Subcontracting war

New reports cast more doubt on the use of private contractors in a war zone. CNN is reporting that the watchdog group Project On Government Oversight (POGO) briefed reporters and sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about widespread hazing incidents allegedly taking place at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan.

POGO says two weeks ago it began receiving whistleblower-style e-mails, some with graphic images and videos, that are said to document problems taking place at a non-military camp for the guards near the U.S. diplomatic compound in Kabul. "This is well beyond partying," said Danielle Brian, POGO's executive director, after showing a video of a man with a bare backside, and another man apparently drinking a liquid that had been poured down the man's lower back.
These latest allegations are about ArmorGroup, a British company that was formed in 1981. These types of companies have seen exploding rates of growth since the start of the Iraq war as more and more functions that have been traditionally assigned to the military have been outsourced to private security companies. In 2004 it was reported that there were over 180 private companies providing services in Iraq. This massive deployment has skewed traditional warfighting:
In the first Gulf War 15 years ago, the ratio of private contractors to troops was 1 to 60; in the current war, it's 1 to 3. In fact, the private sector has put more boots on the ground in Iraq than all of the United States' coalition partners combined. One scholar, Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution, suggests that Bush's "coalition of the willing" would be more aptly described as the "coalition of the billing." Those bills are in the billions and rising.

Continue ReadingSubcontracting war

Note to most mourning journalists: You are not like Walter Cronkite

Glenn Greenwald offers yet another column sharply critical of many of today's so-called journalists. It is well worth reading the entire thing. Here's an excerpt:

[M]edia stars will spend ample time flamboyantly commemorating Cronkite's death as though he reflects well on what they do (though probably not nearly as much time as they spent dwelling on the death of Tim Russert, whose sycophantic servitude to Beltway power and "accommodating head waiter"-like, mindless stenography did indeed represent quite accurately what today's media stars actually do). In fact, within Cronkite's most

[caption id="attachment_8158" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image: public domain: Library of Congress"]Image: public domain: Library of Congress[/caption] important moments one finds the essence of journalism that today's modern media stars not only fail to exhibit, but explicitly disclaim as their responsibility. Greenwald also quotes New York Magazine's Yada Juan, quoting Harper's Lewis Lapham:

The new tradition is that the press speaks on behalf of the government.” An example? “Tim Russert was a spokesman for power, wealth, and privilege,” Lapham said. “That’s why 1,000 people came to his memorial service. Because essentially he was a shill for the government. It didn’t matter whether it was Democratic or Republican. It was for the status quo.” What about Russert’s rep for catching pols in lies? “That was bullshit,” he said.

Greenwald includes a short clip of an interview where Walter Cronkite expresses his greatest regret. And here is one of his best moments, when he forcefully spoke truth to power. Note:, Even Cronkite got caught up on the power and patriotism of war, a fact that is documented in the transcript of the excellent documentary, "War Made Easy," which I reviewed here.

NORMAN SOLOMON: Every war, we have US news media that have praised the latest in the state-of-the-art killing technology, from the present moment to the war in Vietnam.

WALTER CRONKITE: B-57s -- the British call them Canberra jets -- we're using them very effectively here in this war in Vietnam to dive-bomb the Vietcong in these jungles beyond Da Nang here. Colonel, what’s our mission we're about to embark on?

AIR FORCE COLONEL: Well, our mission today, sir, is to report down to the site of the ambush seventy miles south of here and attempt to kill the VC.

WALTER CRONKITE: The colonel has just advised me that that is our target area right over there. One, two, three, four, we dropped our bomb, but now a tremendous G-load as we pull out of that dive. Oh, I know something of what those astronauts must go through. Well, colonel.

AIR FORCE COLONEL: Yes, sir.

WALTER CRONKITE: It’s a great way to go to war.

You can watch the entire documentary here (1 hour and 10 mintes) .

Continue ReadingNote to most mourning journalists: You are not like Walter Cronkite

Six years later, we’re starting to talk sense

Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? Nothing floated by the Bu$h administration made any sense. All of Bush's reasons have long been shot down. Now we learn of an April 2001 report, "Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy at the request of then-Vice President Dick Cheney. Truthout discusses the report and the historical context:

Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain "a prisoner of its energy dilemma" as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.
I'm not suggesting that an oil grab was a legitimate reason to invade. I'm merely suggesting that it was the real (and unadmitted) reason for Bu$h to invade.

Continue ReadingSix years later, we’re starting to talk sense

The real reason Bush invaded Iraq . . .

Why did George W. Bush invade Iraq? Clive Hamilton confirms one of my suspicions at Alternet:

In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France's President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated. . . President Bush's reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam's Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.

Continue ReadingThe real reason Bush invaded Iraq . . .

Rumsfeld’s religious war

I'm truly disgusted to learn of newest evidence for the religious underpinnings for Donald Rumsfeld's (and George Bush's) thought process. GQ has revealed that Rumsfeld authored an entire series of Bible/war memos, "Top Secret Briefings," to get Bush fired up that he was on God's side in a Manichean struggle.

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine.

For those who say that religion is good, that is sometimes true. Many people have been inspired by religion to channel their natural empathy into acts of kindness. To those who say religion is dangerous, that is also sometimes true, as witnessed by America's religious war waged in Iraq. Thanks to the Bush Administration's application of religion, 100,000 people are dead, tens of thousands of Americans wounded, and millions of Iraqis who have lost their homes. I would say, as a general rule that we should always discourage violence in the name of religion. Religion is too often a potent mind-altering trip. Too often, it causes people to unplug their pre-frontal cortices, so that their base instincts, especially their xenophobia, rise's to the top. Religion is too often used to concoct needless imaginary lines between and among groups of people, resulting in growing distrust, which too often ripens into seething hate. Bottom line: Thanks to Rumsfeld's (and Bush's) embrace of what we now know (better than ever) to be religious violence, our "secular" government was able to conclude that their religious ends justified their military means, and that any lie, any torture, and any amount of collateral damage was justified. All of this in the name of God.

Continue ReadingRumsfeld’s religious war