Lawrence A's review
Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
by Jeremy Scahill
Lawrence
I'm pretty well immune to the 'cronies of the president' rants and assume that your assertion that US troops would do the tasks that Blackwater and other companies perform (ie. private security for example) is due to a lack of understanding of the US military, its goals and training. Or maybe you could list those tasks and tell me which US military unit should be performing them. Just kidding, I actually don't care.
But for Pete's sake "Christianist political beliefs"? Aren't these the same guys that you refer to as murdering bastards earlier? Is murder your idea of a "Christianist" act or belief? What idiocy!
Those of you, and I guess you are legion, who actually believe that an evil, stupid president wages war and governs just to enrich his cronies are sad folks. Life must be hell for you. Some may call it paranoia. Militant Christians led by crony-enriching idiots inflicting their murderous beliefs on an unarmed (oh, wait, that's probably your side that wants to unarm the populace) nation.
This is one Christian who is beginning to take umbrage at the growing tendency by some to link Christianity with evil oppression.
By the way, in my pre-Christian life, I fought for pay in a foreign land. I was a mercenary. But the cause was good and so was the pay, so I won't take additional umbrage at your calling the term pejorative.
Well, as you know, there are Christians, who follow the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, either in some particular organized church [Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc.:], or as a personal commitment to God, and there are "Christianists," who, like their "Islamist" brethren, pervert the religion to match their irreligious politics [exclusionary, xenophobic, punitive, violent, and imperial:]---who seek to impose the "dominion" over the secular American polity of a particular brand of recently-created [usually 19th century and thereafter:] sociopolitics that they bizzarely label as "Christian." These are the people who claim to "support Israel," but what they really want is for all Jews to move there to either be killed in Armageddon or be converted to evangelicism in order to hasten the second coming [all of which is actually a 19th-century gloss placed on Bibilical text by a crank:]. Thanks, but no thanks.
Unfortunately, many of the leaders in the private security business not only hold these views, but now have private armies with which they may impose them.
Are some "private contractors" good people? No doubt they are, and I hope that you are one of those good people. The problem is whether we allow private armies, with no public control whatsoever, to determine which government is worth serving and which is worth destroying, which persons are "combatants" or "criminals" deserving death, and which racial group is inherently suspect.
Mercenaries do not have a good name in the US because King George III hired mercenary Hessians to fight his imperial battles for him. While foreigners such as Lafayette, Kosciusko, and Steuben lent their services to the Continental Army, they did so less for the pay, than for the cause. Mercenaries have an even worse reputation in more recent times because so many white supremacists from the US, UK, Netherlands, and Australia enlisted with the apartheid regime in South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s to fight the ANC. The reason that Congress has to authorize and fund organizations like Blackwater is because of the Neutrality Act, which makes it illegal, in the absence of Congressional approval, for Americans to fight in another country's battle under non-American auspices. Thus, if our government is to use these organizations at all, it should be with strict control and with the understanding that contractors are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If you are saying that only private firms can do certain work that the military cannot do for itself, I beg to differ. While contracting for equipment and materiel may be better left to the private sector [even with their ridiculous overcharges, corporate welfare benefits, and constant gorging on the public tit:], I think we won WW II without the need for private armies providing private security and/or private services. The Marines have historically guarded embassies and consulates. The Army and Navy have historically taken care of their own logistics and provisioning during wartime. My dad, who served both in the Pacific theater during WW II, and who was wounded in the Korean War, tells me that all necessary tasks were provided by the good-ol' armed services of the US of A.
Finally, since you seem to believe that it is the ideological "cause" that determines whether private armies are good or bad, I'd be interested to hear your take on the "Lincoln Brigades," who were American mercenaries fighting for the Spanish republic and against the Nazi-supported nationalists of Gen. [and later dictator:] Franco. Many, if not most, of the members of the brigades were avowed communists. Was the fact that they were fighting a known evil sufficient to make them good mercenaries? Was the fact that many were deluded [and some not-do-deluded:] puppets of the evil Stalin sufficient to make them bad mercenaries? Or is the problem that what they were doing illegal, i.e., not sanctioned by the US?
If we as a nation had the political will to pay our soldiers, sailors, and marines a reasonable wage, with reasonable benefits, and provided them with top-notch post-service medical care, housing, and educational opportunities, there would simply be no need for the type of firm represented by Blackwater, and the problems to representative republican government inherent in its ascendance. My father received many of those benefits in the '50s [low mortgage, real property tax relief, tuition benefits:], and there is no reason why those men and women we as a nation send into harms way should not receive the same.
