1. "Efforts to Prosecute Blackwater Are Collapsing"
2. "Use of Contractors Added to War’s Chaos in Iraq"
3. "Blackwater Founder Moves to Abu Dhabi, Records Say "
Nov 3, 2010
"blackwater or xe services"
Just want to share these three articles from the nytimes about blackwater. Our discussion earlier was really interesting, as always. So here are the latest articles I could find that reiterate and resonate themes discussed earlier (accountability, litigation, and Eric Prince etc.,).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's ridiculous that the first articles says that there were 120 cases filed against these contracted military services yet we still see no justice. Clearly Prince is scared if he's not only renaming his his company and then dodging accusations by moving to Abu Dhabi. Polanyi talks about a tension between government protectionism and corporations' push for free trade. However, it's clear that justice isn't being served because the government is made up of pro-capitalist war hawks and those seeking greater regulation. This tension within the government is seriously tearing at the fabric of democracy.
This last point/question is quite unrelated to the articles but I have been wondering what kind of attitudes people have towards contracted military men/women. When we've spoken about the industrial military complex before, it's always been about how our culture finds ways to idolize and praise servicemen/women. Warmaking has been characterized as dedication to the country in the purest form. Well, how does that change when you're still contributing to warmaking but under the title of a contracted worker under a company that profits from war?
I had similar thoughts on the private contracting of military. My thoughts were that private military would lead to a ‘brain drain” from the public service In line with private industry, profits and free markets is the movement of labor. A growing profitable industry in a competitive environment (as long as profits are there to be made) will lure labor at higher prices. As long as there is war and profits, then the shift to private industry will attract many individuals that have the opportunity to make more money while still serving their country (in theory). In class discussion, it was also mentioned that much of the cost and investment happen at the expense of the state in training, and then competition pulls them away.. This is exactly what happens in the capitalist business world and in a government administration that is pro-capital. It all becomes more individual and less of a nation or community. Maybe as the control and power of warfare continue to become more fragmented and global and based on profits, there will be less of idolizing of service women and men. Do you think there will be more of an idea of attaching money to their job so less idolizing may happen?
Cecilia, thanks for your response. Like what we have talked about in class, it is one of the many dangers of a profit-oriented military service (not quite sure how to articulate this). Not only is there no accountability to the bulk of Americans and those who were victimized while BW was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also those who work for them as Scahill pointed out in his work. This part reminds of Marx's primitive accumulation, where since it is a business after all, to cuts costs and maximize profits are the main focus of it all. As for your second comment, this reminds of Gramsci's concept of hegemony and the production of consent and even Foucault's concept of subjectivity and power. it is a question that is hard to answer--(1) maybe, some of them are already aware of this, (2) some might believe that it is an act of patriotism but with more benefits...i can only theorize about it.. i think there is this sense of conditioning, and there might be different factors at play. one thing is for sure, they are there because they believe in what they are doing--how they have come to do so is my question.. what do you think?
jessica, you do raise interesting points as well. yes, you are right, in theory it is the ideal situation, but also there is that example the Scahill talks about where members of the four BW Contractors deployed were killed in a skirmish. Their family members sued the company for wrongful deaths because they argued that they did not have the proper or high-grade weapons and were 2 (or 3) men short when they were sent out. In class, we also talked about how there are more benefits to being employed by the government as opposed to being employed by BW. -- i am not quite sure on how to answer your question, but I think that those hardcore military enthusiasts or patriots who think warfare is the answer are the ones who idolize the act of warmaking as a way of "defending" or "preserving" US interests/sovereignty overseas,and given the capitalist orientation of this country, in a more radical sense, there might be more idolizing that will occur...
i am still thinking about this as i type.... nevertheless, thank you to the both of you for a fruitful exchange! ;)
tiffany, i meant in theory from a profit seeking capitalist global world we are currently in. Not my view or ideal situation at all, I was just explaining how given this current environment and rapid pace of privitizing military and globalization, I can see how a brain drain away from government service men/women is potentially happening. And potentially as it further develops the wider general public would begin to less idolize service as more and more people would be in the profit industry side of it rather than the public service side . Sorry for lack of clear explanation
Post a Comment