Where is the worst place in the world to live today? If you said Iraq then guess again. Darfur? Getting closer, but still not quite there. The answer my friends is the Democratic Republic of Congo. You hear a lot about Iraq and Darfur these days for two reasons. The terrible humanitarian situations in both places and the fact that they happen to sit on large reserves of oil certainly merit out attention. On the other hand take DRC, or Somalia, or Haiti. Somalia gets a little more attention because the country is mostly Muslim and we all know that they have to be watched. Haiti, well its just some poor little island full of black people in the Caribbean whose leader is not named Castro, so who cares about them. But DRC is heads and shoulders above the rest of these countries for the level of destruction and chaos that reigns there.
A war has been ragging in that country, formally known as Zaire, since 1996. The causes can be traced back to genocide of Tutsis by Hutus in neighboring Rwanda in 1994. Many of the perpetrators of that horrible event now reside in DRC where they continue to be a major contributor to the current conflict. The war, which at its height involved five neighboring countries in a massive regional war reminiscent of Europe in the previous few centuries, was officially declared to be over in 2004. Up to 4 million died in the conflict over those 8 years. Yet today three years after the war is over up to 38,000 people are still dying every month in DRC. Institutionalized rape has become a favorite form of terror perpetrated against Congolese women. And not just women either. There have been reports of children as young as 10 months, mere infants, being raped. For anyone who did not understand the gravity of using rape as a means of terror this illustration should be clear enough. The only possible reason for raping an infant is for the message it sends to others.
The last scientific report released on the number of those killed was in 2004. A new report is to be published within the next month. Estimates are placing the likely number as high as 6 million since 1996.
When was the last time you read or heard about the plight of the people in the Democratic Republic of Congo? When is the last time Bush mentioned the conflict ragging there? But then again why should anyone give a shit about the Congolese, they are black and even more importantly they do not have any resources we want.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
Blackwater, Privatization, War and Fascism
I have to preface this entry with a little explanation. The following is basically a reaction I wrote the other night to the latest controversy to deveop over the use of private contractors in US military ventures abroad. I just let the words flow out of my head and I have decided to leave them in their original format without and editing or further investigation of details that could add relevant content to the article.
The Major problem with the Blackwater corp. and other mercenaries is not that they are above the rule of seemingly any law, it is not that they act if often reckless means killing without regard or investigation, it is the fact that they represent the privatization of war. Another ugly head of the military-industrial complex has appeared, or perhaps reappeared is a better term, for mercenary armies are by no means a new invention. But the mercenary army acting under the guise of the capitalist system is a rather new development that has many ramifications beyond its counterparts from antiquity and the middle ages. At the heart of the matter is the neo-liberal objective of broad privatization of all aspects of life, from health care to the military to natural resources to public infrastructure to social security. Nothing is to be left untouched. And when I say neo-liberal I mean the group of neo-cons that made up the core of the Bush administration and still to day posses broad power, although perhaps not as much as in the past. The policies and programs of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz among others have been implemented with these ideological goals in mind. I have to make the distinction here between the neo-liberals in charge of the US now and the neo-liberalism as it was first developed by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economists. Although Friedman and his followers were devoted to privatization, they left a few things off the table that they considered to be untouchable. One of these things was the military/defense forces. This is where Rumsfeld enters the picture. His reorganization of the Defense Department has centered around the idea of privatizing as much as possible, a step that the father of neo-liberalism hesitated from advocating.
Well lets fast-forward a couple years and now the US is engaged in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and seriously looks to be contemplating a third front in Iran. Blackwater has played a key role in this process. Allowing the US to embark on its imperialist adventures while at the same time avoiding the tremendously unpopularity of the draft. These neo-cons were around for Vietnam, hell a lot of them worked in the Nixon administration, they saw what happened in regards to public and military protest and civil disruption due to the conscription army. With a private military force at their disposal they are free to just hire more and more mercenaries to make up for any shortfall in the traditional armed forces.
