JOURNAL: Is Blackwater Evil?

Here's another example of dysfunction in our societal discussion about the future of security: rather than an informed/constructive debate on the future of private military contractors in warfare (a big topic that WILL NOT go away), we end up demonizing Blackwater with hyper-ventilation from Scahill, Singer (Salon) and the New York Times. If anything, Blackwater's current problems have everything to do with its (ill advised) super-macho image and anger over an unpopular/unsuccessful war. In truth, it's simply a security company with an excellent reputation for keeping its high value clients alive and a record of violent incidents in a dangerous war zone on par with the US military's experience. Were we expecting something different?

No, the real issues lie much deeper than this. It has to do with unease with the underlying shift from "defense" to "security."

UPDATE: I've struggled with this journal entry. The reason is that it's clear that private military forces will be a major part of the global security equation, like it or not. The decline of the nation-sate ensures it. As a consequence, the real thrust of our collective efforts should be on methods to manage its emergence.

UPDATE2: Here's a YouTube video of a Blackwater helo extricating the wounded Polish Ambassador in Baghdad yesterday.

Comments

[Chris Stiles]

.. not to mention absolutely no oversight worth a damn.

The current fuss can be no bad thing, yes at the moment Blackwater are absolutely necessary to the US's continued presence in Iraq, but they (and private security companies more generally) need some kind of threat of sanction to keep them in line (pour encourager les autres).

[John Robb]

We are in the midst of a transition from "defense" to "security." Iraq is a muddle of the two and thereby it confuses our thinking on the topic.

In general, within the emerging global/US security framework, we are going to see much more use of private companies. There's no way around it. It can turn into a nightmare with hugely inefficient/dangerous, vertically integrated global contractors -- or -- we can horizontally bound the industry, use transparancy to create public trust, and reap the benefits of an innovative/efficient/responsive ecosystem.

[Mikyo]

Not sure what you mean by 'horizontally bound?'

[Duncan Kinder]

Blackwater is not Orkin.

We are talking about the use of deadly force against human beings.

It is not enough to establish that Blackwater is "not evil."

It must be good.

[James F. Elliott]

Mr. Robb,

I don't think it's quite fair to describe Peter Singer's piece in Salon (which reproduces parts of a longer report he wrote) as "hyper-ventilation" is fair. Singer has been following PMCs for over a decade; if anyone in think-tankery can be considered a knowledgable source, it's he.

Out of curiosity, have you read the piece "Disaster Capitalism" in the latest issue of Harper's? You are mentioned briefly. There's a companion piece that details some of the rather deplorable aspects of a contractor's terms of employment with Blackwater.

Best,

JFE

[James F. Elliott]

It would also help if I proof-read to insure that my first sentence was coherent. Just put a period after "hyper-ventilation."

[Marcello]

"rather than an informed/constructive debate on the future of private military contractors in warfare"

We should not have a "informed/constructive debate" about private military contractors because there should not be such a thing as private military contractors in first place. They (be it classic mercenaries or more mundane roles like towing artillery or logistical support) were already used in the past centuries. And the verdict of history was good riddance to the whole lot of them. It seems that those lessons will have to be learned again.
Most of the justifications for them are dubious to say the least. They do not have a DOD sized tooth-to-tail ratio? Maybe, but they do not have US Army capabilities either. Leave them alone in Iraq and clock how long it takes for them to be hung to the closest lamp posts (the luckiest ones, that is). They do not have medical costs comparable to US troops? Whatever, I doubt that contractors bleed less than normal humans so unless they can be dumped in a ditch somebody will have to pay.
They can be hired on a temporary basis and then sen home?
That's the biggest load of bullshit. First of all we are fighting the "Long War". Nobody is going to go home anytime soon. Then once entities like that get entrenched they will be able to succesfully lobby for their survival even if they have outlived their usefulness. Too many jobs, money and campaign contributions at stake to be simply terminated.
The only advantages I see is more money in private hands and less accountability (nobody cares for a dead contractor etc). To be sure these are advantages for some people. Not for society at large.

