Hillary vs. Obama: Who Is Better on Blackwater?

Hillary Clinton has just become the most significant US political figure to come out in favor of banning Blackwater and other armed private security contractors from operating in Iraq. "When I am president I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors with the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors," she declared in a major policy speech on Monday.

Her position is a welcome development for those in the Congress, such as Illinois Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who have long sought to rein in private security contractors.

In her speech, Clinton slammed Obama on this issue, saying, "Senator Obama and I have a substantive disagreement here. He won't rule out continuing to use armed private military contractors in Iraq to do jobs that historically have been done by the US military or government personnel." The Clinton campaign wants voters to believe it is that simple. It is not.

First, Clinton's timing is suspect. She has served for five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has done nothing to end the use of Blackwater and other private security forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the aftermath of the September 2007 Nisour Square massacre, during which Blackwater operatives gunned down seventeen Iraqi civilians, Clinton condemned the company's conduct but declined to sign on as a co-sponsor to legislation introduced by Sanders and Schakowsky in November 2007 seeking to ban Blackwater and other mercenary companies.

Instead, she chose to do it in late February, after The Nation published the comments of a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama who said, "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors" in Iraq if Obama becomes president and that Obama does not intend to sign onto the Sanders-Schakowsky legislation. The next day, after refusing for over a week to provide a comment to The Nation on the issue, Clinton's staff released a statement saying she would endorse the Stop Outsourcing Security Act to "ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq." Clinton declared, "The time to show these contractors the door is long past due." The statement was released five days before the make-or-break primaries in Texas and Ohio, when the New York Senator was on the ropes.

On Monday, Clinton said, "I believe what matters in this campaign is not just the promises we've made to end the war; what matters is what we've actually done when it came time to match words with action. Because more than anything else, what we've done is an indication of what we'll do." On the issue of Blackwater, Clinton has been MIA for years.

Clinton's campaign is well aware that Obama has been ahead of the curve on the issue of armed private contractors in Iraq -- and certainly ahead of her. In October 2007, Clinton claimed she was unaware that Bush had granted Blackwater and other contractors immunity in 2004. "Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it," she said.

On Monday, Obama struck back. "Now, let me be clear: I actually introduced legislation in the Senate before Senator Clinton even mentioned this that said we had to crack down on private contractors like Blackwater because I don't believe that they should be able to run amok and put our own troops in danger, get paid three or four times or ten times what our soldiers are getting paid. I am the one who has been opposed to those operators. Senator Clinton is a late comer to that. But you know this is what happens during political season and I understand it."

In February 2007, Obama introduced contractor reform and oversight legislation that has become the Democrats' major plan in the Congress. Obama's bill seeks to make all contractors subject to prosecution in US civilian courts for crimes committed on a foreign battlefield. The bill is not without its problems. In theory, FBI investigators would deploy to the crime scene, gather evidence and interview witnesses, leading to indictments and prosecutions.

Apart from the fact that it would be impossible to effectively police such an enormous deployment of private contractors (at present basically equal to the number of active duty US troops in Iraq), the legislation would give the private military industry a tremendous PR victory. The companies could finally claim that a legally accountable structure governed their operations, yet they would be well aware that such legislation would be nearly impossible to enforce. Perhaps that is why the industry has passionately backed this approach.

But despite the measure's significant flaws, Obama did introduce it eight months before Nisour Square, at a time when Clinton was largely inactive on the issue, despite her significant Congressional influence.

In response to Clinton's speech Monday, Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "Hillary Clinton is attacking Barack Obama on an issue where he has led and she did nothing until her campaign fell behind."

Beyond the rhetoric, how serious is Hillary Clinton about stopping Blackwater and other armed private security forces in Iraq? Obama's campaign made a difficult admission, likely at odds with many of his supporters, by saying he wouldn't rule out using these forces because they will be needed, at least at first, to implement his Iraq plan. The State Department does not have the official security agents available to protect the massive army of diplomats in Iraq, which Obama intends to maintain and, perhaps, increase. The campaign says Obama wants to change that and to make all security personnel official US Diplomatic Security agents, but that could take years, according to the State Department.

Like Obama, Clinton has an Iraq plan that will keep thousands of officials and others who require diplomatic security in Iraq. If she thinks the military wants to do that job, she hasn't been reading the papers. If she thinks there are enough official State Department agents to do it right away, she hasn't been looking at the numbers: Blackwater has almost as many security operatives working in Iraq (nearly 1,000) as the State Department has available in the rest of the world combined (1,450).

