job instead of those willing (and able) to spend $millions of their own money to buy it like Bloomberg in NY. Thompson may be most qualified only because he has the acting credentials required to play the role.With more than 36,000 lobbyists on K Street and nearly all legislators wealthy people, I believe the only way to get legislation to “promote the general welfare” of the country is to be able to say, “My lobbyist is bigger than your lobbyist.”
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 1, 2007 at 6:36 AM whattheheck, ya pretty well nailed it.
Unless and until we remove big money from the political process, we are going to have more of the same.
(And in Texas, it is just about the same; you can only vote in one primary. Your voter registration card is stamped with that Party, but you can vote for any Party in the main election.)
If political donations were limited to $2000 and only from registered voters, eliglible to vote for that candidate, we’d go a long way towards removing some of the problems.
Plus, limit all lobbyist’s to providing information rather than money; with real penalties for breaking these rules, i.e., prison time and not at some Federal tennis camp.
This would force the candidates to debate the issues, rather than hiring analysts to tell them what to say. Plus we wouldn’t have so many TV and radio ads that most folks turn off or just ignore.
All politicians say that they are for ethics reform and introduce and occassionally pass legislation for that purpose...but without a real penalty.
Just as Tom Delay gets censured by the House and promptly announces that he has been completely vindicated. Then he is finally forced to retire and has to go back to Texas and try and spend all the bribe money he still has, laughing at us all the way.
TXU (eletric utility that has really jacked rates up) just spent 8 million dollars to avoid having laws passed that would limit their ability to gouge the consumer. And OUR legislator’s (the ones elected to represent US) took the money and sided with TXU. Then tell us that it is someone elses fault that the bill didn’t pass.
Posted by farmer on Jun 1, 2007 at 7:00 AM Farmer,
You mentioned Tom Delay — not my favorite guy. He doubled the number of lobbyists after the Repubs had congressional control.As a name on the Republican mailing list I was phone by his office and asked to be on a presidential advisory committee representing small independent businesses. When I asked I was assured this was not a fund raising committee, that I need not fly to D.C. to participate, and could contribute by conference call.
I thanked the lady and said if she would leave a phone number I would consider it and call back. “Oh, it is rather urgent that we have an answer now in order to begin as soon as possible.” I said if she need an answer immediately, my answer would be no, but if she would send me something in writing I would certainly consider it.
Within a week I had a three page letter — and right there in black and white at the top of page three it said I would be in charge of fund raising for northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin!
I called and chewed her out royally — I called her on her lies and I told her to remove my name from DeLay’s sucker list. But the following year I received a Certificate of Appreciation from the RNC and an invitation to an award ceremony in D.C. (from DeLay again). This time I looked it up on the internet — same old fund raiser crap!
I called his office and threatened to sue if I received any more mail from there — so far so good.
Naturally I was glad to see Tommy head for home. The bad news is he keeps his pension!
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 2, 2007 at 1:24 PM whattheheck
Glad that you didn’t fall victim to the “allure” of being close to “power”. Not all can ithstand that temptation.
Tommy keeping his pension is one example of rules/laws that need to be changed.
But, we have to wait for a politician to introduce a bill with those changes and get enough support to pass it and override a veto.
Similar to waiting for a nice day in Hell.
The alternative is calling a Constitutional Convention. But that would bring out every kook that wanted their own pet peeve included.
Far too many people have given up on the political process; and no wonder.
But then we get a “President” such as we have now, one who lies almost as a force of habit. One who wants to usurp the powers of Congress and ignore the needs of the real people in this country.
He will mention those needs, like reforming Social Security. But once mentioned, he promptly ignores doing anything.
All the recent corporate scandals that we have seen exposed, and his idea is to privatize SS. Yeah, I can see some greedy fellow, looking at all that money and thinking I could party hearty on this money before they knew it was missing.
And this country is raising a bumper crop of greedy fellows.