[John Robb]

Marcello, they are not going away. The only thing that can be done is manage their growth/use. No reversing the clock on this.

James, will read the Harper's article. Singer isn't that bad, his original book on the topic is solid.

[gmoke]

To expect any media narrative to go beyond "Blackwater's evil" is to ask for the the winning lottery ticket for your birthday.

The debate should be about creating fewer Temporary Autonomous Zones not more and an unaccountable mercenary industry is a TAZ in jurisdiction - US, Iraqi, and, possibly, international law.

This accountability gap is something that has been purposefully ignored by the Bush/Cheney junta, to the benefit of their political cronies like the owners of Blackwater. That is one good reason to suspect that Blackwater may be corrupt and at least one step toward evil too.

[Cavolonero]

Orkin ought to start up a military arm ! ( and maybe they will )

[Dr0]

Seeing as the job reqs. to be a Blackwater operator are 4 years in special forces I seriously doubt that any jihadi's are going to be hanging them from lamposts.

In fact they have a 100% effectiveness record in completing their missions, acording to sworn Senate testimony, with some, but not excessive casualties in their ranks.

Given the environment that is an amazing record.

These are the last people in the world anyone with a brain would want to fuck with.

Seems like a model for the future rather than something to whine about.

BTW: I thought TAZ's were good? I guess I'm thinking back the Hakim Bey's original work. Around here I take it the term has a slightly different meaning than Burning Man, eh?

[Glenn Condell]

'If anything, Blackwater's current problems have everything to do with its (ill advised) super-macho image and anger over an unpopular/unsuccessful war.'

Er, no. This seems to assume that Blackwater's problems lie in it's public image in the US. People don't like it's macho image, particularly when it's involved in such a giant cock-up.

Blackwater's problem is that the Iraqis have had a gutful of it, for very good reason, and have decided to get rid of it. That problem is not caused by Blackwater's image, it's caused by Blackwater's reality. And the Iraqi's anger is not the sort of pique we've seen in the US about 'an unpopular/unsuccessful war' - it's the anger you feel when half your family has been killed by goons in helmets from another country who then offer you five grand for your loss.

It's not 'the war' that's causing Blackwater grief, it's the occupation they are a part of, an illegal occupation from an illegal war, one which they are profiting handsomely from. The whole enterprise is evil for God's sake, so the chances of Blackwater or any of the other mercenaries smelling like roses is non-existent.

Prince's performance at Congress was what you would expect, which didn't make it any more palatable.

There is a dysfunction I agree in our take on these private armies but I would argue the dysfunction lies in NOT recognising their basic propensity for 'evil' (for want of a better word). The profit motive for them may involve killing people, and if there is no effective accountability under any auspice, that is a recipe for evil in effect, even if it's not intended.

Ever see that footage of contractors casually sniping at cars they thought were getting too close - full of families going about their business? Maybe those boys didn't intend to rob those kids of their parents, but the fact is they did. Maybe you or I don't think that's evil, but what about those kids?

The word evil (or good) distracts from the real issue, which is - how does it do our long term security (or defense or whatever) gain by turning foreigners hitherto harmless to our descendants, into desperate terrorists happy to die trying to kill us or our kids?

One day we will find it necessary to formally apologise to Iraq and it's citizens for what we've done, and the behaviour of these above-any-law private contractors will be one of the things we will need to be sorry for.

'it's clear that private military forces will be a major part of the global security equation, like it or not. The decline of the nation-sate ensures it. As a consequence, the real thrust of our collective efforts should be on methods to manage its emergence.'

I don't like it at all, but agree it's unavoidable. As you say, we need to manage it's emergence, but without the nation state, under what aegis? The UN? Are you an advocate of greater collective internationalist control/oversight of such trends? How does any entity in the absence of states hope to stand up to these emerging behemoths - cashed up, politically connected (and protected), meshed with military/intel structures and probably (let's face it) willing to deal with dangerous domestic critics in much the same way it does with pesky foreigners, though more quietly you'd assume.

