SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Yesterday I sat in a conference room overlooking the Hudson River Valley in the United States Military Academy at West Point listening to an impressive array of military lawyers discuss the issues associated with the war on terror. One question kept asserting itself, even though it was missing from the formal agenda: “What are we going to do about the contractors?” As one retired JAG put it, “their conduct is dangerously undercutting the military’s performance of its counter-insurgency mission.” Another young Marine major referred to Blackwater’s conduct on September 16 as another demonstration of their practice of “spray and pray.”
“Lighting up an entire city block because a car engine backfires,” he said, “doesn’t protect lives; it endangers the lives of American soldiers performing a mission in Iraq.” Contractors, it was acknowledged, help the military perform its mission in many important ways. But contractors were also introducing terrible new problems that were not being effectively addressed.
It struck me as a repeat performance, because a day earlier I met with a group of Congressmen in the grand hearing room of the Agriculture Committee in the Longworth Building in Washington, and heard the same concerns. Underlying these concerns is a sense that the contractors themselves control the contract relationship. That concern is fueled by the really extraordinary steps taken by some government agencies to provide cover for the contractors when they screw up, as well as by the extraordinary terms the contractors have obtained.
Indeed, those asking the ancient question of “Who guards the guardians?” are going to have a field day with the State Department’s interim report, which is described in today’s Washington Post. It observes that
the events that led to the shooting involved three Blackwater units. One of them was ambushed near the traffic circle and returned fire before fleeing the scene, the report said. Another unit that went to the intersection was then surrounded by Iraqis and had to be extricated by the U.S. military, it added.
This interim report follows the roadposts characteristic of earlier incident whitewashes: it credits only the statements of those under investigation and makes no independent effort to interview witnesses at the scene or to develop forensic evidence. The State Department’s interim report constitutes very powerful evidence: of the State Department’s fixed intention to fully exonerate those involved, whatever the facts are. Which is why the State Department’s final report is not likely to be viewed by anyone as a credible document, starting with people at the State Department itself.
And no contractor is so much under the microscope right now as Blackwater USA, a company which has emerged from nowhere to become an industry leader in ten years. Blackwater is led by Erik Prince, an key funder of religious-right causes and key donor to the Republican Party, and his senior leadership includes Cofer Black, a former senior CIA official with tight G.O.P. connections who now serves as a principal foreign policy and national security advisor to Mitt Romney, and Joseph Schmitz, the former Pentagon Inspector General and son of a former G.O.P. congressman from Orange County with ties to the John Birch Society who was accused of serial whitewashes and cover-ups during his term in office.
Yesterday the House Oversight Committee released a report based on its study of the Fallujah incidents of March 2004, in which four Blackwater employees met gruesome deaths. This incident was followed by a major military operation in which U.S. forces occupied Fallujah with great loss of life (36 U.S. military personnel, 200 insurgents and an estimated 600 civilians—though in some reports the numbers of Iraqi deaths are put much higher). These events produced a great deal of criticism directed at the United States even from its allies. On one hand questions were directed at how civilian contractors could be deployed in an area of such obvious and open insurrection; on the other the assault on Fallujah was seen by many as a retaliation for the contractor deaths—which is forbidden by the laws of war.
Blackwater USA triggered a major battle in the Iraq war in 2004 by sending an unprepared team of guards into an insurgent stronghold, a move that led to their horrific deaths and a violent response by U.S. forces, says a congressional investigation released Thursday. The private security company, one of the largest working in Iraq and under scrutiny for how it operates, also is faulted for initially insisting its guards were properly prepared and equipped. It is also accused of impeding the inquiry by the Democratic staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The results of the staff inquiry come less than a week before Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL and Blackwater’s founder, is scheduled to testify before the committee, which is chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a longtime critic of Blackwater.
The March 2004 incident involving Blackwater was widely viewed as a turning point in the Iraq war after images of the mutilated bodies of the four guards were seen around the world. Four days after the Blackwater guards were killed, a major military offensive, known as the Battle of Fallujah, began.
Following the assault on Fallujah, opposition to the occupation in the predominantly Sunni al-Anbar province grew dramatically. U.S. forces believe they have now reversed these conditions and have won new allies in al-Anbar. But many link three years of costly, testy difficulties in the province to the March 2004 incident involving Blackwater.
Blackwater founder Erik Prince will appear before Congress next week to answer further questions. Be prepared for a firefight.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”