One of America's nastiest secrets is the extent to which we are fighting hidden wars with private armies and mercenaries. They aren't accountable, but they are run by retired US military; they sell their services to us, but we aren't supposed to know about it. Worst of all, when they also (as they have) take part in atrocities, they do so while wearing our uniforms without the insignias -- uniforms which make them appear to be legitimate members of the US military. That means, as when one contingent ran a prostitution ring in Serbia, they are known to be Americans and believed to be real military -- not exactly giving a good impression of the US. We know a little about Diebold and Dyncorp and other similar corporations, mostly situated in plain buildings in the outskirts of Washington, but we don't know the half of it! Their CEO's have unusual access to the Pentagon and Congress and influence policy, creating situations from which they can profit. We pay them; they are not accountable to us.
Terry Gross interviews the author of a new book -- "Corporate Warriors" -- today on Fresh Air. Here's a blurb on the book:
Corporate Warriors
The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry
by P. W. Singer
Cornell University Press
In this book, Singer provides the first account of the military services industry and its broader implications. Corporate Warriors includes a description of how the business works, as well as portraits of each of the basic types of companies: military providers that offer troops for tactical operations; military consultants that supply expert advice and training; and military support companies that sell logistics, intelligence, and engineering.
The privatization of warfare allows startling new capabilities and efficiencies in the ways that war is carried out. At the same time, however, Singer finds that the entrance of the profit motive onto the battlefield raises a series of troubling questions--for democracy, for ethics, for management, for human rights, and for national security.
"After reading this book, it is impossible to see the landscape of insurgencies, civil wars, and inter-state wars the same way again. Peter Singer's book is a rare find: a study of the breakdown of the state monopoly on war that challenges basic assumptions in international relations theory; an exploration of the many different ways in which privatized military firms pose both problems and opportunities for policymakers; and a fascinating read for anyone interested in the changing nature of both international security and international politics."--Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
"A must read for anyone interested in the art of war, Corporate Warriors is a fascinating analysis of a new, often secretive, global industry. Marked by impressive research, this path-breaking study describes a pattern of increasing reliance on private military firms by individuals, corporations, humanitarian groups, governments, and international organizations. This is a masterful book that will appeal to students, scholars, policymakers, and lay readers alike."--Stephanie G. Neuman, Director of the Comparative Defense Studies Program, Columbia University
A
About say's it all ......
July 08, 2003
Text of Letter to Secretary Rumsfeld Expressing Concerns of Guard Families
July 8, 2003
The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301
Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:
I have been contacted by a number of my constituents about the extended deployments of National Guard and Reserve units from West Virginia. I write to express my serious concern about the content of these reports.
I have received letters, e-mails, and phone calls from the families of those who serve in the 459th Engineer Company, the 157th Military Police Company, the 1092nd Engineer Battalion, the 363rd Military Police Company, the 233rd Quartermaster Company, and various members of the Individual Ready Reserve.
All of the letters I have received express deep frustration with the length of deployment of the National Guard and Reserve units. A number of troops and their families have expressed desperation at trying to get any sort of information about when their units might be returning to the United States. Others have been told to expect their deployment to last until January 2004. At least one reservist had been given a date to return to the United States, only to have that date changed five times. Although this soldier was issued orders that his deployment was not to exceed 179 days, he has now been overseas for more than 200 days, and he was recently told that he could remain overseas until September.
It is important to note that some of the units that have been deployed to Iraq on missions of uncertain duration have already been strained by previous missions. For example, the 157th Military Police Company was activated for state duty in response to flooding in the summer of 2001, then spent one year deployed in support of homeland security missions, and was again mobilized in February 2003 for duty in the Persian Gulf region. While these citizen-soldiers are proud to serve their country, they have expected some limits on how often their unit can be expected to mobilize.
Along with the frustration about the length of deployments for members of the reserve component, several constituents have reported that their units in Iraq are without a useful or well-defined mission. Units have complained of daily tasks that are either wasteful or insufficient to keep the troops occupied. Others report that they never received any training for potentially dangerous missions, such as hauling Iraqi ammunition.
