UPDATE: What interesting timing! A day after this story went live on TheNation.com, Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose staff refused for a week to answer my questions about her position on private security forces, released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to "ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq," saying, "The time to show these contractors the door is long past due." Why February 28, in the middle of a tough political campaign? Why not after last September's Nisour Square massacre, when Blackwater operatives killed 17 Iraqi civilians? Or, better, before it? Regardless of the curious timing, this makes Clinton the most significant US political figure to date to issue such a call. We will be monitoring closely how much of a legislative priority this becomes for Sen. Clinton.
A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told me that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama's campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors.
Obama's broader Iraq withdrawal plan provides for some US troops to remain in Iraq--how many his advisers won't say. But it's clear that Obama's "follow-on force" will include a robust security force to protect US personnel in Iraq, US trainers (who would also require security) for Iraqi forces and military units to "strike at Al Qaeda"--all very broad swaths of the occupation.
"If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it's in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it's in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures," said the senior adviser. "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors." He added, "I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law."
But therein lies a problem. The US Embassy in Iraq is slated to become the largest embassy in world history. If Obama maintains that embassy and its army of diplomats and US personnel going in and out of the Green Zone, which his advisers say he will, a significant armed force will be required for protection. The force that now plays that role is composed almost exclusively of contractors from Blackwater, DynCorp and Triple Canopy. And at present, these contractors are not held accountable under US law. Obama and a host of legal experts, including in the Justice Department, acknowledge that there may be no current US law that could be used to prosecute security contractors for crimes committed in Iraq, such as the killing of seventeen Iraqi civilians last September in Baghdad's Nisour Square.
The irony is that it was Senator Obama who sponsored a bill in February 2007 defining a legal structure to prosecute State Department contractor crimes in US courts. Obama staffers say they will "fight like hell to get it passed." But it may not pass before the next President takes power. Even if it does and Bush signs it, serious questions will remain unresolved about how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively. The senior adviser acknowledged that Obama could find himself in a situation where, as President, he continues using forces he himself has identified as "unaccountable." The Obama campaign, in other words, may have painted itself into a corner.
Obama campaign and Senate staffers characterize this as an inherited problem with no good alternatives. "We are in a situation where, because of bad planning and a series of disastrous policy choices by the Bush administration, we're forced to rely on private security contractors," says the senior adviser. "What we're focused on at the moment is getting the legal architecture in place that will hold these guys accountable to the same standard that [applies to] enlisted US military personnel."
The private security industry knows well that it has become a central part of US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Extricating the firms from this position would require a major and aggressive undertaking with significant Congressional support, which is by no means guaranteed. In fact, Blackwater appears to see a silver lining in the prospect of US forces being withdrawn or reduced in Iraq. Joseph Schmitz, chief operating officer of Blackwater's parent company, The Prince Group, said, "There is a scenario where we could as a government, the United States, could pull back the military footprint, and there would then be more of a need for private contractors to go in." The Obama senior adviser called Schmitz's comment "an unfortunate characterization."
Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, one of Congress's sharpest critics of the war contracting system, says of Schmitz's remark, "That's why some of us have been really careful about not just talking about a troop withdrawal but a contractor withdrawal as well." Obama, she says, should make it impossible for Schmitz and others "to think that Barack Obama would be creating new opportunities for Blackwater after our troops are withdrawn."
Hillary Clinton's staff would not make anyone available for an interview on this subject. Interestingly, she is the top recipient of campaign contributions from the defense industry--more money than John McCain has received.
Read my full story in The Nation or watch today's Democracy Now!
Follow Jeremy Scahill on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeremyscahill
Notice Hillary did not include a time line for removing these companies, because if it doesn't pass (which it won't) it can be at the end of their contracts (15 years at least)) when she removes them, if at all, and NO oversite was written into her proposal.. It's a politically motivated legislation that will not pass, as most of her legislation the past 8 years are.
She will say anything, do anything, to get elected. This is not a surprise. She will not level with the American people because she can't. She is bound by special interests and her power base to continue the facade and lies that led us to Iraq and the system that makes us stay the course with the same priorities. SHE IS BUSH-LITE. Give her the Presidency, and she will become Bush-HEAVY.
