Blackwater USA now finds itself under a healthy heap of opprobium, but is this reasonable? Liberals who feel compelled by nationalism and daddy-complex fetishism to Support the Troops™ are pleased to have an opportunity to draw attention to the bloody toll of the war without having to confront the plain fact that "contractors" play an exceedingly minor roll in the carnage. "Employees of Blackwater USA have engaged in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq since 2005," says the Times. Well, how many of the Marines engaged in? Is Blackwater USA piloting the jets that daily bomb civilian infrastructure? It's true that there are many soldiers of fortune in Iraq, and that they're largely unfettered and unaccountable, but here's the interesting addendum: the same is true for the Army! Cool.
There is an effort underway to further deligitamize the American occupation of Iraq without deligitamizing the principle instrument of the policy. Private contractors provide the opportunity to wax and blather about the gross inhumanity of our partial conquest without sullying the Boys, who are, to a man, "performing brilliantly." Whatever that means. That's not to suggest that every soldier is a war criminal. Neither is every mercenary. But to call one criminal and not the other because patriotism crassly demands a distinction is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Hessians
Labels:
The Troops
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Oh please. The outsourcing of the monopoly on violence is new at this scale and it's a little bit unwieldy and frightening. There is a baby in that bathwater.
I don't see how it's "new at this scale." How is it substantively different from proxy wars fought by School of the Americas-trained paramilitaries or mujahadeen in Afghanistan? Mercenarism is as old as warfare. If anything, it is the "state monopoly on violence" in the form of a standing, professional army that's the historic outlier. I object to the distinction between regulars and mercenaries when they're so clearly pursuing the same ends. Can you argue convincingly that Blackwater USA has caused anywhere near the death and destruction of the regular military in Iraq? If they're more trigger-happy per capita, that's damnable, but hanging objections to the war on their misbehavior seems very flimsy to me.
As you and others have properly noted, the Iraqis certainly see no profound difference between the two classes. They are all bombing and shooting and murdering.
"hanging objections to the war on their misbehavior seems very flimsy to me."
Agreed, but that's not the point I'm making. Sure, mercenaries are as old as warfare. Ergo, what? Weed and homos are as old as bacchanalia. Kings are as old as castles. Light is as old as day. All you've done is highlight why mercenaries are so objectionable. Beyond that, I think killin' for money and killin' for country are very different things. One at least claims an origin in the proper role of government.
The defense/war department of the united states has not made a habit of hiring 100k+ mercenaries to manage a war zone before. In small numbers in Bosnia, etc., sure, but not quite like this. You have rightly noted that by and large what the Bushies do in public the Clintons did in private. I still think that is an important difference. Openness creates legitimacy, and that is disturbing in its own right.
I disagree that openness necessarily creates legitimacy, and I'm far more skeptical than you about the distinction between "killin' for money and killin' for country." It is true that mercenaries have a better per diem than regulars, but placing private remuneration for services rendered up there with the economics of the war state--which is to say, the money that soldiers are killin' for country for--is a weird line to draw. If openness does indeed create legitimacy, then why not note that mercenaries and mercenary companies openly acknowledge the role of profit in their actions, whereas "country" obfuscates it as much as possible.
I think it fairly self-evident that one hides things that one is not proud of and role models are everywhere, and the corollaries there from, and all that.
I just think its a distinction with a difference. You can pretend all day that because volunteer soldiers get paid they work for money jus tha same, but come on. However misguided and destructive the regulars come to be, they retain some respectability and legitimacy in the necessity of a common defense. Mercenaries are killing for money and the fun of it. Thats it.
Sure, it makes little difference to the dead and terrorized, but I don't think that is the only measuring stick.
Their legitimacy to the common defense is obviated by their participation in an act of aggression. That is my point. I understand that you want to argue against this war without arguing for pacifism. Well, so do I. But my question to you is: In what capacity are troops in Iraq acting in the national self-defense?