I call myself a moderate liberal. I believe in welfare, but only for the truly needy, not as a lifestyle.
Folks who need a hand, give them a hand, but require some public service type work in return. No work, no help. Their choice.
Jails and prisons are supposed to be places that one never wants to go to. And if one goes, it needs to be unpleasant enough that one never wants to return.
I work and expect everyone else to work.
As a farmer, I know the need for immigrant labor. Take all immigrants off welfare and out of schools and the immigration problem would be half solved.
The case of the TB patient showed how effective our security is at the border.
We do have a valid need to have some idea of who is in our country, why and where. Most other countries have such controls.
I’d like to see a system where I could call an agent and ask for 10 workers planting and picking a crop between May and July. The agent would line up some prescreened persons with ID cards, give them bus passes (my cost) and send them here. In July, I would give them their final pay and tickets back to the border. If one gets hurt, it is my expense, just like with a citizen worker.
As for a path to citizenship, they’d have to take their chances in a lottery. There is a limit on how many people our economy can support.
Posted by farmer on Jun 2, 2007 at 2:51 PM Farmer,
You call yourself a “moderate liberal” and I guess I’m comfortable as a “moderate conservative” — I think between the two of us we could straighten out most of the issues congress see as too complicated to tackle.
The key in my opinion is just adhering to the Preamble to the Constitution. In that one sentence the framers summed up goals and guidelines that worked until people became professional legislators and a majority became representatives For Sale.
Those few who still seem to have the basic interests of the U.S. ahead of all else have little chance to accomplish their aims. The tangle of self-rule which has evolved within government is so blatantly self-serving it is depressing to we who read history and a myth to young people.
Bush: I think Bush is as dumb as he sounds. There was a doll on the market several years ago called Chatty Cathy” — you pulled a string and she spoke one of about six or eight phrases. Sound familiar? I think this guy is programmable.
Iraq: In my opinion his biggest failing is giving Rumsfeld a free hand in spite of what many retired Generals told him before entering Iraq — virtually all said we had too few troops. I’ve read several accounts — “Cobra 2,” “The West’s Last Chance,” “Operation Homecoming,” and talked with several returning vets — the story is all the same — Iraqis were glad to see them at first, then they moved on and the people were left to the ferocious religious factions and just plain bandits.
Economy: Anything with the key words Free Enterprise, Free Market, Oil, or Global in it will get his approval. The “cheaper consumer goods” line sounds good as does “raising the living standards of emerging nations” — except when it is being done at the sacrifice of our middle class and for the benefit of the elite minority.
Illegal Immigration: This is an extension of his economic liturgy — “Doing the jobs Americans don’t want,” “All want freedom and a better life,” — Employing people at less than minimum wage is subsidy by other means. This will only last until they have enough clout to demand what they deserve and that time is almost here. I would much rather pay for safe, American grown food at whatever prices the producers must charge than the uninspected, unreliable foreign imports. The same goes for toothpaste and prescriptions — we must adequately staff the FDA.
I like YOUR guest worker alternative.
Any subsidy is phony economics which stifles the search for a better way. The Republicans subsidize the high end, the Democrats subsidize the low end and the middle class pays for both.
Border Security: We can’t secure our borders and play buy political correctness rules. People coming in should enter through guarded checkpoints only — anyone else should be assumed to be up to no good and stopped. If anyone enters my house against my wishes...even if he washes my windows and does other jobs I hate… will be greeted by Sam Colt.
Bush has never known a moment of personal economic insecurity — he had his family to subsidize him. Millions of US citizens have lost good jobs and the benefits which took generations to gain.
To most people in a position to do anything about the big problems, long range thinking means, “until after my next election.”
We have had it so good for so long that we’ve come to believe it will last forever. But individual borrowing/spending has become patterned on the government model and both are running low on credit sources.
