Merc is the New Crack

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (6)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  This outsourcing of military jobs is wasteful and probably simply corrupt. That latest Blackwater incident was in the news the other day when it was found that the FBI investigators that were going to be investigating into the incident were going to be escorted by…drum roll please…Blackwater. Now that it became known, they are switching the protection to regular military.

  The fact is that all this corporate military is actually costing more money than having the regular military do the jobs. How could it not? If our tax dollars head to the Defense Department and then they contract out to the Halliburton’s and Blackwater’s on no-bid contracts and open-ended contracts, these corporations don’t have to prove that they are performing their contracts at the lowest price. They in fact aren’t subject to the competition of the market as normal corporations are.

  The security companies pay high wages, as much as $100,000 a year for their Iraqi personnel, compared to the average marine or army wage, that’s extreme. Not only that but it actually encourages ground troops to leave the military to join a Blackwater in order to make the higher wage. In essence, we the taxpayer fund the military training of ground forces so that they can leave the military as soon as possible to work for those corporations, who get pre-trained workers. And now our tax dollars are paying higher wages.

  And we can’t say that we needed the Blackwater’s because our military wasn’t getting enough recruits as Blackwater was in Iraq way back when the majority of the country bought into the war’s rationale. Maybe now we could say that might be true, but that’s how our leaders get around a dissatisfaction with a war, outsourcing.

  Posted by Jon B on Oct 4, 2007 at 9:32 AM

  The point has always been to figure out ways to evade legal structures that bind government personnel and government action. Prisoners held in Guantanamo, hiring of mercs, suspension of civil liberties via the USA Patriot Act, to name 3 big examples. All allow this government to carry out its plans inhindered by military or constitutional law. Because this administration, in so many realms, apparently considers the law to be an intolerable impediment. So much for the rule of law.

  They say this is a “special” war, for which unprecedented latitude of government action must be accepted if there is to be a chance of victory. I submit that when it all has shaken out and the end actually comes, it will have been special in two major ways: 1) it will leave our country less than it was, in terms of civil liberties at home and stature abroad, and 2) worse, it will have led to the build-up of an enemy constituency rather than to its reduction. More enemies ready to take us on, not fewer, for at least a generation to come.

  What the hell was the point of this war? What is its real raison d’etre?

  Posted by Kuya on Oct 9, 2007 at 8:22 AM

  Hi Kuya…

  The point of the war? I can think of too many, none of which were justification.

  1) To pilfer Iraqi oil, to put it in the hands of Western oil companies.
  2) Because supposedly Saddam tried to kill Bush’s daddy.
  3) The military/industrial/academic/congressional/complex.
  4) Neocon ideology, they want to rule the world by destroying it.
  5) Because Armageddon needs to be a self fulfilling prophecy and someone like Bush had to do it. Of course we all know that Revelations is hogwash, it’s sad that our leaders believe in it..
  6) For fun. The warmongers are nothing but grownups reliving their childhood of playing Risk, Battleship and Monopoly.
  7) For profit. See (1) and (3).
  8) Insanity. Those in the White House should be in the nut house.

  Posted by Jon B on Oct 9, 2007 at 12:19 PM

  Hola, Jon B,

  On the thread connected to Brian Beutler’s article “Crocker’s Kooky Economics” (ITT online, 13 Sep 2007), I made a remark about the administration desperately searching for a silver lining to go with their big, dark war-cloud.

  I’m not yet certain, but it may be that I’ve seen one.

  It may help lead to a more multilateral world, and allow this “single-superpower” mystique to fade back.

  I’m not positive, the future-webs are still fluxxing too much to predict very well, but it may be so.

  If, that is, one thinks that a more multilateral world would really be beneficial for the human species. Ya could make a case…

  Posted by Kuya on Oct 10, 2007 at 5:14 AM

  Kuya…

  The problem is that lone superpowers all through history don’t usually just give up their dominance by pulling back from the world. In virtually every case they overextend themselves and eventually fall from the top.

  It comes down to arrogance. Being on top feeds the ego of those who run the empire. They start feeling they can do no wrong or if they do make mistakes that those mistakes can be ignored and overcome. A dominant empire thinks that because they dominate it vindicates whatever took them to the top, so keep doing it. And it almost always is because of the empire’s military prowess, they get the edge up on everybody else and press that edge too far…overextend. Military power of course costs money and the bigger military the bigger budget.

  We seem to have fallen into that pattern. We spend way too much on having the dominant military and it’s costing us (we just passed $9 trillion in national debt). Those in power and those competing to be the next leaders are following the pattern (note in the last Democratic debate the three front runners Hillary, Obama, Edwards, all suggested we might be in Iraq until the end of their first term…and we know where the Republicans stand).

  The U.S. won’t retract to sharing the superpower status willingly. As with every other empire, it will take a fall to decide to be multilateral. We are spending ourselves out of empire status. The question is how long before we can recognize that it is obvious that we aren’t on top anymore.

  I’ve always found I’m good at predicting something will happen, I’m inaccurate at when it will happen. So, just as a prediction that I wouldn’t bet on…the U.S. will not be the lone superpower within the next 20 years. Some other nation/empire will pass us by, probably China. To me, it’s not if but when.

  Posted by Jon B on Oct 10, 2007 at 12:03 PM

  Regarding the 160,000, Peter Singer states in the article you reference:

  “The recent incident involving Blackwater contractors in Iraq has brought to light a series of questions surrounding the legal status, oversight, management, and accountability of the private military force in Iraq. This for-hire force numbers more than 160,000, more than the number of uniformed military personnel in Iraq, and it is a good thing that attention is finally being paid to the consequences of our outsourcing critical tasks to private firms.”

  I can see where the confusion lies because Peter isn’t clear that this number includes all functions performed by contractors. Later he differentiates:

  “The U.S. government needs to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate its use of private military contractors, especially armed roles within counterinsurgency and contingency operations.”

  You might want to correct the statement in this article that there are 160,000 armed contractors in Iraq working in support of the US mission. The official number numbers hover between 30,000 and 50,000, and though it could be higher, I haven’t seen any reports quoting numbers that high.

  Posted by keirinframe on Oct 10, 2007 at 4:16 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Lindsay Beyerstein

• Kiriakou and the Kite Runner
  The CIA agent who just admitted to waterboarding a high-ranking al Qaeda operative has had an interesting retirement.
• Anthropologists on the Front Lines
  The Pentagon's new program to embed anthropologists with combat brigades raises many concerns
• Rudy Guiliani: Criminal or Liar?
  An investigation into Guiliani's claims of familiarity with "intensive questioning" techniques
• Examining the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
  Harman doesn't believe homegrown terrorism is a major threat to U.S. security today, but that it is important to learn from experiences in other countries like Britain and Canada, where citizens have been inspired to commit terrorism at home by Islamic propagandists reaching out over the Internet
• A Resolution Too Far?
  U.S.-Turkish relations, already strained by the war in Iraq, are being tested further by the controversial congressional resolution recognizing the 1915 genocide of Armenians.
• Merc is the New Crack
  America's deadly dependence on private security contractors in Iraq