Another e-mail, whose author says that she is writing on behalf of a military police company, stated her point succinctly. She wrote: "They want me to emphasize that they did indeed join the military to serve their country. However, they were told that they have no mission and do not want to be sent to Iraq merely for someone's political gain. They really just want to know when they are coming home."
I have also received several reports of rationing of basic supplies and services. At a family support meeting, families were told that one unit had limited supplies of food and water rations of just 20 ounces per day. Soldiers with another National Guard unit have reported through their families that they are only allowed one 10-minute phone call home every several weeks.
In addition to these reports, the wife of one soldier has reported that, during a family readiness meeting, she was warned not to contact her representatives in Congress to seek redress of these legitimate grievances because her husband's commanding officer might take away from his troops telephone use and other privileges.
These reports of open-ended or vague missions and the shortage in critical supplies and services should be taken very seriously. While our citizen-soldiers are proud to serve their country, they also have an obligation to serve their communities, their jobs, and their families.
I respectfully request that you look into these reports. My constituents are anxious to know when their family members who are deployed as part of the National Guard and the reserves may expect to return to the United States. I join them in expressing the concern that too much of the nation's focus has shifted away from these men and women who still stand in harm's way since the major combat operations in Iraq have been declared over. I look forward to your response.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Robert C. Byrd
Senator Byrd, dealing with Rumsfeld at the hearings like a bulldog with a sock, finally coaxed out of him that we are spending four billion a month in the "reconstruction" of Iraq. That's twice the estimates. I would say this administration has some trouble making projections, other than the Pinnochio noses growing out the White House front door with a lovely tropical garden sprouting at the end. Byrd managed to machete his way through some of the jungle of rhetoric and hidden agendas.
Officials 'believe Iraq hasn't got weapons of mass destruction'
British Government officials reportedly believe Iraq has not got any weapons of mass destruction.
BBC political editor Andrew Marr says very senior sources in Whitehall have virtually ruled out the possibility of finding weapons.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_798452.html
p
Why the CEO in Chief Needs an Audit
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, July 10, 2003; Page A23
The Bush White House is run on a business model. The president is the CEO. He delegates to others, including the vice president, who was once a CEO himself. It therefore should come as no surprise that George W. Bush, a Harvard MBA after all, is doing what other CEOs do when they get into trouble. In his case, he's "restated" his reasons for going to war.
Click me
"I would say this administration has some trouble making projections..."
You're being VERY polite, LW! This administration has discovered that it can say one thing and do another without (until lately) getting into any trouble. The report out of Africa this morning, in which Bush asserts that we are increasing financial support, included research from the Congressional Budget Office which shows that, in FACT, the Bush administration has decreased aid to Africa by an overall 6% -- not a 6% decrease in an increase, but a straightforward 6% decrease.
The Africans know he's a liar, the rest of the world knows he's a liar, and it looks like the US is beginning to catch up!
I was being, of course, facetious. If this is what Dubya learned in HBS then I have far less respect for that institution than I had before. The school stresses salesmanship. Well, we've been a victim of the hard close instead of ethical persuasion. The White House is the "closing room," like that little room the car dealer ushers one into for the ultimate razzle dazzle. Dubya just ain't dazzling me -- I've been in sales long enough to recognize the sales style. He got a degree at Harvard allright, a degree of officious, mediocre business practices.
MBA< Mediocre Business Advise. c.i.
I am changing my descriptor for GWB, in my view - he is now a:
Main Entry: buf·foon
Pronunciation: (")b&-'fün
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French bouffon, from Old Italian buffone
Date: 1585
1 : a ludicrous figure : CLOWN
2 : a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person
- buf·foon·ish /-'fü-nish/ adjective
He may have bought a Yale and Havard degree, there is no evidence he actually deserved one!!!!!!!!!