With 75% of our economy consumer dependent and job quality dropping rapidly, a day of reckoning is inevitable.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 3, 2007 at 9:43 AM Just to touch upon the topic once again —
If we can get thousands of armed guards all the way to Iraq, why couldn’t we get those 3,000 new Border Patrol agents per year we were promised by George?
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 3, 2007 at 9:46 AM Since everybody has had a chance to see what Bush represents, at heart, I have spoken with many conservatives who feel as you do.
People like you and I could solve most of the problems facing our country.
But neither of us can get the millions of dollars to run for office.
America is relying too much on outsourcing to save a few bucks.
If corporations would rein in executive pay and benefits, they would have the money to expand/update their factories.
But the labor unions, egged on by management excesses, have all but priced their members out of work.
I have no problem with someone like Bill Gates making the big bucks. I do have a problem with someone getting paid millions of dollars just to sign papers. Or, in some cases, being fired for cause and getting multi-million dollar settlements.
Americans have gotten too accustomed to a high standard of living with too many labor saving devices. There is way too much greed in too many people in positions of power.
The framers of the Constitution had no evident intent in creating a class of political elites, but both parties have conspired to do just that.
As you said, things can’t continue as they are without one heck of a high price being paid by the citizens.
Posted by farmer on Jun 3, 2007 at 12:29 PM The professional politicians of both parties are in sync with big business.
This bipartisan, joint venture has created a monster which operates on the same model:
They make their own rules, codes of conduct and “punishments”…
Congressional committees: set up great deals for members — automatic pay increases (unless brought to the floor for an anti vote), wonderful benefits — health care, pensions, ever lower number of working days per yearCorporate board of Directors: set up committees for execs (often serve on each other’s boards) bonuses, stock options, health care, pensions, and golden parachute clauses if fired. Since most companies have large percent institutional ownership, individual stockholders have little chance to influence.
• “But neither of us can get the millions of dollars to run for office.”
We can’t even get a message through to a representative — the “information age” has created a buffer zone of millions of communications per day. Ordinary people could actually sit and talk with Lincoln during the Civil War.
• “America is relying too much on outsourcing to save a few bucks.”
The Chicago Tribune had an article relating to jobs today.
Housing slump, job losses conflict—Immigrant workers often go uncounted
“...Leon, an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala, had little trouble finding construction work five days a week in northern Virginia.”http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-mon_immigrantjun04,0,5461788,print.st tory?coll=chi-business-hed
Throughout history whenever a country has evolved to the point of only two classes — The Rich and Powerful and The Rest — the result has always been a rebellion. I thought when NAFTA was passed surely we would have a violent protest. My reasoning was when you take away what people have grown used to they will fight. I remember telling a good friend, “Unions like the UAW and the Teamsters will not allow this.”
What I didn’t foresee was how jobs would evaporate in small segments. Locally our manufacturing workers were first offered enticements to take early retirement, then there were threats of losing retirement benefits if they didn’t leave, finally the remaining people were just fired.
I now understand how the Nazis were able to bring on mass imprisonment — it’s the old story of boiling a frog by slowly turning up the heat.
Our city, a former machine tool center, (pop: 150,000) has lost more than 12,000 really good mfg jobs since 1993. It has trickled down through almost every work category.
When a major job loss hits a lot of people are trapped — You can’t sell your house because everyone is trying to sell. You can’t afford to travel to interview in a distant location. People who are still working fear they are next and stop spending unnecessarily. It’s a slow downward grind, depressing and demoralizing.
When the revolution starts, I hope I’m not too old to join up :-)
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 4, 2007 at 8:01 AM As the Preamble states, more or less, When Government ceases to be responsive to the needs of the citizens, it becomes the duty of those citizens to throw off that Government.
This cannot be taken lightly. Frankly it scares me.
I hope that the next President will begin to turn things around. And talk about a massive task!
We have to extract our troops from Iraq, without destroying their morale.