The problem is that Blackwater and others, as a private company operating under the free market capitalist system, are driven by profit. It is there goal as a company to generate profit and growth; it is what drives competitive capitalism. And what is Blackwater’s business? They describe themselves as professional warriors. So lets that the next logical step; what kind of environment does Blackwater need to ensure contracts? (Contracts handed out by governments, namely the US government, which means the taxpayer is paying for it, according to congressional hearings the US pays for 90% of Blackwater’s revenue) Well the answer is almost self evident, they need chaos, they need war zones, they needed continued conflicts. They also just happened to be in a position to help extend conflicts, since they have armed personnel in the middle of said conflicts. Do you see the problem? Providing security to their clients in a war zone is suppose to let their clients accomplish whatever it is that they want to do in a secure environment, in this and most cases the US government with the objective of building a nation that is free of conflict. Well if the US succeeds in this endeavor, and it is nowhere close at the moment, then Blackwater is out of contracts and the business fails. I see three paths out of this dilemma for Blackwater. 1 – rely on the US to keep engaging in other conflicts, hence a continuation of the market and new contracts are signed. 2 – take steps to ensure the current conflicts they are involved in stay conflicts; hence they keep the contracts they have. 3 – Increasingly fill the void left by the neo-liberal privatization of the military begun by Rumsfeld and take over more and more sectors of the American military that have traditionally been subject to public funding. Number 3 is interesting to think about in a historical context, especially that of the ancient world where the empires of different states share many similarities with the US empire. The classic example is Rome. It began is ascendancy and conquest with the military might of its legions, whose ranks were filled with roman citizens. Over a period of time the Romans themselves lost the will to fight in the legions and left the tasks to others, first other italic people, then other peoples of the empire and finally to the barbarians coming from northeastern Europe and the steppes of Asia. Using money earned from the pervious conquests, the rulers of Rome depended more and more on others to do the work for them with the belief that it would lead to the same results, and it did, for a while. The ‘barbarization’of the legions had its effect though. Some parallels can be drawn from this comparison if closely examined.
My guess is that the way things are going now it is going to be a combination of all three paths that Blackwater takes. The company is certainly taking some public knocks now, only because it is the largest and most visible at the moment, but there are other private mercenary companies that are operating in Iraq that the public doesn’t hear about. If Blackwater ends up collapsing due to it being a target because it is the leader in the industry or because of its own mistakes, rest assured another company will rise to take its place.
That is unless we as a government and much more importantly as a people rethink exactly what the implications of employing private mercenary companies to do our fighting. Profit drives the private company and the mercenary companies business is war. This is a completely different level of the M-I-C than say a nuclear weapon producer like Westinghouse. The market for nukes isn’t going anywhere at the moment or anytime soon and there doesn’t have to be active warfare going on for the company to sell its weapons. In fact war, at least of the thermo-nuclear variety is highly unfavorable to Westinghouse; if it happens there will be no one left to buy any more weapons (or make them). Conventional war might actually stimulate the nuke market though, certainly proliferation and international instability does, so that is still a huge problem. But with Blackwater and others like it the mere presence of international instability and tensions is not enough; they need war/chaos to be taking place. There is no place for Blackwater in a world that is free from large conflicts.