Hillary is relying on another man to rescue her campaign. Bush himself.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/21/bush_clinton_will_be_democrati.html
Of COURSE she is aiming to take Texas. Bush will make sure of it. He selected her as his successor long before the 1st debate ever took place. Why do you think she voted with him on Iraq? Impossible to prove, because her motives are always left up to interpretation. But can it be disproved?
This is what happens when we don't impeach and prosecute criminals. They gather power and endanger others.
How's Musharraf doing? Is he maneuvering to avoid impeachment too? Taking advice from the Bush admin?
Avoid another stolen election people. Wake up to the game.
For the real Obama, read: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print
What you are brining, Susan, is an article ( which could have been much better written, by the way) of a guy who had a bad encounter with Senator Obama. Big deal! In your life, Susan, do you think you would not have someone who does not like you, for whatever reason?
It's not the article you mention, Susan, that shows how Obama would run this country, it's the way he is running his campaign that shows that-- competently (fundraising more money than anyone else--by far), creatively (not focusing on ridiculous distinction between "denouncing" and "rejecting"), and with a sense of vision (affirming something rather than just speaking against something).
What you are brining, Susan, is an article ( which could have been much better written, by the way) of a guy who had a bad encounter with Senator Obama. Big deal! In your life, Susan, do you think you would not have someone who does not like you, for whatever reason?
It's not the article you mention, Susan, that shows how Obama would run this country, it's the way he is running his campaign that shows that-- competently (fundraising more money than anyone else--by far), creatively (not focusing on ridiculous distinction between "denouncing" and "rejecting"), and with a sense of vision (affirming something rather than just speaking against something).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nnj7r1wCD4
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/EDIAUHASH.DTL&o=0
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/barack-obama-101/
As far as how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively, isn't that a similar problem within the military? When the typical witness to these types of crimes are the people being protected, isn't that always going to be a conflict of interest?
However, these are good and important questions. But isn't the real question "how are the executive office and the military going to redress the lack of military personnel who should be filling these security positions?
(Yes, I know private security is nothing new, but the freedom given to them now is more then ever.)
What Democratic "Liberals" see in Obama is truly a mystery.
These people are so totally self-deluded that when they wake
up from their dream, they are going to probably feel the way
an otherwise well-meaning drunk feels the next morning
realizing the damage the drunk created the night before.
And yes, it was a character attack, but I know Hillary's voting record and have listened to the angry Liberals from her own state decry her hypocrisy and now after dodging the question she reads your article and decides to tack hard to the left? Color me unsurprised.
The reason he is dishonest is that while he is railing against Hillary about her vote, and based on his "record" he undoubtedly would have voted the same way if he happened to be in the Senate at the time under the same pressures and faced with the same choices. He tries to give the "impression" that he is "anti-war", which is obviously what has attracted you and your "we". But, he, in fact, is not anti-war, as obvious from what he said in the debate and many other statements he has made.
In particular, he is being dishonest with YOU, because he is giving you the "impression" he is anti-war, which makes you feel good about him. But you do not want to face the fact that he is not anti-war, and by giving you this impression he is being dishonest with YOU to take YOUR vote.
I'm pretty sure you won't understand this, but I am saying for the benefit of others as well, so that when the drunken stupor starts to wear off that they will have a chance to accelerate their return to a more sensible path.
Now that troop levels are designed for politic expediency, mean and lean, when once taxpayers paid for a military to be at reasonable strength for defense primarily, not privatize and outsource military function to business during empire building, cash register business is advocated. New type business--aside the underwriters, munitions, the in perpetuity war profiteers and their investment strings in war conractors--overtly, no bones about, raise private armies, make money off our instigated Wars.