Health care--I had my first kidney stone at age 61(last year) and had to go to the emergency room, as it was after office hours.
No medical insurance and it wound up costing me $4200---just to get a prescription, not any treatment, just pain pills.
Terrorism, even allowing for the Shrub using that issue for his own ends, is something that will have to be dealt with.
Social Security will have to be reformed somehow, but not by privatizing.
Immigration has to be dealt with.
The energy situation MUST be addressed and dealt with.
While the EPA has its place, it does carry things too far. But this administration wants to let business have its way with our world, and that can’t be allowed.
It will take one hell of a good person to deal with all this and keep our country moving.
The fact that a Conservative and a Liberal, even though both are moderates, can find some common ground is the best sign.
There is hope. Although I am wondering if that light I see at the end of the tunnel is daylight or the Southbound Fast Freight.
Posted by farmer on Jun 4, 2007 at 10:52 AM “It will take one hell of a good person to deal with all this and keep our country moving.”
Yes it will — and I am not impressed with anyone so far who is running.
I had hopes for Obama, but he sounds like most of the others on most of the issues.Iraq has been a huge mess, but stay or leave, the original problem will still be with us — those radicals who want to kill anyone not subscribing to their religious views.
IMO the only way to effectively fight them is through an international (Non-UN) cooperative effort. They have attacked several European and Southeast Asian nations, but to date there has been little news of any alliances.I suspect there is much more of a joint defense going on through back alley means as evidenced by the successful JFK operation.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 4, 2007 at 5:59 PM No one candidate stands out for me,either. I had hopes for Bill Richardson, mainly because he has proven diplomatic and leadership skills. But will his persona carry him through?
The Radical Islamists will be a thorny issue for anyone. Because they won’t compromise. And we can’t very well kill all of them. That will only sow more seeds of hatred.
As to the different nations coming together and working to minimize the Radicals effectiveness, that seems our best hope. And that will require a leader who understands that the rest of the world is not just like us.
It is really a pleasure to exchange views with someone that is willing to accept life’s realities, even as we both want to change some of those realities.
And I am finding more folks like yourself here in Van Zandt County, long a GOP bastion.
Now, if everybody will just take the time and effort to find out what is really happening rather than relying on politicians sound bites, we will all be a little better off.
We have some hard times ahead of us. The Shrubs’ tax cuts and lax treatment of the oil companies coupled with his blank check spending spree will take many years to pay off.
The taxes that that pay off will require could be offset considerably, if the fraud and waste could be at least slowed down if not eliminated.
Posted by farmer on Jun 4, 2007 at 7:22 PM Farmer,
I am enjoying our conversations too. (One of these days I expect to be cut out of this topic’s discussion — happens to each sooner or later.)
“The Radical Islamists will be a thorny issue for anyone. Because they won’t compromise. And we can’t very well kill all of them. That will only sow more seeds of hatred.”
I watched a bit of the last Democratic “debate” last night and tonight the Republicans will go another round. I can’t stand to watch very much because it seems so phony. Talk about dumbing down — if a question gets too tough like Blizer asked Richardson after several others had given their Iraq views: “What if the situation in Iraq turned to genocide as is happening in Darfur — what would your approach be?” (paraphrased)
He started by stating he differed with his opponents, then repeated nearly word for word what they said even though the genocide issue had been added. Blizer repeated twice more what about, etc.... and got no definitive different answer.
They’re all starting to sound as dumb as Bush. Do they really think the American public is that stupid or do they simply believe the one with the most effective fund raising will win?
Just my opinion…
No candidate has a realistic alternate Iraq departure plan. Granted it is a mess, but it is OUR mess and won’t just go away by ignoring it.
I see no alternative other than fighting these radical Islamists wherever they surface for as long as it takes. In some ways this war is more dangerous than any prior one.
We need to apply a lot of historical perspective.