'or -- we can horizontally bound the industry, use transparancy to create public trust, and reap the benefits of an innovative/efficient/responsive ecosystem.'

Sounds great. Who enforces this?

'Seems like a model for the future rather than something to whine about'

I guess that rather depends on your perspective, or lack thereof.

[Marcello]

"I seriously doubt that any jihadi's are going to be hanging them from lamposts."

"These are the last people in the world anyone with a brain would want to fuck with."

They already did. Except it was a bridge, if you remember. The only reason things like that are not everyday occurrence is that the US military, not Blackwater, can routinely smash any rebel concentration so that little beyond IEDs emplacing is possible.
The fact that you quote US SF experience being necessary only highlights the parasitism of such organization. Not only they are dependent on state forces to create an environment where they can operate but they are dependent on luring away the best US military personnel, whose training was paid with public money, with higher pay coming from public money.
And for their "success", I would like to see how well it compares to the military in the same circumstances.

[D.e.MacH]

In all the reports to Congress and in the media coverage Blackwater is said to have the highest number of incidents involving use of force compared with the other two companies working for the State Department.
But this is only talking about total numbers, this is by no way a statistic. To get something like an objective view you need to put the number of "use of force incidents" of all three companies in relation to the total number of missions provided for the State Department AND to where the incidents took place - Baghdad is simply more dangerous regarding IEDs and insurgent attacks than other places in Iraq.

Then there is the issue of “Blackwater is paying blood money to relatives of people they killed”. Yes, they do it and most probably most companies in Iraq do it. But has anyone talked about the hypocrisy of the diplomats discussing how much you can pay those victims without encouraging other Iraqis to get shot on purpose to ensure a better live for their families?

What about the notorious Christmas Eve killing of the bodyguard of the Iraqi VP? Yes the Blackwater employee was silently and quickly flown out of the country – with the assistance of State Department and more or less legally, if you consider Bremer’s Order 17 to be legal.
And this is by no mean the first time something like this happened. In the late 90’s there was a group of child abusers in Bosnia working for a logistics company under contract with the Army. They were also silently shipped out of harms way and never brought to trial.

To sum this up, the whole discussion in the media and congress must be put into perspective and the real question should not be “Is company XYZ evil?”, but “How was the behaviour of this company and the whole industry encouraged by lack of regulation and State Department help in cover-ups?” or to be more blunt “How stupid is the State Deparment?”

[Marcello]

"Marcello, they are not going away."

I know that. If we are to stick to a descriptive "what is going to happen" analysis, rather than a normative "what ought to be done" I too say they are going to stay. Not only that but they are going to expand their scope of operation. Their deployment in New Orleans was just a sneak preview of the things to come.

[Mikyo]

I see that the Blackwater have weapons and ammo, vehicles with fuel, training, uniforms, transportation, paychecks, the goodwill (or at least tolerance) of official government forces. All those provided to them by our tax dollars. As the nation declines, it's ability to provide must also decline. Yes?

[Marcello]

"Yes?"

No. Short of a civilizational collapse supporting an organization like that isn't exactly a back breaking exercise for a country like the United States. It is a matter of resource allocation priorities and rest assured that these guys will get the top spots. Even if that was not enough they still would not wither. They can still hire themselves out to corporations and local governments, providing services ranging from traditional protection to the elimination of troublemakers. IMHO even without external wars there will still be a substantial demand for this sort of services.

[Mikyo]

"Washington - Amid the fallout over the shooting of Iraqis by private American security guards, the House today overwhelmingly passed a bill to make all private contractors working in Iraq subject to prosecution in United States civilian courts." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100407T.shtml

I wonder if such prosecutions might soothe some of the controversy, and boost the credibility of the Maliki goverment?

[Duncan Kinder]

"make all private contractors working in Iraq subject to prosecution in United States civilian courts."

