Black Water’s legal boundaries are so undefined that it’s difficult to delineate an image of the injustice surrounding the many cases of inappropriate procedure (which for most of us are immediately recognizable as murder). It appears as though the focus at this point is fixated on Black Waters finances (no doubt due to the fact that the oversight committee was instructed to steer clear of the two most highly publicized incidents involving reckless and excessive conduct). However, I’m pleased to see that Chairman Waxman simple explicated the fact that the state department is clearly the “enabler” of a corporation like black water and justifiably should be partly held accountable for Black Water’s operations in Iraq. There is no doubt that Black Water carries out its ‘intended’ goals effectively. However the question still remains whether or not Black Water, in its neglect of all of the nasty unforeseen avenues that it creates, is undermining and destabilizing key diplomatic components necessary for success in Iraq
(I use ‘success’ begrudgingly)?
Is Erik Prince correct when he talks about the necessity of a private agency (like Black Water with all of its perks) to accompany the military services in their endeavor to stabilize Iraq?
If Black Water (or anything like it) doesn’t buckle under the impending and almost certain ‘state-department protecting’ litigation that seems inexorably directed at it, what sort of legal boundaries could we create (with good conscience) for a private entity such as this?
6 comments:
Blackwater seems to operate outside of all laws. Not subject to military law or Iraqi law, they have been virtually immune from any oversight. But Blackwater, as a private organization, has no power to prosecute anyone, even if they did desire. This clearly places the blame at the feet of the state department, who granted Blackwater immunity from prosecution.
In a war where the need to be seen as a legitimate and ethical occupier is much of the goal, Blackwater is certainly an undermining force. Are they neccessary? Perhaps as a short term way to bolster US forces, but for them to be permanently deployed in Iraq seems unreasonable.
Mercenary forces dispense with the thin veneer that war is about anything but profit. This may be true, but this thin veneer acts as a useful constraint on a soldier's behavior. Without the illusions of military honor and the threat of court martial, it is impossible to think that a member of Blackwater, or any other private security group, would make responsible decisions concerning the use of force. For private security to be legitimate, they would have to operate under some sort of legal constraints. Whether that should be US law, military law, or international law, I don't know. The heavy use of private security in Iraq seems to be a way to satisfy some Pentagon bureaucrats's 21st century effiency boner, where the war is waged entirely by drones and mercenaries. What a fiasco.
I think those illusions of military honor and the fear of court martial certainly maintain the platitude of responsibility within the military. However, in Iraq, even though these fetters are in place, there still seems to be a considerable amount irresponsible and obscene conduct within the military. Which leads me to believe that perhaps in addition to a lack of legal constraints (and military honor and the fear of court martial), the ‘bad decisions’ made by Black Water employees are a result a similar confusion and anxiety that military personnel, who are prosecuted for crimes, speak about. Their response is exactly the same, excessive and misdirected force.
Occupation of hostile foreign country where enemies are indistingushable from civilians, unclear objectives, constraint on your use of force while the enemy has none on their's, constant fear of death= madness. Civilians end up receiving this directionless anger. Is the idea of prosecuting someone for murder during a war somewhat absurd? Can a soldier trained to pull triggers really be expected to make fine ethical distinctions? Not that I think all morality should be abandoned, but to prosecute soldiers put into the fuckhole of Iraq as if they were civilians committing murder seems unfair.
I don't know how much Blackwater operates "outside the law" as much as they have no judiciary establishment to dictate their conduct. My knowledge is limited, but I know of no precedent to gauge their conduct against. As of last July there were between 120,000 and 150,000 "PMC's" employed in Iraq. That's equal to the number of U.S. military personnel. These include firms based out of Germany, Israel, Canada, Poland, Russia and many others. This creates difficulty when trying to establish guidelines for conduct, because it enters the realm of international law, an entirely different moral conundrum. One of my favorite authors wrote this (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1845958/posts), which unfortunately I had to link through a rather ugly partisan site because the author removed it from his own. Most of the info I just gave came from this article, and I think he poses an interesting alternative: outsource the ENTIRE war to PMC's. It doesn't solve the dilemma of disreputable conduct reflecting on us, but now its once-removed and indirect. Plus, mercenaries aren't bound by the "military honor", and U.S. soldiers don't need to be subject to a conflict of ideals and orders. Of course this solution creates a slew of new controversies, such as what purpose does a standing military then serve, what manner of allegiance we can expect, etc. etc. The author himself has a bit of what you describe as an "efficiency boner" in respect to future warfare, but it makes for an interesting read.
Well said.
Post a Comment