Lawrence
Well, it is dismaying to learn that you are not a dope. That response pretty well assures my quickly abandoning any polemical exercise.
Let me say that I think you're wrong about there being no need in Iraq for private contractors (yes, I have friends so engaged)which as you well know is vastly different than previous wars participated in by the US.
The "Christianist" explanation is a bit of a cop-out in this instance. "I know many good Christians, but I'm talking about those other Christians." I think I've heard bigots use that sentence to describe their views of black Americans. Your phrase "Militant Christians led by idiots" is a bit more pithy than perhaps you intended. The Christians I know and am aware of overwhelmingly are not militant in the sense you seem to use the word and actually try not to be led by idiots.
And as to 'many leaders' having such a view, I will admit that I have no idea but would doubt that you actually could back that statement up empirically. And if you equate the size/strength and zeal of Christian 'right-wingers' with the radical Islamist, I wouldn't even give that notion the benefit of an argument. One of the most disgraceful of liberal ideas is that of moral equivalency. Abu Grhaib--Bush is worse than Hitler. Militant Christians as an equivalent threat to us as murderous jihadists? Come on!
You will find no one more willing to give additional funding, equipment and benefits to the US Military than me. And I felt this way even before my son became a Marine lieutenant. But we are not, in my opinion, robbing Peter to pay Paul in Iraq. Again, the size, training, mission of the military and myriad political factors inhibit (I'm not saying prohibit) the US Military from doing all that needs to be done in Iraq. It is a whole other subject in relation to this administration foolishly trying to wage too much of this war 'off balance sheet.'
God Bless your dad and all like him.
Lawrence A's review
Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill
Lawrence A's review
rating:
bookshelves:
non-fiction
A chilling look at how mercenaries have insinuated themselves into the politicized drive to "privatize" everything in the United States for the benefit of the political cronies of the current president and their friends. Scahill shows how Blackwater and other mercenary organizations have "re-branded" themselves as "contractors" and "private security forces" in order to avoid the pejorative designation of "mercenary." Operating in Iraq and other foreign countries outside the limits of US civil and military law, these mercenaries have essentially gotten away with murder. Blackwater and similar private companies have sucked billions of dollars of US taxpayer money that could have been spent on paying our regular troops a decent wage, providing them with sufficient equipment, and furnishing them with a new GI bill of rights---or better yet, funding so many of our nation's nonmilitary needs. Any member of the US armed forces should be ag...more
Lawrence
I'm pretty well immune to the 'cronies of the president' rants and assume that your assertion that US troops would do the tasks that Blackwater and other companies perform (ie. private security for example) is due to a lack of understanding of the US military, its goals and training. Or maybe you could list those tasks and tell me which US military unit should be performing them. Just kidding, I actually don't care.
But for Pete's sake "Christianist political beliefs"? Aren't these the same guys that you refer to as murdering bastards earlier? Is murder your idea of a "Christianist" act or belief? What idiocy!
Those of you, and I guess you are legion, who actually believe that an evil, stupid president wages war and governs just to enrich his cronies are sad folks. Life must be hell for you. Some may call it paranoia. Militant Christians led by crony-enriching idiots inflicting their murderous beliefs on an unarmed (oh, wait, that's probably your side that wants to unarm the populace) nation.
This is one Christian who is beginning to take umbrage at the growing tendency by some to link Christianity with evil oppression.
By the way, in my pre-Christian life, I fought for pay in a foreign land. I was a mercenary. But the cause was good and so was the pay, so I won't take additional umbrage at your calling the term pejorative.
Well, as you know, there are Christians, who follow the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, either in some particular organized church [Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc.:], or as a personal commitment to God, and there are "Christianists," who, like their "Islamist" brethren, pervert the religion to match their irreligious politics [exclusionary, xenophobic, punitive, violent, and imperial:]---who seek to impose the "dominion" over the secular American polity of a particular brand of recently-created [usually 19th century and thereafter:] sociopolitics that they bizzarely label as "Christian." These are the people who claim to "support Israel," but what they really want is for all Jews to move there to either be killed in Armageddon or be converted to evangelicism in order to hasten the second coming [all of which is actually a 19th-century gloss placed on Bibilical text by a crank:]. Thanks, but no thanks.