As already noted this is a capitalist system is built upon the drive for growth and profits by companies. It is fundamentally against Blackwater’s interest for a stop to the warfare initiated by Bush. Well that’s not quite fair, he didn’t initiate it he only intensified it greatly. The military doesn’t fundamentally need warfare, as it is a public service, although of course it pushes for it. But defense forces can be scaled down in times of peace, however painfully the political steps may be. But the intertwining of government with private corporations that derive profit from war and destruction is a dangerous scenario. Blackwater is only one of the companies, others such as Halliburton profit off of different results of war, but war remains the key. This growing closeness of private business is incredibly dangerous as it takes the power away from the people and puts in the hands of the companies. It is they who financially support the politicians and in this sense determine who is in control. Who better than those who favor policies that will benefit the companies? It is instructive to note the Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater, is a Republican backer and his family has major ties to the party and the Bush campaign. Dick Cheney ran Halliburton before becoming VP. These companies and individuals supported the ascendancy of the neo-cons and they have reaped the benefits many times over. We are witnessing before our eyes the move towards the corporate state. This my friends is the move towards fascism. It happened in Germany in a democratic republic. It happened in Spain after a civil war. It happened in Chile after a military coup. There are many paths to fascism and they by no means follow an easily mapped out path. But they do follow a general direction that has end results that we can point to. One is the emergence corporate-state. Another is the growth of executive authority. Another is political repression and terror on the local population. We are seeing some of these factors begin to play themselves out. If we do not put a stop to it then it is only a matter of time before the hammer falls. Do you want to be under it when it does? - 04.10.07 Buenos Aires
The Major problem with the Blackwater corp. and other mercenaries is not that they are above the rule of seemingly any law, it is not that they act if often reckless means killing without regard or investigation, it is the fact that they represent the privatization of war. Another ugly head of the military-industrial complex has appeared, or perhaps reappeared is a better term, for mercenary armies are by no means a new invention. But the mercenary army acting under the guise of the capitalist system is a rather new development that has many ramifications beyond its counterparts from antiquity and the middle ages. At the heart of the matter is the neo-liberal objective of broad privatization of all aspects of life, from health care to the military to natural resources to public infrastructure to social security. Nothing is to be left untouched. And when I say neo-liberal I mean the group of neo-cons that made up the core of the Bush administration and still to day posses broad power, although perhaps not as much as in the past. The policies and programs of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz among others have been implemented with these ideological goals in mind. I have to make the distinction here between the neo-liberals in charge of the US now and the neo-liberalism as it was first developed by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economists. Although Friedman and his followers were devoted to privatization, they left a few things off the table that they considered to be untouchable. One of these things was the military/defense forces. This is where Rumsfeld enters the picture. His reorganization of the Defense Department has centered around the idea of privatizing as much as possible, a step that the father of neo-liberalism hesitated from advocating.
Well lets fast-forward a couple years and now the US is engaged in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and seriously looks to be contemplating a third front in Iran. Blackwater has played a key role in this process. Allowing the US to embark on its imperialist adventures while at the same time avoiding the tremendously unpopularity of the draft. These neo-cons were around for Vietnam, hell a lot of them worked in the Nixon administration, they saw what happened in regards to public and military protest and civil disruption due to the conscription army. With a private military force at their disposal they are free to just hire more and more mercenaries to make up for any shortfall in the traditional armed forces.
The problem is that Blackwater and others, as a private company operating under the free market capitalist system, are driven by profit. It is there goal as a company to generate profit and growth; it is what drives competitive capitalism. And what is Blackwater’s business? They describe themselves as professional warriors. So lets that the next logical step; what kind of environment does Blackwater need to ensure contracts? (Contracts handed out by governments, namely the US government, which means the taxpayer is paying for it, according to congressional hearings the US pays for 90% of Blackwater’s revenue) Well the answer is almost self evident, they need chaos, they need war zones, they needed continued conflicts. They also just happened to be in a position to help extend conflicts, since they have armed personnel in the middle of said conflicts. Do you see the problem? Providing security to their clients in a war zone is suppose to let their clients accomplish whatever it is that they want to do in a secure environment, in this and most cases the US government with the objective of building a nation that is free of conflict. Well if the US succeeds in this endeavor, and it is nowhere close at the moment, then Blackwater is out of contracts and the business fails. I see three paths out of this dilemma for Blackwater. 1 – rely on the US to keep engaging in other conflicts, hence a continuation of the market and new contracts are signed. 2 – take steps to ensure the current conflicts they are involved in stay conflicts; hence they keep the contracts they have. 3 – Increasingly fill the void left by the neo-liberal privatization of the military begun by Rumsfeld and take over more and more sectors of the American military that have traditionally been subject to public funding. Number 3 is interesting to think about in a historical context, especially that of the ancient world where the empires of different states share many similarities with the US empire. The classic example is Rome. It began is ascendancy and conquest with the military might of its legions, whose ranks were filled with roman citizens. Over a period of time the Romans themselves lost the will to fight in the legions and left the tasks to others, first other italic people, then other peoples of the empire and finally to the barbarians coming from northeastern Europe and the steppes of Asia. Using money earned from the pervious conquests, the rulers of Rome depended more and more on others to do the work for them with the belief that it would lead to the same results, and it did, for a while. The ‘barbarization’of the legions had its effect though. Some parallels can be drawn from this comparison if closely examined.