At the end of the day, both Obama and Clinton have Iraq plans that for the foreseeable future will necessitate using private armed security forces. While Obama's campaign has acknowledged that fact, Clinton has seized it as an opportunity to attack Obama. Short of dramatically shrinking the size of the US civilian and diplomatic presence in Iraq, the next president may have no choice but to continue the current contracting arrangements. If, as president, Obama or Clinton did order the military to take over the protection of diplomats, that would result in an increase of US military convoys on the streets of Iraq, regularly placing US soldiers in direct -- and likely lethal -- contact with Iraqi civilians and vehicles.

In the bigger picture, the most disturbing aspect of this is that neither Clinton nor Obama have real plans to end the occupation. Their "withdrawal" plans will keep thousands of US military forces in Iraq, along with the Green Zone, the massive US embassy and the Baghdad airport. This could add up to as many as 80,000 troops, not including the armed security for diplomatic convoys currently provided by Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp.

If Hillary Clinton expects any credibility on this issue, especially after her recent condemnation of Blackwater and the pledge to ban private security forces in Iraq, it would mean radically revising her Iraq plan to one of complete withdrawal. That means no residual forces, "strike forces," or the army of "diplomats" necessitating security, which regularly proves fatal for Iraqi civilians. At the same time, if either Obama or Clinton really wants to end the occupation, it means a pledge to swiftly withdraw all US troops and contractors. At this point, neither seems willing to do that.

This piece was originally published by The Nation

Comments

[BrooklynLager]

Great article.

[bethinCary]

Judging from the fact that Murtha (whom I respect)but who does have alot of contract/lobby ties and the Blue Dogs (also lobby tied)---it's pretty obvious who's more tied to status quo contract/lobby politics..

[JacobSinger]

From the article:

"If Hillary Clinton expects any credibility on this issue, especially after her recent condemnation of Blackwater and the pledge to ban private security forces in Iraq, it would mean radically revising her Iraq plan to one of complete withdrawal. That means no residual forces, "strike forces," or the army of "diplomats" necessitating security, which regularly proves fatal for Iraqi civilians. At the same time, if either Obama or Clinton really wants to end the occupation, it means a pledge to swiftly withdraw all US troops and contractors."

Regardless of WHO is occupying the oval office, this is indeed the only RIGHT answer. Sadly, we will not see this, as neither dem candidate has the stones to do what is right--which typical for politicians.

[twofish]

How about somebody proposing a ban on private armies, period? Otherwise, when the money dries up in places like Iraq, Blackwater will be back in this country looking for situations where the citizenry needs to be, like, pacified. As they did in New Orleans after Katrina.

[ashen]

Thank you Jeremy Scahill for your tireless reporting on the facts and the truth of Blackwater, and the war in Iraq. Bless you, and may the powers that be keep you safe.

It seems very clear that there is no easy answer to what 'withdrawal' means, and much room for manipulation. The American people were manipulated quite deftly into a propagandistic war. There has yet to be a reckoning for this; the office of President is just the beginning. American soldiers have died for nothing, the Iraqi people have paid for our war, in a million lives lost, millions more wounded, maimed, displaced.

Between Hillary and Obama, it comes down to who will have the best judgment, who will act with the greatest integrity and principle, and who lead us through the difficulty ahead. It seems clear to me it will be Obama. But the answer lies not in a single person, it is also up to more Americans to be more informed and to be active, positive rather than passive, reactive partners in shaping foreign policy for the region. We need informed, educated, uncorrupted, principled Americans across the board at all levels of government, and we need to get a whole heckuva lot smarter than we have been for seven years...

Thanks again Jeremy for your work on Democracy Now and elsewhere for showing us the way.

[nestici]

What about this article?

Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far The Favorite

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html

Wouldn't that make her the least likely to act against these companies?

[orbit25]

Thanks for breaking this down. I didn't understand the number of holes in Obama's or Clinton's plan. This is really disappointing information.

[politicky]

I have a dream. I dream that corporate welfare becomes a thing of the past because corporations pay for their own Praetorian Guard.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Sen. Hillary Clinton said, "I believe what matters in this campaign is not just the promises we've made to end the war; what matters is what we've actually done when it came time to match words with action. Because more than anything else, what we've done is an indication of what we'll do.", and she's right. That's why I'm voting for Sen. Obama!