• The death toll and casualty numbers are bad, but in WW2 we lost 291,557 battle deaths, another 113,842 from various causes, and had 102,284 wounded. (1941-1945)• We went from a standing army of a few thousand to a total of over 16 million in uniform in a very short time.
• We produced enough arms and equipment to supply not only our troops, but all of the free world.
We need to stop compartmentalizing — everything in life is related and everyone is now connected — we need to realize (and so do others) we will never be all alike.
If we become less energy dependent the Middle East can be viewed in a different light. But while we lament the military deaths, we are willing to accept 43,000 traffic deaths annually — each month that is about the total killed in Iraq so far. Americans will never willingly stop driving, so whoever is president will likely continue our Middle East policies.
We cannot even supply a meager force of 140,000 now that we are no longer a manufacturing nation. We are depending on food imports from untrustworthy and uninspected sources. We are accepting counterfeit goods including prescriptions from China through Africa. We have not stopped illegal border crossings — but are searching grandmothers at airports.
Two branches of government are trying to sell us amnesty by some other name to “solve the illegal immigrant problem” (just like they said in 1986) — do they wonder why most Americans are not buying?
We should stop polluting the air and water — it is idiocy to keep doing it. But experts worldwide say we must make this a priority and it is getting a huge international push — Why? Because it is such a long term thing that no one will/can be held accountable… AND because there will be a lot of money made “solving” the problem.
Doesn’t anyone remember how the “experts” were in agreement that Y2K would cause a global catastrophe. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!Priority One should be: Stop these suicidal wackos or a change of software and clean fuel will not matter.
--------------
[NOTE: Just as before — it took 24 hrs to get back in. Oh, well, it has been a pleasure.]
I just read this on stay or leave Iraq…http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010168
Realists on Iraq —Democratic presidential candidates should listen to the “experts” they so often cite. BY DAN SENOR, Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 6, 2007 at 6:59 AM I noticed another article along these same lines today:
By PETER W. RODMAN and WILLIAM SHAWCROSS
SOME opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat. A number of them are simply predicting it, while others advocate measures that would make it more likely. Lending intellectual respectability to all this is an argument that takes a strange comfort from the outcome of the Vietnam War. The defeat of the American enterprise in Indochina, it is said, turned out not to be as bad as expected. The United States recovered, and no lasting price was paid.
We beg to differ. Many years ago, the two of us clashed sharply over the wisdom and morality of American policy in Indochina, especially in Cambodia. One of us (Mr. Shawcross) published a book, “Sideshow,” that bitterly criticized Nixon administration policy. The other (Mr. Rodman), a longtime associate of Henry Kissinger, issued a rebuttal in The American Spectator, defending American policy. Decades later, we have not changed our views. But we agreed even then that the outcome in Indochina was indeed disastrous, both in human and geopolitical terms, for the United States and the region. Today we agree equally strongly that the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even more serious and lasting.........
Posted by Natalie on Jun 10, 2007 at 5:20 PM Natalie,
Thanks for the link. An excellent presentation of the likely result if we “...just walk away” as Ron Paul advocates.
I’m currently reading “1776” by David McCullough and suspect there were calls to “...just walk away” when Washington’s troops withdrew to New York after being soundly defeated by Howe.
British and Hessian troops bayoneted prisoners and left them pinned to trees — can we picture how the Loyalists and occupying Brits would have treated the Patriots from then on?
In war there is no Second Place Winner.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 11, 2007 at 7:16 AM whattheheck, a wise General once said that it is good that war is so terrible lest we grow too fond of it.
The main problem with the Iraq operation was that folks who had no clue over rode the military planner’s. And the military planner’s are to blame for rolling over like a tame puppy.
Our military troops deserve so much better than they are getting.
They have been placed in an all but unwinnable conflict and are trying their best, subject to command limitations to do their duty.
Civilians have been killed in every war that has ever been fought. Sometimes it was an accident; other times it was planned.