This is what is known as "extraterritoriality," where citizens of an occupying power are subject not to the laws not of the occupied country but rather of the occupier. Is is one of the big, bad no-no's of colonial history; has historically generated widespread resentment, and therefore do nothing to bolster the Baghdad regime.

John Robb, on the other hand, might find this development to be interesting because, in pre-colonial, pre-nation state times, various forms of extraterritoriality were the norm. For example, before the Protestant Reformation, priests, monks, and other clerics were subject only to Canon law the the jurisdiction of the Church's courts regardless of what country they were in. If a Frenchman who was in London should steal a loaf of bread, he would have been tried according to French, not British, law. And so forth.

Of course, you do realize that if this trend were to be expanded, it would mean that when Blackwater starts hiring former KGB agents and sends them to New Orleans to protect post-Katrina property, these agents would be subject to Russian - not Louisiana - law.

Which may be good, bad, or indifferent; but which few Americans have thought through.

[adam]

I was going to say something here, but Duncan and Marcello beat me to it, and said it better anyway.

I'd just note that Erik Prince, the boss of Blackwater, is already a billionaire (by inheritance) and politically connected. He's already mega-rich, so Blackwater isn't being run for the money. He's connected to Christian organisations, but ones which aren't from the "convert Muslims" school of Franklin Graham. Which leads to to think that this is political. My out-there thinkin is that sometimes I suspect that Prince is gearing up for a "super-patriotic American" presidential run in 2012 or 2016.

[jimbo]

@Marcello,

‘We should not have a "informed/constructive debate" about private military contractors because there should not be such a thing as private military contractors in first place.’

I think we need to remember an underlying Robb premise, the decline of the nation-state. In that context, IMO, PMCs will not only remain but expand into other areas traditionally thought to be the sole domain of the nation-state; policing, intelligence, defence, security, and so on.

If Robb is correct in his premise, and I for one believe he is, then we’re more likely to see a rise in PMC deployments by not only nation-states, but also by corporations, NGOs, and even by nation-state subsidiaries such as states, provinces, counties, etc., than not. We’re also more likely to see the reduction in scope and scale of nation-state armed forces as a function of reduced revenues to the nation-state, all part and parcel of its decline. The widespread meme that private companies always provide more “bang for the buck” will ensure PMCs continue to receive contracts for the foreseeable future even though there remains much to be sceptical about that “private is better” assumption, at least as far as I’m concerned.

I also agree with your position regarding Blackwater’s use of tax revenues in both creating the environment wherein they can successfully operate, as well as acquiring the expertise created by taxpayer funded SFs training and deployment. Externalities are all part of the corporate methodology to maximise profit while minimising expense. If Blackwater had to pay all the monetary costs to establish the territory in which it was deploying, as well as train all of its personnel to the standard it requires, from internal funding, we’d see a very different Blackwater indeed.

[Marcello]

"I think we need to remember an underlying Robb premise, the decline of the nation-state."

The issue isn't that it is going to happen, on which I agree. The issue is rather than being an efficient tool to do the job it is actually a catastrophic development whose ramifications are being blissfully ignored and should be fought and delayed as lonf as possible.

In regards to environment I was referring to Iraq, where any potential large scale threat to Blackwater is routinely crushed
by the US Army.

Frankly the only reason which could possibly justify the use of such organizations would be that the US Army was so paralyzed by bureaucracy and inertia that any reform to make it capable of fighting the new wars is impossible; thus starting from scratch with new organizations would be the only course of action. Given however Blackwater propensity to make the same mistakes the Army does,like firing against crowds, this is obviously not the case.

[jimbo]

@Marcello,

As regards environment, I was just expanding to include anywhere a PMC might operate. If a PMC had to directly pay the costs of securing that environment, be it Iraq or any other location, we wouldn’t see them operating there. As you rightly point out, without US forces operating Blackwater wouldn’t have lasted long. Blackwater, and all the other PMCs, as you’ve already said, are parasites feasting on the US taxpayer and should be removed from Iraq immediately.