Unfortunately, many of the leaders in the private security business not only hold these views, but now have private armies with which they may impose them.
Are some "private contractors" good people? No doubt they are, and I hope that you are one of those good people. The problem is whether we allow private armies, with no public control whatsoever, to determine which government is worth serving and which is worth destroying, which persons are "combatants" or "criminals" deserving death, and which racial group is inherently suspect.
Mercenaries do not have a good name in the US because King George III hired mercenary Hessians to fight his imperial battles for him. While foreigners such as Lafayette, Kosciusko, and Steuben lent their services to the Continental Army, they did so less for the pay, than for the cause. Mercenaries have an even worse reputation in more recent times because so many white supremacists from the US, UK, Netherlands, and Australia enlisted with the apartheid regime in South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s to fight the ANC. The reason that Congress has to authorize and fund organizations like Blackwater is because of the Neutrality Act, which makes it illegal, in the absence of Congressional approval, for Americans to fight in another country's battle under non-American auspices. Thus, if our government is to use these organizations at all, it should be with strict control and with the understanding that contractors are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If you are saying that only private firms can do certain work that the military cannot do for itself, I beg to differ. While contracting for equipment and materiel may be better left to the private sector [even with their ridiculous overcharges, corporate welfare benefits, and constant gorging on the public tit:], I think we won WW II without the need for private armies providing private security and/or private services. The Marines have historically guarded embassies and consulates. The Army and Navy have historically taken care of their own logistics and provisioning during wartime. My dad, who served both in the Pacific theater during WW II, and who was wounded in the Korean War, tells me that all necessary tasks were provided by the good-ol' armed services of the US of A.
Finally, since you seem to believe that it is the ideological "cause" that determines whether private armies are good or bad, I'd be interested to hear your take on the "Lincoln Brigades," who were American mercenaries fighting for the Spanish republic and against the Nazi-supported nationalists of Gen. [and later dictator:] Franco. Many, if not most, of the members of the brigades were avowed communists. Was the fact that they were fighting a known evil sufficient to make them good mercenaries? Was the fact that many were deluded [and some not-do-deluded:] puppets of the evil Stalin sufficient to make them bad mercenaries? Or is the problem that what they were doing illegal, i.e., not sanctioned by the US?
If we as a nation had the political will to pay our soldiers, sailors, and marines a reasonable wage, with reasonable benefits, and provided them with top-notch post-service medical care, housing, and educational opportunities, there would simply be no need for the type of firm represented by Blackwater, and the problems to representative republican government inherent in its ascendance. My father received many of those benefits in the '50s [low mortgage, real property tax relief, tuition benefits:], and there is no reason why those men and women we as a nation send into harms way should not receive the same.
Lawrence
Well, it is dismaying to learn that you are not a dope. That response pretty well assures my quickly abandoning any polemical exercise.
Let me say that I think you're wrong about there being no need in Iraq for private contractors (yes, I have friends so engaged)which as you well know is vastly different than previous wars participated in by the US.
The "Christianist" explanation is a bit of a cop-out in this instance. "I know many good Christians, but I'm talking about those other Christians." I think I've heard bigots use that sentence to describe their views of black Americans. Your phrase "Militant Christians led by idiots" is a bit more pithy than perhaps you intended. The Christians I know and am aware of overwhelmingly are not militant in the sense you seem to use the word and actually try not to be led by idiots.
And as to 'many leaders' having such a view, I will admit that I have no idea but would doubt that you actually could back that statement up empirically. And if you equate the size/strength and zeal of Christian 'right-wingers' with the radical Islamist, I wouldn't even give that notion the benefit of an argument. One of the most disgraceful of liberal ideas is that of moral equivalency. Abu Grhaib--Bush is worse than Hitler. Militant Christians as an equivalent threat to us as murderous jihadists? Come on!
You will find no one more willing to give additional funding, equipment and benefits to the US Military than me. And I felt this way even before my son became a Marine lieutenant. But we are not, in my opinion, robbing Peter to pay Paul in Iraq. Again, the size, training, mission of the military and myriad political factors inhibit (I'm not saying prohibit) the US Military from doing all that needs to be done in Iraq. It is a whole other subject in relation to this administration foolishly trying to wage too much of this war 'off balance sheet.'
God Bless your dad and all like him.