Look at Churchill in War II. He knew that a German air raid was laid on for Coventry. This knowledge came from their being able to read German secret messages.
Had Churchill done the easy thing and laid an ambush for the German’s, it is likely that the code process would have been changed. Instead, he made the hard choice to sacrifice Coventry so as to keep on reading the German messages. Thus helping bring Germany to its knees sooner.
The sentiment is high for cutting and running. For too many different reasons this is wrong.
But, we must have some leadership that can bring about an end to this conflict.
Staying the course is not a viable option. Our recruits receive 6 weeks of basic training plus 8-12 weeks of Advanced Infantry training and they are in battle. How long have we been training the Iraqi Army and police forces? And they are still unable/unwilling to get the job done.
Posted by farmer on Jun 11, 2007 at 8:46 AM Farmer,
“The main problem with the Iraq operation was that folks who had no clue over rode the military planner’s. And the military planner’s are to blame for rolling over like a tame puppy.”
Well, yes and no… We are set up to have a civilian Commander in Chief, who then appoints a Secretary of Defense (at times called Secretary of War). It is generally a good arrangement, but many things before Bush were generally good arrangements.
Professional military leaders have been known to try to buck the system (MacArthur vs Truman) but they are outranked and can be fired. Several generals have been “retired” during the Iraq war due to disagreeing with Bush or more directly with Rumsfeld.
In the books I have read so far on Iraq the following people have disagreed with the conduct of the war. Most of these generals have written their dissenting views after retiring.
• Former head of CENTCOM, Gen. Zini (had retired prior to 9/11)• Gen. Bernard E. Trainor, co-author of Cobra ll
• Gen. Colin Powell when Sec. of State — cautioned Bush to be sure he had enough troops for the job.
• Gen. DeLong (retired) Deputy Commander of CENTCOM under Gen. Tommy Franks
• Gen. Tommy Franks has admitted he hated Rumsfeld, and retired immediately post combat phase due to the post war job about to be dumped on him even though pre-invasion he was told this would be the job of state Dept. Rumsfeld initially said he would have 50,000 troops — Franks finally got 125,000, but before the invasion even began Rumsfeld was resisting sending all the promised equipent and supplies — Franks was livid.-----------------
“Our military troops deserve so much better than they are getting.”For sure! Medical care at Walter Reed was finally called to everyone’s attention and on this site the poor handling of veterans’ college contracts was pointed out. Last month the WH said a 3.5 pct increase in pay to troops was too much — but as this article says private security contractors are making far more.
-----------------
“Our recruits receive 6 weeks of basic training plus 8-12 weeks of Advanced Infantry training and they are in battle.”Actually this is more training than many received at the beginning of WW2 or Korea and only 2 weeks less than I got during a peace time —8 weeks basic and then another 8 weeks advanced training in the 1950s.
“How long have we been training the Iraqi Army and police forces? And they are still unable/unwilling to get the job done.”
If Gen. Petraeus had been given the whole job initially with the full 500,000 troops Gen. Zini’s planning called for the Iraqis could have been policing the whole country before now. His Airborne troops did a great job in their assigned territory.
It’s a lot like fighting a fire — the first five minutes is terribly important in gaining control. Likewise if civil order had been strictly imposed immediately the many factions were not have gotten a foot hold.
The arrogant combination of Bush/Rumsfeld has been literally the kiss of death in Iraq.
“Staying the course is not a viable option.”
The “course” needs to be flexible enough for Gen. Petraeus to adapt to changing conditions His biggest handicap is a shortage of troops. I still believe that if we leave too early will regret it even more than staying.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 11, 2007 at 12:37 PM so does this mean that EVERY time we start some ill-planned, unwinnable, and very possibly immoral war (Iraq, Vietnam, various small-scale Central American conflagrations) we are then always bound to follow it to the sad, bloody conclusion?