Is it reasonable to have contractors providing some support services? Possibly. I, for one, do not think private contractors should be involved in combat or combat support whatsoever. They probably have a role to play in combat service support, and the greater logistics requirement.

As for providing “security” by contract for whoever, whether it be the State Department or officials of the Iraqi government, I wonder why it is they are unable to provide it for themselves. Certainly US forces or employees of the State Department should be responsible for security. The same should be true for Iraqi officials. If a corporation or NGO requires security for its personnel then maybe a PMC is the correct option. However, if the tasks of a corporate or NGO is essential to the overall mission, say the restoration of the electrical grid or oil infrastructure, then it seems to me the military forces already on the ground should be the ones with the mandate to provide security, not private contractors.

Like you, I believe engaging Blackwater, and all its clones, to do the jobs US forces or Iraqi forces should be doing is a mistake and sets a precedent that will probably be impossible to rollback.

[Duncan Kinder]

1) How does Blackwater respond when one of its lieutenants decides that he, too, wants to be a billionaire and simply breaks off to form "Greenwater"? Similarly, could a power struggle within Blackwater give a new meaning to the term, "corporate coup." How does the Prince family plan to retain its billions if some of their subordinates decide simply to grab it?

2) Without the US military, what logistics would Blackwater rely upon?

3) Would a plan for the US military entirely to evacuate Iraq and replace the occupation force entirely with Blackwater work? If not, why not? What does this suggest about Blackwater's actual capabilities if divorced from the US military's backing it up.

[adam]

Hi Duncan,

I'm a little bit exhausted (last night I was tired and emotional) so this might not be as accurate as I'd hope.

To answer your questions:

"1) How does Blackwater respond when one of its lieutenants decides that he, too, wants to be a billionaire and simply breaks off to form "Greenwater"? "

Errm. Well. Greenwater will have to get US government contracts, and Prince is personally well connected in the Republican party. Then they'd have to operate in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where there is no actual legal system as such anymore - Private Eye this week has a fun look at how PMCs in Iraq use faked Iraqi arrest warrants to eliminate the particularly effective operatives that other companies have, or people that start asking awkward questions. Apparently contractors and journalists that are "accidentally" arrested in Iraq are not treated very well by the Iraqis. Then of course they are in a place where lots of people get shot or blown up every day. I suppose the question is how cynical do you feel?

"Similarly, could a power struggle within Blackwater give a new meaning to the term, "corporate coup." "

Yes. It could also give new meaning to "blood on the carpet" :-D

"How does the Prince family plan to retain its billions if some of their subordinates decide simply to grab it?"

Thats more awkward. First the Princes live in the US so there is a certain amount of legal and political protection. On the other hand if a subordinate should choose to cluster-bomb (or simpler yet poison gas) their garden party and follow it up with a squad armed with bayonets then, being dead, there isn't much they can do.

Machiavelli has some rather sharp observations about mercenaries in general, and mercenary captains in particular.

Machiavelli's the Prince - chapter 12. "Mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them... when arms have to be resorted to, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince ought to go in person and perform the duty of captain; the republic has to send its citizens... experience has shown princes and republics, single-handed, making the greatest progress, and mercenaries doing nothing except damage"

So Machiavelli, something of an expert in mercenaries, has more than a passing doubt about them and their effectiveness - mercenaries only do damage to a cause. You'll also note that he argues for the nation to send its own troops. We'll jump that argument for now.

"2) Without the US military, what logistics would Blackwater rely upon?"

Local logistics, being whatever they can steal or extort. There's a fun book called "Making a Killing" in which an ex-British Army officer notes the massive logistic problems his company had getting ammo and body armour into Iraq from Kuwait - and that was in the good times of 2003-4 when Iraq was quite peaceful. After all, without the US military, Blackwater would just be another heavily armed foreign gang in Iraq. To put it another way without US soldiers keeping the Blackwater team safe at night the whole thing would stop working.

"3) Would a plan for the US military entirely to evacuate Iraq and replace the occupation force entirely with Blackwater work?"