Blair has lost a lot of credibility over the non-production of WMD. But not with me as they were only ever the legal pretext for war in the first place. Scottish MP has said he must resign if they are not found soon. B*******
Hi to everyone btw...been busy recently
Haven't missed much . . . lot's of moribund equines bein' flogged . . . some humor, less humour . . .
Setanta wrote:some humor, less humour . . .
Here? Humour?
(So you weren't serious that you resolved all the world problem's? And your police and parking lot adventures were just a joke?)
Humerous material makes fine compost
Li Tchao Zee*
340 BC Hang dynasty China
* better know as Hu Flung Dung
I'm listening to a report on NPR about how people are doing without electricity and basic services in and around Baghdad, and it's making me really, really angry. Electricity is intermittent at best, meaning that those whose work depends on it don't have work. Whatever else you may think of the Bush administration, this is a ghastly failure, very cruel for innocent Iraqis. And why the hell we haven't managed to get the power on is a question I'd like to see answered. Absent the power, why can't we subsidize those who depend on it?
Since the bloody administration and its military can't seem to do it, I wonder whether there are organizations -- charities and NGO's -- out there which will -- and through which we Americans (hell, we owe Iraq something) could contribute whatever we can. Or is it pointless? Would the military refuse to let others fix the power supply and get people the services and money they need to survive? This appears to be one of those bureaucratic situations which turns out to be a killer. Franks is now saying we'll be in Iraq for at least four years. Will our efforts improve? Or will America be known for its "third-world" incompetence?
Are the wheels starting to come off, the trickle down has begun:
Quote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995188,00.html
White House 'lied about Saddam threat'
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday July 10, 2003
The Guardian
A former US intelligence official who served under the Bush administration in the build-up to the Iraq war accused the White House yesterday of lying about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The claims came as the Bush administration was fighting to shore up its credibility among a series of anonymous government leaks over its distortion of US intelligence to manufacture a case against Saddam.
This was the first time an administration official has put his name to specific claims. The whistleblower, Gregory Thielmann, served as a director in the state department's bureau of intelligence until his retirement in September, and had access to the classified reports which formed the basis for the US case against Saddam, spelled out by President Bush and his aides.
Mr Thielmannn said yesterday: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."
NOTE - FOX NEWS
Quote: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3061649
Rumsfeld: No New Iraq Weapons Evidence Before War
Wed July 9, 2003 11:16 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Wednesday the United States did not go to war with Iraq because of dramatic new evidence of banned weapons but because it saw existing information on Iraqi arms programs in a new light after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Quote: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3070107
Kerry Calls on Bush 'To Tell the Truth' About Iraq
Thu July 10, 2003 02:02 PM ET
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic White House contender John Kerry called on President Bush on Thursday "to tell the truth" about Iraq -- including the fact that "the war is continuing and so are the casualties."
The Massachusetts senator also urged Bush to acknowledge that "we lack sufficient forces to do the job of reconstruction in Iraq," and need more help from allies.
Kerry's critique was arguably the toughest so far by any of the four Democrats in the U.S. Congress who voted to authorize Bush to use force, and are now seeking their party's 2004 presidential nomination.
Tartarin
The problems you speak of are for the most part being caused by looting, stealing and sabotage by the Iraqi's themselves. They have blown up power stations and stolen everything that isn't nailed down and in many instances that which is nailed down. These people have literally turned into bulls in a China shop. Could it be that Saddam was right the only way to control them is through terror.
au1929 wrote:Could it be that Saddam was right the only way to control them is through terror.
So you suggest, this should be the 'leitmotiv' of the US policy in Iraq: terror?
And you think, citizens of a (any) country should ne controlled by their government?
Bill -- Nice line-up! I'm particularly gratified by the official version of the distance those missiles could reach. We all KNEW they had a shorter trajectory; Jane's was saying so; real experts were saying so. And voila, it is now gospel.
Au -- you're begging the question big-time up there. Why would they be looting and stealing? Or better, why are they STILL looting and stealing?