Sure, giving Petraeus another 500,000 troops would be fantastic—but it ain’t going to happen. And short of that, nothing is going to win this civil war. Better to pull back now and at least staunch the American losses. Iraqi losses will continue to be severe (though the sooner we get out the sooner their various battling factions will ultimately reach a conclusion to the fighting), and we will bear the shame of their dead for the rest of our lives.
Not that this has anything to do with our money-wasting usage of mercenaries, but that’s beside the point…
Posted by wintermute on Jun 11, 2007 at 2:33 PM Hopefully, this meant that the next time a President feels the need to start a war, he will have just a little common sense, especially if he has had no military experience beyond getting his teeth checked.
The morale of our military is very important, or it should be, to all of us. After this much time, and this many dead and maimed troops, it would be ruinous to that morale to just pack up and leave.
Yes, that is what should have been done when the Shrub staged his Mission Complete photo-op. But, between him and Rummy, neither had a clue as what they needed to do.
It pains me to think of the troops having been placed in harm’s way by a man to avoided being in harm’s way by using his daddy’s connections. At least his daddy was man enough to take his chances.
Posted by farmer on Jun 11, 2007 at 3:26 PM wintermute,
“so does this mean that EVERY time we start some ill-planned, unwinnable, and very possibly immoral war (Iraq, Vietnam, various small-scale Central American conflagrations) we are then always bound to follow it to the sad, bloody conclusion?”
Where to start?
First you’re starting with an awful lot of media influenced assumptions…
• ill-planned ? — After the fact I guess we can all pretty much agree on this. Although several experienced and thoughtful military leaders expressed their opposition to the full scale invasion (mainly to having too small a force) Bush let Rumsfeld perform his minimal force experiment.
• unwinable? — No war is guaranteed to be win able. It’s like predicting the World Series or next week’s weather — lots of opinions which can later deny or say, “I told you so.” If our congress and media continue to be more concerned with their own short term goals than with the good of the nation, it can certainly become self-fulfilling.
But to borrow a baseball line, “It isn’t over, til it’s over.”
• immoral? — Is a moral war an oxymoron? Defining moral is too big and time consuming for us to agree on here.
-----------
No two wars are ever going to be exactly the same. All are largely unpredictable. Certainly there are similarities between Iraq and Viet Nam. If I were to pick a comparison, I would say our current situation is closest to the Indian Wars of 1870 -1880 in the US western states.The civilians were under attack by a diverse group of tribes who had a history of fighting each other. They had many legitimate grievances against the US as a nation, but those citizens under attack had little to do with the treatment of the tribes over a period of a century and a half — the same is true now. In tribal thinking — any individual on the “enemy” side is fair game.
The Indians had strong religious backing, belief in a warrior’s reward for death in their cause, and often resorted to outrageous torture and mutilation.
Both are primarily guerrilla wars with the enemy hard to positively identify.Had the US pulled its army back beyond the Mississippi the conflict would not have ended. The Indians would have perceived it as a sign of weakness on our part, vindication of their cause and been encouraged to pursue and increase the same methods.
Eventually, to hold the tribes beyond the Mississippi, our military would have been sent back to start from an even less advantageous position.
Note that the Indian Wars lasted a decade and there is still controversy over the morality.-------------
If we continue to elect presidents who appoint Defense Secretaries like McNamara and Rumsfeld — arrogant, egotistical and able to exercise their personal approach far too long, then we could very well be involved in another similar mess.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 12, 2007 at 7:13 AM Another great argument against Ron Paul style short-sightedness:
Posted by Natalie on Jun 15, 2007 at 8:55 PM Natalie
Thanks for the article. I don’t agree with all the points he made, but it has given me something to think about. And that’s the whole point, isn’t it?
Posted by farmer on Jun 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Chris Barsanti
- These Guns for Hire
Blackwater unites conservative Catholics, evangelicals and neoconservatives to fight a theoconservative holy war - Bohemia Revisited
- Original Sin
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
