Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
[Marxism] Contractors and Mercenaries
- Subject: [Marxism] Contractors and Mercenaries
- From: "Funke Jayson J" <funke.jj@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:16:08 -0400
- Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Thread-index: AcQpTkfSqLvkQa4uRLSes8VGADxNuQ==
- Thread-topic: Contractors and Mercenaries
Does anyone have any information on the accountability of PMCs? Are employees
of PMCs prosecutable for killing? Can PMCs, operating in NAFTA countries,
possibly sue those governments for obstructing business oportunities?
Jayson Funke
Contractors and Mercenaries
The Rising Corporate Military Monster
By RUSSELL MOKHIBER
and ROBERT WEISSMAN
http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber04232004.html
A corporate military monster is being created in Iraq.
The U.S. government is relying on private military contractors like never
before.
Approximately 15,000 military contractors, maybe more, are now working in Iraq.
The four Americans brutally killed and mutilated in Fallujah March 31 were part
of this informal army of occupation.
Contractors are complicating traditional norms of military command and control,
and challenging the basic norms of accountability that are supposed to govern
the government's use of violence. Human rights abuses go unpunished. Reliance
on poorly monitored contractors is bleeding the public treasury. The
contractors are simultaneously creating opportunities for the government to
evade public accountability, and, in Iraq at least, are on the verge of
evolving into an independent force at least somewhat beyond the control of the
U.S. military. And, as the contractors grow in numbers and political influence,
their power to entrench themselves and block reform is growing.
Whatever the limitations of the military code of justice and its in-practice
application, the code does not apply to the modern-day mercenaries. Indeed, the
mechanisms by which the contractors are held responsible for their behavior,
and disciplined for mistreating civilians or committing human rights abuses --
all too easy for men with guns in a hostile environment -- are fuzzy.
It is unclear exactly what law applies to the contractors, explains Peter W.
Singer, author of Corporate Warriors (Cornell University Press, 2003) and a
leading authority on private military contracting. They do not fall under
international law on mercenaries, which is defined narrowly. Nor does the
national law of the United States clearly apply to the contractors in Iraq --
especially because many of the contractors are not Americans.
Relatedly, many firms do not properly screen those they hire to patrol the
streets in foreign nations. "Lives, soldiers' and civilians' welfare, human
rights, are all at stake," says Singer. "But we have left it up to very raw
market forces to figure out who can work for these firms, and who they can work
for."
There are already more than a few examples of what can happen, notable among
them accusations that Dyncorp employees were involved in sex trafficking of
young girls in Bosnia.
In general, the performance of the private military firms is horribly
under-monitored.
Sometimes the lack of monitoring is a boon to the government agencies that hire
the contractors.
Although there are firm limits on the kinds of operations that U.S. troops can
conduct in Colombia, Singer notes, "it has been pretty loosey-goosey on the
private contractor side." The contractors are working with the Colombian
military to defeat the guerilla insurgency in Colombia -- unconstrained by
Congressionally imposed limits on what U.S. soldiers in Colombia may do.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, a problem of a whole different sort is starting to emerge.
The security contractors are already involved in full-fledged battlefield
operations, increasingly so as the insurgency in Iraq escalates.
A few days after the Americans were killed in Fallujah, Blackwater Security
Consulting engaged in full-scale battle in Najaf, with the company flying its
own helicopters amidst an intense firefight to resupply its own commandos.
Now, reports the Washington Post, the security firms are networking formally,
"organizing what may effectively be the largest private army in the world, with
its own rescue teams and pooled, sensitive intelligence."
Because many of the security contractors work for the Coalition Provisional
Authority, as opposed to the U.S. military, they are not integrated into the
military's operations. "Under assault by insurgents and unable to rely on U.S.
and coalition troops for intelligence or help under duress," according to the
Post, the contractors are banding together.
Private occupying commandos? Corporate military helicopters in a battlefield
situation? An integrated occupation private intelligence network?
Isn't this just obviously a horrible idea?
Given the problems that have already occurred in places like Colombia and
Bosnia, the scale and now independent integrated nature of the private military
operations in Iraq is asking for disaster, beyond that already inflicted on the
Iraqis.
Making the problem still worse is that the monster feeds on itself.
The larger become the military contractors, the more influence they have in
Congress and the Pentagon, the more they are able to shape policy, immunize
themselves from proper oversight, and expand their reach. The private military
firms are led by ex-generals, the most effective possible lobbyists of their
former colleagues -- and frequently former subordinates -- at the Pentagon. As
they grow in size, and become integrated into the military-industrial complex
(Northrop Grumman has swallowed a number of the military contractors, for
example), their political leverage in Congress and among civilians in the
executive branch grows.
Over the last decade or so, the phenomenon of private military contracting has
grown unchecked. We're now at a precipice, with action to constrain the
contractors about to become far, far more difficult than if the madness of
employing mercenaries had been averted in the first place.
The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and is intended
solely for the use of the named addressee.
Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by
any other person is not authorized.
If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning
the e-mail to the originator.(B)
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
- Thread context:
- Re: [Marxism] can anyone recommend a good e-mail filter?, (continued)
- [Marxism] Iraq-Sweden immigration news,
Jurriaan Bendien Fri 23 Apr 2004, 17:03 GMT
- [Marxism] Iraq glossary,
Louis Proyect Fri 23 Apr 2004, 16:40 GMT
- [Marxism] Contractors and Mercenaries,
Funke Jayson J Fri 23 Apr 2004, 16:30 GMT
- [Marxism] Voting with their feet,
Louis Proyect Fri 23 Apr 2004, 15:22 GMT
- [Marxism] Mark Jones was right #2,
Louis Proyect Fri 23 Apr 2004, 15:14 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]