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!
Back when I was studying the relationship between private-security contractors and the Bush Administration for a book, it became clear very quickly that Blackwater (now called Xe) had a highly privileged position within the industry. I noted:
One career State Department observer put it to me this way. “In Blackwater’s dealings with the Department,” he said, “I often find myself wondering who is the service provider and who is beneficiary of the services.” His point was simple: Blackwater exercised an unseen influence over the process of contracting and supervision; often the Government seems to be working for them.
In the last several days, press reports show us how well this highly irregular relationship with the Bush Administration flourished.
Repeatedly we learn that Blackwater did not have “formal contracts” with the government, relying instead on “personal relationships” between CEO Erik Prince and a series of senior Blackwater officials such as Cofer Black and Alvin Krongard—all prominent Republicans who came to Blackwater out of high-ranking positions in the intelligence and defense communities. While Alvin was moving business to Blackwater (before he moved himself), his brother Howard was the State Department’s inspector general whose “investigations” repeatedly gave Blackwater a pass following serious allegations of wrongdoing. These “deals” have more than a whiff of corruption about them—they look increasingly like an effort to privatize vital national-security operations for personal profit. The revolving-door relationship between Blackwater and the CIA also merits careful scrutiny.
Unfortunately, the aberrational dealings with Blackwater can’t be viewed as something purely historical. Under the Obama Administration, Blackwater has retained its massive portfolio of government contracts, of which the centerpiece is a global diplomatic-protection contract for the State Department. One might well ask why the State Department would use an entity that is now the target of war crimes investigations that have already produced eight indictments. One would think that this would provide a sufficient legal basis not only for the termination of those contracts but also for Blackwater’s debarment as a contractor. But the Obama Administration appears to be cruising on autopilot, neither taking the time to reconsider what its predecessor did nor taking corrective measures.
“These contracts with Blackwater need to stop,” Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat and a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, told The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill. “There’s already enough evidence of gross misconduct and serious additional allegations against the company and its owner to negate any possibility that this company should have a presence in Iraq, Afghanistan or any conflict zone–or any contract with the US government.” Schakowsky has it just right. At this point there’s little question that Blackwater’s conduct has damaged the nation’s reputation and its security. That provides ample reason to stop funding the nation’s first private military force run with taxpayer dollars.
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.”