No. Blackwater people clearly aren't mature enough to handle complicated local issues such as sewage or communications with local politicians. On the other hand they are quite capable of re-enacting most of the stupider moments of the occupation such as machine-gunning crowds for, as far as anyone can tell, no reason at all.

While I don't have much faith in the US militaries abilities at handling counterinsurgency, based on the last five years observation, I have a great deal less faith in the US militaries cast-offs (favourite description of the PMCs in the early days - "the ex-Special Forces guys that fucked up a knee on their last jump and weren't worth fixing" Mind you, that was back in the days when quality counted.). Actually I think that the US military still cannot find its arse with both hands and a nurse in Iraq, but then Blackwater doesn't even know to look for its arse.

"What does this suggest about Blackwater's actual capabilities if divorced from the US military's backing it up."

Blackwaters actual capabilities are pretty close to zero without the US military in support.

Mind you, reality isn't slowing Blackwater down. Fun fact: Blackwater are now touting a Brigade sized element for peacekeeping (really! They have no shame.) Its clear that they think that the good times in Iraq are coming to an end. But who would hire them now? Blackwater is a synonym for incompetent trigger happy sadism.

On the other hand its also clear that Blackwater are available for hire by any country, not just America, so its not impossible that the American mercenaries will wind up on the mass murdering war criminals side, because mass murdering war criminals do seem to have all the money. For an early example of this the British Journalist Robert Fox who apparently ran into (US) mercenary snipers working for the military dictatorship of the Argentinians in the Falklands. A long running British army urban legend has it that they were later taken out and shot (by a combination of any or all of the SAS, Paras, Ghurkhas, SBS, Royal Marines, a passing Sea Harrier or wandering members of Age Concern) but I have some serious doubts about the whole thing - the order to off the yanks would have had to have come from Whitehall, unless blood was really up.

Even so my point is that sooner or later Blackwater is going to be working for some seriously evil dictatorship (Burma may be hiring) and they may well run into regular professional troops from the wrong angle.

[Duncan Kinder]

Hello Adam,

Much of the prior discussion has been to the effect that private companies, such as Blackwater, are somehow this steroids enhanced successor to the creaky, outmoded old nation-state, which is fading into oblivion.

While I happen to agree that the nation-state is fading into oblivion, that gives rise to the question of what would happen to Blackwater if it were to be deprived of the present implements of the nation-state to back it up.

Republican Party connections, government contracts, and even money are nice - but absent a viable state they constitute Monopoly-money type things. Greenwater, according to my hypothetical, is the Blackwater unit dispatched to - say - Mexico ( a geographic expression ), that has decided that it can opportunistically cut a better deal with the local warlord or whatever is running the show down there.

Absent a viable United States as a nation-state, the Princes could no more rely upon current legal protections than they could rely upon the Code of Hammurabi. They would have to rely upon their own guards, which begs the question of what they might do should those guards turn upon them. This problem would be particularly acute in second and third generation times, when the Prince family no longer has Navy Seal background and expertise. History is filled with examples of such episodes.

More fundamentally, the corporation is very much a creature of the nation-state. Take away that state, and corporations loose that foundation upon which they depend.

[adam]

Duncan,

All good points. In order to give my fairly ropey answer to them I can only point at a copy of the BBC's excellent "I, Claudius" (or alternatively the book, which is reasonable) because I suspect that, in the situation, you describe the family will be far closer to the Imperial Roman family surrounded by the disloyal and politically active Praetorian Guard than anything else.

Possibly my favourite line:
Herod: "Trust no one, my friend, no one. Not your most grateful freedman. Not your most intimate friend. Not your dearest child. Not the wife of your bosom. Trust no one."
Claudius: "No one? Not even you?"

Actually its oddly interesting - that the Americans, at a time of Imperial expansion, should choose to produce a lavish production of "Rome" set in the time of the expansion of the Roman empire. The British, after a time of imperial collapse, chose "I, Claudius" for a similar treatment which features a period of... Imperial collapse. An odd coincidence.