I suspect if BARACK OBAMA becomes President--my man now that KUCINICH is gone--that many of us will be disappointed in him. Unable to be the revolutionary CHANGE ARTIST that even he does not claim, at least not without we the people rising up and forcing our CONGRESS to CHANGE. Don't hold your breath. This unwillingness of his to announce he will dismantle and or withdraw our embedded in concrete private armies, security contractors IMMEDIATELY, likely foreshadows traits of his Presidency. But what is a new YES WE CAN President to do? Stuck between a rock and hard place. In order to be PRESIDENT at all he cannot aggravate MONEY beyond HOPE of conciliation, thus must give MONEY plenty of room. After all, he is allowed his current front runner position because of MONEY. How can he separate himself from the reality of the CORPORATIST STATE and the military/industrial/Congress and all the bankers and exponential network of folks beholding, one way or the other, to our fraudulent engagement in IRAQ? Still, while OBAMA walks on egg shells, working all sides of the street, his record of compassion for all peoples, willingness to negotiate, even shake hands (was that a hug?) with jerks I can't abide, he is a real small 'd' democrat,. Some of us were forced to shift allegiance to him, place our anguish and trust in him, to be the leader his heart at root seems to promise him to be.
I didn't think so.
Do we live in the same world?????
There's a reason for that- they are not included in the body count or wounded, they sign private agreements to maintain secrecy for which they can be legally held.,they are legally capable of doing anything without repurcussion, including torture, raping co- workers, and taking steroids, there is no oversight of their training-or hiring practices and they can be hired out to other countries and most scarily - their loyalty is not to America , but to the dollar .These multi national mercenaries could easily be used to put down homegrown insurrections in this country, as in the rich against the widening circle of poor, homeless and desperate , in this country if their masters order them to.
Their very existence is a very dark omen. Sad to think a Democratic candidate who speaks of hope includes them in our future.
Obama should not take the public funds. Based on just very recent events- like Cunningham, the phony Canadian NAFTA story, and the photo, Obama is going to have the option of raising money for damage control. The Republicans will not win in a fair fight so they will be pulling out of the stops on the smears.
It is not smart to set your position in stone and not change it when the circumstances change. Otherwise you end up like Bush with his messiah complex and his endless war.
If he breaks his word BEFORE the election, what hope do we have after?
This is supposed to be a new way of doing politics, isn't it?
Well, bless my soul- with respect to the private contractors .. its CHANGE that is more of the SAME..
And since Obama's voting record since taking the Senate has been EXACTLY like Clinton's - its CHANGE- you can feel good about- without ever really examining the issues.
This is an issue for the general election? The candidates are not supposed to let us know their positions before nomination? But, Nader is needed to keep all of the others honest? Are you saying they haven't been honest to this point and would remain dishonest had he not announced? Can we expect any of these disgonest people to actually follow through after the election? So many questions. So little hope for change.
cognito ergo populistae
Let me make myself clear on this; should both dem & GOP candidates show themselves to be wishy-washy on this and other essential issues--repealing BushCo's executive orders, conitinuing with far too many signing statements, withdrawing the vast majority of troops from Iraq, and continuing to sabre rattle for Big Oil profits--I will vote for Nader, and I wil encourage everyone I encounter to do the same.
If Obama is indeed about change, he'd damn well best get off the pot and make himself clear about these issues.
Bottom Line: if he does not refute and pledge to reverse these policies, then he is NOT fit to be president, and his entire platform of "CHANGE" is a LIE.
Between Hillary and Obama, I have been leaning toward Obama, but I am becoming equally disenchanted by my research with both politicians and this entire circus of a process.
cognito ergo populistae
Ultimately the structure of the military forces should be changed to reflect that the military is designed to break things and kill the enemy. Ideal for hormonally driven 20 year old males. We also need an army designed to rebuild and maintain things which is totally inappropriate for those same 20 year old males and their bosses but it ideal for 40 year old career managers who know how things go together. Get the army out of the peace businesss and get business out of the war business.
However, "Get the army out of the peace businesss..." The thing is, I don't think it's likely we're going to have a government army vs. government army war like the good ol' days. The only possibility of this I can see is where we insert ourselves into a developing country vs. developing country conflict. I think most things that will call for military force are non-state actors ("terrorists"), and containment operations.
I would say the change of business we need is that the US can't carry the weight of the world on its shoulders. We shouldn't be world police, that should be the role of an international body. Kinda like how the national government deals with problems between states here in the US; that's federalism.
Am I missing something? It is a good idea to have unaccountable, or even accountable (wink, wink), businesses conducting war operations? I guess that when we can go to war without a Declaration of War it isn't really necessary to encumber ourselves with legal nicities.
cognito ergo populistae