Mercenaries are killing for a variety of reasons, as are soldiers. Some soldiers likewise kill for the fun of it, or the thrill of it, or the hallucinated necessity of it. Cf. Tim O'Brian, Joseph Conrad, etc. But to see soldiers as avatars of some "national defense" that has nothing to do with economics, and to see at the same time mercenaries who by grace of their pay scale serve only profit, is to draw a distinction that doesn't exist. Wars are extensions of policy, and policy grows out of economy, and to say that American soldiers in Iraq occupy a different moral or practical category simply because some musty hymnal of the American religion claims them as pure patriots is foolish.
My point was clearly not that regular soldiers are paid/mercenaries are paid, ergo they're equal.
I object to the use of mercenaries to serve functions of the united states military. My objection has nothing to do with this war specifically. That said, it sure does seem like your objection is that money makes the world go 'round, in this pocket, in that pocket, bang bang, dead dead.
"some musty hymnal of the American religion claims them as pure patriots is foolish."
blah. blah. and blah. I still believe in grounding one's observations and prescriptions in theory of some sort. I think a government serves one legitimate umbrella function - as a solution to commons problems. This includes a number of things, not least of which is the common defense. In order to provide for the common defense, the government needs soldiers. Now obviously the train has come off the track and gone smashing about the world, but I don't see whats so objectionable to pointing out that in an ideal world, such and such would at least be a justifiable necessity.
But, if the common defense is increasingly hijacked to effectively serve the mercenary economic aims of well-connected economic actors in the United States, then your definition of common defense is pious and pointless. Especially since the current war policy and the long-standing foreign policy of the United States appear to increasingly make impossible any rational solutions to "common problems," even common defense. Under the current system, can a common defense even be defined, given how locked in the current system of permanent war (along with the oil industry and the needs of the bureaucracy) is to our economy and government? If war is an economic function of the United States, then our soldiers are employees of the War Corporation, no?
Why are you even talking about an ideal world, anyway? we are talking about the now. A now in which corporate economic entitites have largely (and increasingly blatantly) hijacked the machinery of the State for their unique benefit. Shouldn't the conversation be about what is happening now and Ioz' fundamental point that there is little real effective difference between the aims of the mercenary companies and the aims of the War Machine, namely, to benefit a few "shareholders." The set of two classes of shareholders amusingly enough seem to overlap in a non-trivial way.
BTW, its "commons problem" and I never defined "common defense," but nm.
We are one in the now and the now is here. The one is us, here now, in the now, which is the one, which is us, one, now.
Rana,
The need for the common defense is for the most part greatly overstated. Insofar as it may be necessary to some very limited extent, it is not clear enough to be a given that governments need soldiers to accomplish this.
In terms of motivations, I think you'd be surprised to find out how many ardent patriots can be found in the ranks of the contractors. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests that they are, as a class, less personally invested in the war.
But the larger point is that it doesn't matter why they go to war. You are what you do. Mercernaries or Marines, they're invaders. Invasion is a violation of the natural law of territory, and as such is wrong at a very basic level, just like burglary.
Given the personal histories and ideologies of the founders of Blackwater (scary fundie right wing), frijoles makes a good point. Blackwater also exhibits another characteristic of the current semi-fascist regime-a very vaguely defined and wholly permeable boundary between "the State" and corporate entities.
In order to provide for the common defense, the government needs soldiers.
Mercenaries are soldiers. You are hung up on the fact that they are not Officially Blessed US Soldiers(tm), but what of that? Blackwater will follow orders if paid, quitting promptly if the checks don't clear. The US marines will follow orders without pay, for a while, then gradually organize politically into a bonus army. It's a fine distinction.
1. I have just hit my fifties and I have established a very comfortable financial position. I am a financial consultant for a highly successful international brokerage house, but it has not always been that way.
I have experienced hard times, particularly when I was younger, and it was then that I developed the bedrock of my financial resources, The Winning Way which is on offer on this web site. Once that system took off the old adage of money makes money has never been more true. The instant cash flow gave me the opportunity to try out a trading system, 100% Profit In One Year which is also on offer here and this accelerated cash into my account like there was no tomorrow. www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post a Comment