Obama's Blackwater Problem--Updated
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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Those of us that think these mercs' aren't a slap in the face to the warriors that took the pledge are delusional - anyone who continues to let these "corporate" entities in place are stupid. They're doing things that our Armed Services, have trained professionals for. If you're POTUS, and you tell them to stand down, and they don't - do you not think there are those in the military, that would like nothing better, than to match skillsets? Let these "unaccountable security forces" go back to protecting Halliburton, or Brown&Root, or whatever corporate scum we went to war with Iraq for in the first place.
There are legally binding contracts in place for these companies that will take years to fight to remove them, and during that fight they will have no oversite or accountability. By introducing legislation that MAKES THEM ACCOUNTABLE, removal for failing to adhere to accountability measures makes their fast removal feasible and doable. Break the law, you're out. THAT'S doable. Congress will pass this readily. Removing them ASAP? No way will it get passed. It's smoke and mirrors.
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 Clinton is notorious for submitting populist legislation that doesn't get passed, or that she "hopes" doesn't get passed. It's impossible to determine her motives and principles at times. She has backpedaled more times than a unicycle rider. She and Pelosi, twins? Binding accountability on Blackwater et all is doable, and passable. Getting them out completely? No one in Congress will pass it. Hillary knows this.
Hillary is relying on another man to rescue her campaign. Bush himself.
http://blo
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.
I don't know about the rest or you but I cannot get a real bead on Obama, what is his real views? I still have not built an understanding of just how this guy will rule.
Christian:
For the real Obama, read: http://www
I read this article, Susan, and I do not think it shows anything about the way Obama will "rule" (what a terrible word for the presidency of the US, Christian).
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).
I read this article, Susan, and I do not think it shows anything about the way Obama will "rule" (what a terrible word for the presidency of the US, Christian).
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).
Christian, here are some links you might find helpful. A couple of them are Q & A sessions with Barack Obama.
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://thi
Jeremy has done a superb job of investigating Blackwater. And I understand his concern over these lingering questions. But from a constitutional standpoint, the President is the commander in chief, and could, arguably, issue an executive order binding these contractors -- contracted by the executive office -- to certain elements of the uniform code of military justice or to make them accountable under US law. (Just one of a host of remedies.)
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?
Obviously if they are able to fill them through 100K plus salaries the military should offer that.Eithe
And Clinton will disown private defense contractors?
Clearly, a bill on private mercenaries 'to show them the door" is disowning them. Also not all the contractors in the defense industry are mercenary contractors. Many are the american small businesses and corporations that provide a ton of jobs all over america building armor for our troops and providing food and housing for our troops on bases nationwide.
For all the allegations that Obama is a "pie in the sky" optimist, he measures his stances quite sensibly. Holding private security firms accountable is important, but considering we're stuck in a quagmire, it doesn't make much sense to eliminate them outright. Not to mention the fact this mess was precipitated by the "one or the other" mentality of President Bush.
Private security firms have no role in respectable foreign policy. To suggest so would be to laugh in the face of, probably, every foriegn relations course in the country. We know and continue to learn what Black Water has been up to. How can one argue that their use is justified? The Bush administration broke every rule in the "war game", and refusing to undo that will make repairing relations impossible. Clinton took her time on this, and while I support her mostly, it was annoying timing. Obama, however, has not taken the time to understand foreign policy. I am guessing that he spent time in undergrad getting ready for law school and not understanding a complicated world scene. It is too bad he does not take time out from the campaign to use his Senatoral power to call hearings and try to understand the issues more.
(Yes, I know private security is nothing new, but the freedom given to them now is more then ever.)
It's easy to see why Republicans are leaning toward Obama.
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.
We're anti-war, but at least he's honest and at least he's bringing accountability (which is what was the problem with mercenary forces, a lack of accountability). Hillary's a hard-tacking opportunist just as likely to lie herself out of scrutiny as into trouble.
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.
Obama is not honest and his campaign is a complete fraud. What you will find eventually, which you could find out now if you really wanted is that there is nothing even slightly anti-war about Obama. His main criticism about Iraq was that it is a "dumb war". In the debate the other night, he said if al qaeda showed up there after he withdrew the troops he'd send them back in. McCain rightly pointed out the utter stupidity of such a position, because al qaeda already is there.
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.
OBAMA is a balancing act like most any politician building a tent for all, RichLiberal. Careful to not altogether dismantle entrenched 'security' mercenaries sanctioned/allowed to be invented by our government under GWBUSH administration. Three private contractors by proxy are given the job to fulfill an increasing number of tasks, mostly military operations, let alone just for security. Doing KP. Cooking meals, peeling potatoe
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
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/i
OBAMA is a balancing act like most any politician building a tent for all, RichLiberal. Careful to not altogether dismantle entrenched 'security' mercenaries sanctioned/allowed to be invented by our government under GWBUSH administration. Three private contractors by proxy are given the job to fulfill an increasing number of tasks, mostly military operations, let alone just for security. Doing KP. Cooking meals, peeling potatoe
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
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/i
RichLiberal,
One can be a liberal democrat while affirming moderate views.
In case ya'll weren't aware, Nader is just a big hypocrit. If you look at his personal finances, he's just as much in the pocket of large corporations as the democrats and republicans. He has his stocks invested in Wal-Mart, Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, Halliburton, Texaco, missile manufacturers etc... And he calls himself a green, consumer advocate?? Oh please. So much for the Nader-ites thinking their candidate is the only honest politician. Nader is just as bad, or worse, than the rest. Atleast the other candidates don't make the central part of their platform standing up against the big industries that they invest in. Shame on Ralph. The sad truth is that no politician will ever be totally honest. I'm still voting Obama, because I think he is the lesser of 4 evils.