[Neaguy]

All the attention on this site is focused on the race speech, but this is the issue over which people will actually die.
As Jeremy nicely illustrates, there is no difference between the political twins Hillary and Barack.

All you Obama fans, your guy ain't bringin no change.

[lovethesinner]

Obviously, you didn't read the article:

"Clinton's campaign is well aware that Obama has been ahead of the curve on the issue of armed private contractors in Iraq -- and certainly ahead of her. In October 2007, Clinton claimed she was unaware that Bush had granted Blackwater and other contractors immunity in 2004. "Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it," she said."

And unless you've been asleep for most of your life, that speech on the issue of race you're trying to demean is the most significant CHANGE in American politics in forty years.

I suspect you're guy was getting direction from his "independant" handler, Joe Lieberman, today. Maybe he should start writing this stuff down. Al Queda: Sunni. Badder brigades: Shiite. (sp.)

[BBackSoon]

No I think you are mistaken. The only chance for change is Obama. But at the same time Obama knows and has the balls to say, "Cange will not be immediate, but we will work toward it." Kind of messes you up when a politician tells you something you don"t want to hear becaue it is true, doesn"t it? I am so fed up with the Bushco propoganda that I will accept hard truths as opposed to sunny lies.

McCain = Bush 2.1
Clinton = Bush Light
Obama = ? (But I am willing to take a chance.)

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Clinton is not serious about Blackwater. As we know, Mark Penn has ties to Blackwater,

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=240313

and Clinton has taken more money from defense contractors than any candidate, even McCain:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=D

More importantly, if Clinton really does plan to scale down the use of private contractors it might have something to do with the DLC (of which she is a leading member) plan to expand the army by 100,000 and keep the occupation of Iraq going until we "succeed". Read about the DLC and their Iraq and Middle East policies:

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900021&contentid=254187

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/5/27/55951/1586

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101182.html/

Every Democrat owes it to themselves to do their research on the corrupt DLC and it's Corporatist agenda, and to understand how the DLC and it's members have moved the Democratic party to the right over the last 20 years or more.

[lovethesinner]

Amen. The Clintons are so far out of the Progressive Democratic Party mainstream that it's really like she's running in her own "shaddow" party. Clinton is the "Corporate Party" (DLC) candidate.

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/hillary_clinton.htm

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080129_obama_clinton_and_the_war/

Obama-Webb '08

[research]

Agreed, I don't believe anything Hillary says.

All you Hillary supporters, better make sure you understand www.DLC.ORG and Hillary's fundamental union with the DLC policy.

For instance our Iraq War mongering Lieberman:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253901

[naugiedoggie]

The notion of Barrie Obama as "progressive" is laughable. As the article above points out, there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the Obama plan for Iraq and the Clinton plan for Iraq. Further, he is to the RIGHT of Clinton on health care, preferring to continue our present "no mandate" system in place, and thus leaving an estimated 20 Million still uninsured. His claim to be offering "universal" health care is just an outright lie -- he knows that when he says he will implement "universal healthcare", it is not true.

The guy is a professed admirer of Ronald Reagan.

Educate yourselves, indeed.

Thanks.

mp

[texanna]

This was a great article -- just the facts and an impartial analysis. Very refreshing. You gave me a lot of information and left me to make my own interpretations. Very unusual. I appreciate this because the growth of the private contractor industry has been a big concern of mine. Maybe if we all keep up the pressure we'll get one of these candidates to commit to REALLY getting out of Iraq instead of offering us a plan that will aims to hit the middle.

[ncvoter]

Another thing - Obama said that he cannot be sure that Bush wont do something or cause changes that may impact the conditions in Iraq.

Obama was ALWAYS against the war. Hillary isn't against the war, and her club, the DLC is PRO WAR.

[resonate]

I would believe Clintons plan on private security forces was some how more admirable if her and her husband didn't stand to financially gain from the occupation and the capitalist overtake of the region that Bush hoped for. Global government types such and the Bush and Clinton family wanted to create a foot hold in Iraq to operate out of. Financial benefit is but one aspect of their aspirations in the middle east.

[lbrillante]

I agree that the timing is suspect. She sees an opportunity to sway votes and superdelegates so she takes this position. Blackwater has been a tragedy and I don't know what other private contractors are in use currently but it is clear to me that in many areas of government service the use of private agencies to take over what the government was doing has been expensive and the results have been poor. I trust Senator Obama to use good judegment to determine what if any private services should continue to be used.
OBAMA/EDWARDS '08