My guess is that the way things are going now it is going to be a combination of all three paths that Blackwater takes. The company is certainly taking some public knocks now, only because it is the largest and most visible at the moment, but there are other private mercenary companies that are operating in Iraq that the public doesn’t hear about. If Blackwater ends up collapsing due to it being a target because it is the leader in the industry or because of its own mistakes, rest assured another company will rise to take its place.
That is unless we as a government and much more importantly as a people rethink exactly what the implications of employing private mercenary companies to do our fighting. Profit drives the private company and the mercenary companies business is war. This is a completely different level of the M-I-C than say a nuclear weapon producer like Westinghouse. The market for nukes isn’t going anywhere at the moment or anytime soon and there doesn’t have to be active warfare going on for the company to sell its weapons. In fact war, at least of the thermo-nuclear variety is highly unfavorable to Westinghouse; if it happens there will be no one left to buy any more weapons (or make them). Conventional war might actually stimulate the nuke market though, certainly proliferation and international instability does, so that is still a huge problem. But with Blackwater and others like it the mere presence of international instability and tensions is not enough; they need war/chaos to be taking place. There is no place for Blackwater in a world that is free from large conflicts.
As already noted this is a capitalist system is built upon the drive for growth and profits by companies. It is fundamentally against Blackwater’s interest for a stop to the warfare initiated by Bush. Well that’s not quite fair, he didn’t initiate it he only intensified it greatly. The military doesn’t fundamentally need warfare, as it is a public service, although of course it pushes for it. But defense forces can be scaled down in times of peace, however painfully the political steps may be. But the intertwining of government with private corporations that derive profit from war and destruction is a dangerous scenario. Blackwater is only one of the companies, others such as Halliburton profit off of different results of war, but war remains the key. This growing closeness of private business is incredibly dangerous as it takes the power away from the people and puts in the hands of the companies. It is they who financially support the politicians and in this sense determine who is in control. Who better than those who favor policies that will benefit the companies? It is instructive to note the Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater, is a Republican backer and his family has major ties to the party and the Bush campaign. Dick Cheney ran Halliburton before becoming VP. These companies and individuals supported the ascendancy of the neo-cons and they have reaped the benefits many times over. We are witnessing before our eyes the move towards the corporate state. This my friends is the move towards fascism. It happened in Germany in a democratic republic. It happened in Spain after a civil war. It happened in Chile after a military coup. There are many paths to fascism and they by no means follow an easily mapped out path. But they do follow a general direction that has end results that we can point to. One is the emergence corporate-state. Another is the growth of executive authority. Another is political repression and terror on the local population. We are seeing some of these factors begin to play themselves out. If we do not put a stop to it then it is only a matter of time before the hammer falls. Do you want to be under it when it does? - 04.10.07 Buenos Aires
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Why the Democrats will continue supporting the War
It has become very apparent in the last month or two that the Democrats who took control of Congress in the last election cycle have no intention of putting a stop to one of the wars the U.S. is currently fighting. I am referring of course to Iraq, but let us not forget there are still troops and combat operations going on in Afghanistan and even less mentioned is the situation in Somalia, a country that has been attacked by the U.S. on at least three occasions in 2007.