And of course you have a link ready to back this up...don't you?
I didn't think so.
Who is this "senior advisor" to Obama? Hasn't anybody learned from the NYTtimes debacles that until you are willing to name names, we can't be expected to take seriously these stories "unnamed officials.
Austan Goolsbee, senior economic advisor. Candian Broadcasting stands by its story and Obama looks like he's got some "splanin" to do. I think the Obama's slipping pole numbers reflect some of the shiny glitz finally being peeled away from the Obama myth.
Obama's slipping poll numbers????
Do we live in the same world?????
Did they ever consider when recruiting soldiers- if they offered them the 100K a year they are offering private mercenaries a whole lot more would be signing on?The armed services barely just came around to offering a 40K bonus if a new military recruit signs up for FIVE years.We are paying that money anyway but U.S tyrants want to be sure it is going into the PRIVATE bank accts of these corporateers who are not answerable to U.S.laws .
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.
I am so tired of the Clinton's. I hope they are out this week. They are just a huge distraction and they are just doing damage to our party everyday that they stay in. I'm sure there are Hillary supporters out there that find that remark upsetting- but I have to say it.
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.
So it's okay for Obama to break his word on campaign finance?
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?
Obama never "pledged" to run a campaign on public funds -- he agreed to discuss the issue with the Republican nominee if that person wanted to run their campaign on public funds. And, from the looks of it, McCain isn't going with public funding.
Given the ungodly mess we are in, only the most naive would believe that we could extract ourselves without initially using these disgusting companies. Way to rally the tin foil hat brigade, I guess you want them to vote for Nader... Oh wait it is still primary season so I guess you want them to vote for Hillary and ignore Mr. Penn's Blackwater connection. Really this is an important issue but is one for General Election season, I for one am glad people like Nader are in the race, despite being an Obama supporter, he is needed to bring up these issues and keep them all honest.
Interesting, in support of Obama you say " Only the most naive would belive we could extract ourselves from Iraq without using these companies" ... yet- Aren't you supposed to be the cock-eyed optimists who have the audacity to HOPE for CHANGE you can BELIEVE in..
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.
You obviously didn't read my full post - I actually said it should be examined but given that basically the differences on this issue for the primary candidates is zero with Obama having a better anti war stance it should wait till the general . Or do you want your choices of electable candidates to be Clinton and McCain - really you are nuts if you think Nader is going to win.
At least Obama is being honest about the situation we are in. Clinton has gone and said we will not use any of these private security firms. When she becomes president how does she intend to keep that promise and still pull all troops out of Iraq. We need to be realistic about things but I guess its easy for Hillary to make these comments when she has no chance of winning and then just go back to taking all the money from the defense contractors.
I take it that you are just ignoring Obama's Blackwater connection.
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
I understand your point, my issue is with the one sidedness of the Article if the author had put both candidates connections in that would be one thing. Being realistic this kind of article read at this point in the election cycle only serves to encourage the Clinton supporters that their candidate is better. It appears he was honest by speaking - Clinton chose to say nothing. Nader is needed to keep these issues alive otherwise they get swept under the rug of politics.
Just one more of those questions that we could be asking in the four bizillion debates we've had instead of the really stupid conversation about renounce and reject! Public financing would go a long ways towards true change - as in making the silly season (the primaries) the serious season. So far, none of the candidates is really for federal financing for the Presidential campaign and that's a big problem for me. Without it, all we'll get is a new boss that's the same as the old boss.
This issue--and imagine quite a few others we haven't addressed yet--is the primary reason someone like Nader should be in the race.
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.
Yeah, Nader is looking pretty good right now to me too. The more I research all the candidates, the more disappointed I am. I hope the dems give enough people a reason to really vote for change too. I was once excited about this particular election, but it's just another petty popularity contest. So few important matters are discussed, and arguments are becoming lame and personal. Single payer health care, education reform, achieving peace through diplomatic relations. Part of me hates the idea of voting for Nader and possibly letting McCain get in, but the more I research, the more I see Nader represents my position on the issues. Kucinich did as well.
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.
Of the chioces still before us, Nader is far preferable to the three Republicans: McCain, Obama and Clinton. The problem is that even if Ralph won he would have to get things done. Most of that requires working with Congress. How many favors has he done for Congressmen? How many can credit him for getting them their seat? Why would any of them cooperate? Based on history there is no reason to expect them to work with him simply because he may be right on an issue.
cognito ergo populistae
Sounds reasonable enough to me. After all, if Blackwater were big contributors to left wing causes instead of right wing crusades, the perception would be different and this is largely what fuels the controversy here. War is nasty business and the military has been hamstrung regarding its troop authorizations and from the aspect of unit cohesiveness. The best way to combat private contractors, the result of mandated personel structures, is to come up with better means by which we man the military, while asserting controll over the contractors who will continue to be significant, and rewarding those that comply.
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.
Obama's position includes increasing the military by something like 70,000 personnel (while moving away from big-toy weapons systems). I think that helps address your point.
However, "Get the army out of the peace businesss.
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.
Even if increasing the military by 70,000 were a good idea, where do these 70,000 come from? Is that based on making the economy even worse? Is it based on paying them more? Is it based on paying them in Chinese currency?
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
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