But I digress; the focus of this article is the situation in Iraq. It was widely recognized that the elections of the Democrats was a in its essence a demand of the people to put an end to the war. Political analysts and people on both sides of the political spectrum acknowledged this. The voters were not asking for a Democrat version of the war, rather they were saying we want to stop this and bring the troops home as soon as possible.
I remember the feeling excitement and the expectation for change that many felt on that night in November when the Dems won control of both Houses. I remained very skeptical about the situation and I feel, unfortunately, that I have been proven right. The Democrats are not taking any steps to end the war. They are funding it without restrictions. This is nothing more than a week capitulation to Bush and the Republicans and a complete disregard for the will of the people. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me, business as usual one might say, but it seems to many others that it has come as a shock. I continually read about the failing of the Dems of the dashed hopes that people had. All I can say is “Wake up people”. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are dying, not to mention thousands of Americans (whose lives seem to be worth the equivalent of a hundred lives of people of color) doesn’t come into consideration in the minds of politicians.
How can I say such a thing? Simple, look at the situation and draw the only reasonable conclusion you can from it. Political consideration and comfort are the most important thing most of these elected leaders. This war could be stopped right now if the Dems hadn’t provided the funding. So why did they? Here is my answer. They don’t really want to end this war just yet; they need to get closer to Election Day in 2008 so they can use it as an issue against the Republicans. Is this a cynical view of things? Of course it is, but I don’t see how one can’t be cynical these dark days we are living in.
The Dems say, “we want to stop this war and bring the troops home”, and yet they do otherwise with their actions. Let us not forget this when it comes time to vote in 2008 and they position themselves as antiwar and say they will put a stop to it if elected to the presidency. This war will certainly still be ranging on at that point and the reason why is because the Dems will have allowed it to. They do not deserve our support anymore than the Republicans do. In the politics of war it’s not the people suffering and dying that come first in the considerations of the politicians, nor is it the supposed safety or protection of the American people. Rather it is their own political survival that holds the supreme place in their thoughts and considerations.
But I digress; the focus of this article is the situation in Iraq. It was widely recognized that the elections of the Democrats was a in its essence a demand of the people to put an end to the war. Political analysts and people on both sides of the political spectrum acknowledged this. The voters were not asking for a Democrat version of the war, rather they were saying we want to stop this and bring the troops home as soon as possible.
I remember the feeling excitement and the expectation for change that many felt on that night in November when the Dems won control of both Houses. I remained very skeptical about the situation and I feel, unfortunately, that I have been proven right. The Democrats are not taking any steps to end the war. They are funding it without restrictions. This is nothing more than a week capitulation to Bush and the Republicans and a complete disregard for the will of the people. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me, business as usual one might say, but it seems to many others that it has come as a shock. I continually read about the failing of the Dems of the dashed hopes that people had. All I can say is “Wake up people”. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are dying, not to mention thousands of Americans (whose lives seem to be worth the equivalent of a hundred lives of people of color) doesn’t come into consideration in the minds of politicians.
How can I say such a thing? Simple, look at the situation and draw the only reasonable conclusion you can from it. Political consideration and comfort are the most important thing most of these elected leaders. This war could be stopped right now if the Dems hadn’t provided the funding. So why did they? Here is my answer. They don’t really want to end this war just yet; they need to get closer to Election Day in 2008 so they can use it as an issue against the Republicans. Is this a cynical view of things? Of course it is, but I don’t see how one can’t be cynical these dark days we are living in.
The Dems say, “we want to stop this war and bring the troops home”, and yet they do otherwise with their actions. Let us not forget this when it comes time to vote in 2008 and they position themselves as antiwar and say they will put a stop to it if elected to the presidency. This war will certainly still be ranging on at that point and the reason why is because the Dems will have allowed it to. They do not deserve our support anymore than the Republicans do. In the politics of war it’s not the people suffering and dying that come first in the considerations of the politicians, nor is it the supposed safety or protection of the American people. Rather it is their own political survival that holds the supreme place in their thoughts and considerations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
